Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Mass prodding of comics characters

Check contribution history of Jfgslo (talk · contribs), from 01:22, October 9, 2011 back into October 8, rapid-fire prodding using TW with identical rationales that GNG isn't met. Appears to me this is based entirely on the current state of the article, not any research by the prodder. They appear to be minor characters at a quick glance, though some less so. Even if secondary sources aren't out there, the practice seems to be to merge/redirect minor characters into lists, not to delete outright. postdlf (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know they had hit a swath of Firestorm related characters - with a few now in AFD - on Sept 30 and that a number of Green Lantern and Wonder Woman ones started to show up on my watched list. It is worth noting that some of the current crop have already been disputed and they flipped them to AfD.

Now, while I think there is merit to cleaning up the articles, and have been running some bold merges to lists, I really think there is a disconnect here. Using Twinkle for mass noms of this nature seems to be bypassing both WP:PROD#Nominating and WP:BEFORE. There is no indication that they actually looked beyond the current state of the article nor that they looked at any option other than deletion. 123 nominations within roughly a 3 and a half hour run is a bit troubling, especially since there are runs of less than a minute between noms. Frankly that is going to see a loss of information - the brief material that should be kept in most cases or the notable characters that should be fixed - on the 15th/16th.

- J Greb (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The prodder seems to be ignoring the alternatives to deletion. A project wide drive should be started to contest these PRODS and establish notability for the ones that we are able and merge the rest into their appropriate articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is that as well... And to be honest, I'd rather see the material merged or tagged for merging, into the various lists. It keeps the links active and allows for a bit more time. - J Greb (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I just deprodded Darkstars after doing a Google news archive search for them, and they mentioned in reviews of things. The guy has mass nominated a rather large number of things. [1] Doesn't seem to be following WP:BEFORE but instead just going through all the articles, and then after a glance, putting his prod on them. I see J. Greg has talked to him on his talk page [2] but no reply from the guy. Prodding 124 articles with a prod does seem rather odd. Perhaps a request for comment, or administrator's board exist we could discuss this? Dream Focus 16:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

Delphi (comics) is ambiguous and should be retitled as there is also Delphi (Pantheon). I'm not sure what the appropriate disambiguation phrase is to distinguish two different characters in the Marvel Comics universe. I have no special interest in comics and am not looking for instruction. I'm only asking that someone look into moving the page to a more appropriate title. Thanks. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - The situation was similar to Brute (comics), so I moved the Morlocks character to Delphi (Morlocks), and placed hatnotes on both articles leading to the disambiguation page. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lesser Known British Comic Strips

Lesser Known British Comic Strips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled across this article while fixing typos. It certainly needs a different title, because without reliable sources it's merely an editor's opinion that these comic strips are "Lesser known". And it's a magnet for unsourced content, since the comic strips that have been covered by reliable sources are not "lesser known". Any suggestions? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a list of British comic strips article? That would be a bit big but seperated by comic or a seperate bit for newspaper comics. it could work but it would be quite an undertaking and a complete list would have thousands of different strips but the list could be easily shortened by giving links to say list of comic strips articles such as List of Eagle comic strips.

This page really seems to be about british comic strips ones not from comics but newspapers which for the most part dont have articles. Another possibility is creating articles for all of them but that would create stubs and orphaned articles. Eopsid (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Secret Crisis 3?

There appears to be an ongoing problem of repeated addition of uncited & (fairly obviously) promotional material (about CGC) here. Further opinion is invited on the talk page there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

2¢ - I've added it to my watch... If the SPA or IPs sling it back in I'll protect the article to match CGC. - J Greb (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Book reports

BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:Witchblade#Book report, which are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Books and their talkpages can pretty much acts as mini-wikiprojects / mini-taskforces. One could easily make Book:Green Lantern and Book:Aquaman (or zillions of others), and work on Green Lantern as a "topic/project/taskforce" or something.

Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to wait until then to gain their benefits (just click on "create a book" on the left sidebar and use the book creator tool, or create them "manually" by following Help:Books/for experts#Saving books). Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Animated Universe?

Ultimately, I think that this article should be removed. As far as I am aware, there has been no official confirmation of a shared continuity between these series. In fact, it has been brought to my attention that the official Marvel handbooks list them as being in separate continuities (X-Men in Earth-92131; Iron Man in Earth-569386; Fantastic Four in Earth-534834; Spider-Man in Earth-194111; Incredible Hulk in Earth-400285; Silver Surfer in Earth-634962). Also, there are no citations throughout the article that confirm that there is a shared universe (plenty that state several crossovers, but that doesn't mean anything- there are heaps of crossovers in Marvel shows) --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence should tell you that this article shouldn't exist. _{"The Marvel Animated Universe (also known as MAU) is a fan term..."} Without reliable sources showing which characters are in this universe, it is all WP:OR, and needs to be removed. The sources in the article showing this are all fansites(some AOL club site, and toonzone?) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So, how do you go about deleting an article? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Either WP:PROD or WP:AFD. AFD may be best in this case. - J Greb (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So, the Marvel Animated Universe page has been deleted, but it still leaves traces around wikipedia, such as Template:Marvel Animated Universe, Category:Marvel animated universe, List of Marvel animated universe locations, Category:Marvel animated universe characters, and Category:Marvel animated universe episodes (I would have done these as links, but the categories were being weird). If you have anything against these pages being deleted, yell out now. But anyway, if you see the words "Marvel Animated Universe" around the place, be sure to get rid of it. Thanks. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Marvel Animated Universe

Template:Marvel Animated Universe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Batman workgroup

What are your thoughts in creating a workgroup for articles related to Batman, similar to the current workgroups for Spider-Man and Superman? I think that there are a significant number of articles and files in the DC workgroup that are specifically about Batman, plus other articles about TV, film, animation, toys and video games related to Batman could be added. Any interest and/or objections? Fortdj33 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been a week, with no objections (or feedback of any kind for that matter). I will be busy over the weekend, but if no one has a problem with it, I will start the process of creating the Batman workgroup on Monday. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it sounds like a fair idea give the already existing Spider-Man and Superman WGs. - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've created the work group page, and a few of the related categories. All that's needed now, is for an administrator to add the appropriate text to the {{WikiProject Comics}} template, so that we can start tagging articles with "Batman-work-group=yes". Some quality and importance categories for assessment will also be needed, but I will happily make sure that the categories are populated once they are created. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to increasing the coverage of Batman articles on Wikipedia, once the template has been updated! Fortdj33 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The newly created Batman work group is up and running! Everyone is invited to join the group, by adding your name to the list of participants, and feel free to pass this message along to anyone else who might be interested. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to your help with improving the classification and coverage of Batman-related articles on Wikipedia! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wolverine

Not long ago, the bio section of Wolverine (comics) was cleaned up and abbreviated. Since then, three new sections on the most recent events for the character have been added, and they equal more space than all of the previous 35 years worth of comics combined! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It would be right to trim it right back down and cite WP:UNDUE and WP:PLOT.
2. We really need to add a word limit to the "plot" sections at WP:CMOS similar to Film's limit of 700 words for a film synopsis.

- J Greb (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion to merge Avengers templates

Currently there are at least three separate Avengers templates: Template:Avengers, Template:Avengers Academy, and Template:Initiative. I know there is a precedent for splitting up templates (such as Template:Spider-Man and Template:Spider-Man publications), but this seems like excessive splitting to me. I didn't want to propose merging them directly on the templates because I'm not entirely sure if merging all three is the right way to go. I definitely think Academy and Initiative should be merged since Academy is basically Initiative 2.0, but I'm not sure if merging those with Avengers is the right way to go or not. So I'm hoping for some opinions on this to help make for a more cohesive and better template. Spidey104 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've grouped the Avengers related template - the teams, not the individual characters - at Category:Avengers (comics) templates.

The biggest issue is the characters sections. Right now the 7 templates primarily exists to allow for lots of characters to be placed in the 'boxes. Avengers, Academy, and Dark have been trimmed down and held at "initial" characters. Initiative, Mighty, New, and Secret need this done. Merging any of the templates opens the can of which initial characters are kept.

It also brings up which creators to keep.

Dark also has a massive Easter Egg problem. All of the characters say one thing but link to another.

- J Greb (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the templates need to be merged, the Academy and the Initiative are independently notable topics. However I agree J Greb that they need to be trimmed. I went ahead and trimmed the Mighty, New and Secret Avengers templates. Someone more familiar with the Initiative should go ahead and trim that one as well. I also corrected the easter egg problem with the Dark Avengers template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I think the Adversaries/Enemies lists should be trimmed down as well. Any suggestions on how?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally my benchmark is "created for" or character that are quickly related to the topic by non-fans. That covers most of the set on Avengers with Loki being the odd one - the character is more or less responsible for the team's existence but the Avengers isn't the first thing related to the character.

Mighty... Ultron is alright. Skrulls are a generic Marvel foe. Chthon, Modred the Mystic, Mole Man, and Symbiotes are borrowed characters. I'd say trim it down to the 1.

New.. Remove A.I.M., The Hand, HYDRA, and Skulls as general Marvel bad guy groups. Also Madame Masque, Sauron, The Collective (really don't like the idea of linking to sections in the 'boxes...), and Yelena Belova as borrowed. Norman Osborn is one of those odd characters like Kingpin - he actuall fits here as well as the Spider-Man 'box. And the remaining 3 were basically created for this series. I'd also run a trim on "Related articles" to remove the non-Avengers centric material. At the least.

- J Greb (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As the person who initially suggested the merging I would like to comment that I like the alternative solution J Greb came up with. In my opinion trimming the templates gets rid of the need to merge them. :-) Spidey 104 01:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Lists of issues

Both The Walking Dead and American Vampire articles had their lists of issues with release dates removed by the same user claiming they are unencyclopedic. However, I believe these lists of issues are important to place the comic in proper chronological context. Just like we have release dates in the infobox, I feel it's important to document when each issue was published. Jmj713 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well...

• Wikipedia isn't an indexing site.
• Order of release for magazines is normally in numeric order at set intervals, which is stated infoboxes. So a bland list of issue number and date is redundant.
• The TPB sections does have context and does provide additional information.
• Making the issue list more like a TV series episode list is really a non-starter - ie adding plot, writer, artist, characters, etc won't make them any more acceptable.

- J Greb (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Magneto

Is this appropriate for the lead of the article? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. - J Greb (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And, reverted again. I'm not going to edit war with this user. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Comics films

Okay, the problem with the template is with the Film Series sections for Fantastic Four, Punisher and Spider-Man, as they all contain films that are from separate continuities. This is a problem for two reasons:

1) The separate continuities mean that they are separate series, and should not be listed under the same film series section (would be a different story if it said "Film Franchises").

2) There is a consistency issue, as "Hulk" (2003) is separated from "the Incredible Hulk", and the two Captain America films separated from "The First Avenger", whilst this separation doesn't occur in other franchises.

As far as I can see there are two main options to fix this problem:

1) The first is the simplest: restrict this template to just listing continuities, which means that "The Fantastic Four", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and all of the Punisher films are moved to the "Single films" category. The sub-categorisation of the MCU would remain, as that refers to different series within the continuity. However, I'm not a massive fan of the "Single films" category, as it leans more towards just making a list of films with no differentiation between them, meaning they're all jumbled up together.

2) List the "franchises". This means that a Captain America section would be created that includes ALL Captain America films (including "The First Avenger"), and the same for Hulk. This causes issues for the MCU, which could be resolved in a number of ways, such as removing the MCU section, and instead, placing asterisks next to films in the MCU, or the MCU section could remain as a section, either being considered as one of the franchises or separate to the franchises (meaning films such as "Hulk" (2003) would be listed twice). Also, when listing franchises, there is the option for sub-categorisation into separate continuities (e.g. under the "Spider-Man" franchise, having a sub-section for the 2002 continuity, and then another for the 2012 continuity). This ends up looking a lot bigger, but it is less misleading, more informative, and probably a well-organised system. But yes, it does increase the size of this template dramatically.

Also, just a quick on-the-side thing, Men in Black and Kick-Ass were originally from other imprints owned by Marvel, and this is clearly illustrated on the List of films based on Marvel Comics page. Differentiating these from the other films in the template would be a good idea.

The same issue was faced on the List of highest-grossing films page, on the Film Franchises and Series section a little while back, and in the end, they went with a similar layout to option 2. Franchises were listed, and elaborated upon in expandable sections, and the size of the table increased considerably (particularly when fully expanded), but that is a table in an article, and this is a template, so it is not necessarily the best option in this case. I have provided several examples for my given options in my Sandbox, the first corresponding to Option 1 (Series division), and the remaining four corresponding to Option 2 (Franchise division, taking subcategorisation in to consideration). My personal preference lies with the "Franchise division, Continuity subdivision, MCU separated" template, which is the largest. A discussion involving this problem has already begun here, where other editors, Spshu and Osubuckeyeguy have also provided examples, which can be taken into consideration. So what option would you think is best? And if anyone has any other options, yell out. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How about not bothering with trying to define them as series or franchise, and just organize by character. Get rid of the left column, and put the Blade, Daredevil, FF column on the left. Create spots for Captain America, Iron Man, etc. I guess keep single films kinda how it is now. People can always click on links if they don't understand why Elektra is included under Daredevil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why not separate the films by year of release, and not by "film series"... If "separate continuities" is a issue, end the source of the issue... In the templates of each character and Marvel Cinematic Universe is where these issues should be concerned, and I don't even think they are all that relevant. Maddox (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters the "franchises" are separate for each character (with the exception of the MCU "franchise" and Elektra and Wolverine's spin-offs). So organising by character is organising by film franchise - the character franchise... And we have discussed separating films by year or decade, but it is not evenly divided, which causes an imbalance and a lack of organisation. It also doesn't provide a connection that is more significant or easier to navigate around than franchises. So for those reasons (and some others discussed here and here), I think the best option now for the proposed format of the template is the second one in User:Osubuckeyeguy/sandbox. It lists it by franchise, removing all continuity suborganisations, separates the other imprints and removes the MCU. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just realized there's a separate discussion on the same subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Template:Marvel Comics films. It would helpful if we can keep these discussion together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add United States comics work group under WikiProject United States

Greetings, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the United States comics work group of WikiProject Comics might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of joint project supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko and me have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government under the {{WikiProject United States}} project banner. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the project being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. I've posted at the work group's talk page, but no response. Any thoughts? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That actually sounds reasonable. - J Greb (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thank you. I apologized not waiting any longer. Since there only two active members in the work group, I think most of the DC and Marvel are already tagged by both work groups, and not been tagged by United States comics work group. Before being supported by WikiProject United States, will it be possible to tag some of the DC and Marvel Comics articles by United States Comics work group under both projects? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

United States comics work group has been added to the WikiProject United States banner

I have added United States comics work group to the WikiProject United States banner since there any no objections. I will begin to asses some of the articles myself. If have any concerns or questions, please let me know or ask at the project. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject maintenance

Now that all of the articles in WikiProject Comics have been assessed for quality and importance, I would like to impress again the significance of maintaining the status of comic articles on Wikipedia with Wikipedia:Version 1.0.

• When creating new articles, please remember to add the page to the WikiProject, by adding the template {{Comicsproj|class=|importance=}} to the talk page of the article.

• The quality class for most articles with very little information should equal "Stub" (pretty much any article 4000 bytes or less). And while it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, the Croughton-London rule of stubs excludes "images, infoboxes, navigation templates, lists of examples, external links, and any of the other items which may be found on an article", all of which are basically there for the purpose of supporting the actual text of the article. Therefore, what may seem to be a long article, may in fact be a one or two paragraph stub with "peripheral add-ons". Only if an article is more than 4000 bytes in size, has an infobox with an image, and at least a couple paragraphs of information, can it safely be considered "Start" class.
• If the article is a stub, an appropriate stub template should also be added to the bottom of the article. Please see Category:Comics stubs or Category:Comics stub templates for a list of templates. Be sure to update the article’s classification on the talk page, if the stub tag is ever removed.
• If an article is merged or deleted, please update the quality class on the corresponding talk page to equal "Redirect".
• Also, most articles need further development over time, in order to increase in importance. Therefore, the importance class for new articles will almost always equal "Low", unless the article is about something only marginally related to comics, in which case "Bottom" class is appropriate.

• Please consider adding the article to any appropriate workgroups, by including the corresponding tag in the Comicsproj template (e.g. creators=yes, strips=yes, Marvel=yes, DC=yes, Batman=yes, Spidey=yes, Superman=yes, Film=yes, Web=yes, etc.). Also, please consider adding additional templates to the talk page, for articles that fall into more than one category: (e.g. {{WikiProject Animation}}, {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject Toys}}, {{WikiProject Video games}}, {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} or {{WikiProject Film}}). These templates increase the coverage of comics-related articles on Wikipedia, and make them more likely to be expanded.
• Finally, when adding images to articles, please be sure to add the {{Non-free comic}} template to the image, along with any appropriate categories. The image file should also be added to WikiProject Comics, by adding the template {{Comicsproj|class=image|importance=NA}} to the talk page of the file. Again, please consider adding additional templates to the talk page, for files that fall into more than one category: (e.g. {{WikiProject Animation}}, {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject Toys}}, or {{WikiProject Video games}}).

You can see all of the articles broken down by quality and importance on the statistics table, and there is a log of everything that has been updated here, which is maintained by the WP 1.0 bot. Of course, all of this is completely arbitrary, but I hope that you will see the significance of the quality and importance guides, and how they help to improve the coverage of comics articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Someday Funnies

Just wondered if anyone in the project would like to add to the stub about this newly published very big book of original cartoons from the early 1970s on the theme of the 1960s? The book has some amazing contributors, including William Burroughs, Federico Fellini, Tom Wolfe,Frank Zappa, Harvey Kurtzman, Gahan Wilson, Red Grooms, etc. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Graig Weich

Can editors reading this message offer their opinions in this RSN discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Excessive TV episode summaries

Some of these sections are starting to rival the FCB's in length. There are a lot of bad ones, but Justin Hammer#Television and Iron Monger#Television are two really long ones that I just found. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the IOM sections should be limited to:

• Actor(s) with reference. If the original release has a "Actor - Role" credit listing , that should be fine, but it has to be mentioned where we got the info.
• Brief character sketch. That is if the character isn't a walk on cameo. The sketch should also be limited to the information in the show/film without comic book back fill.
• Cited critical review/commentary, though kept short.
• No trivia... like those walk on cameos.
• No guesses. If a character appears in a show/film but isn't called by any of the comic book names, then a cite needs to be present that the characters was adapted for the show with the name change.

- J Greb (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance regarding Marvel symbiotes

Hey, all. There's a recurring problem with the pages Symbiote (comics), Carl Mach (comics), Leslie Gesneria (comics), and Riot (comics). Contributors continue to add fancruft character names to these pages (and move the pages for Mach and Gesneria to the fancruft names) despite repeated discussion of the topic and consensus that the fancruft names have no place on Wikipedia. So, before I begin a formal dispute resolution, I wanted to post here to get some help. However, I do wonder if I should move right to a more formal action, since the problem keeps popping back up despite consensus, with users giving non-verifiable reasons like "I'm pretty sure they were given code names in the comics" or "I had this toy in the '90s," etc, whereas we have it on record from a Marvel staffer whose job it is to research information like this (and whose posts have been cited and considered reliable elsewhere on Wikipedia), posting on the official forums for Marvel's index, handboook, and encyclopedia publications and confirming that the names Riot, Phage, and Agony were never used in comics or toys for these characters. Any help would be much appreciated. DeadpoolRP (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The move issue is easy - If they get moved again, the pages can be move protected.

I'm loath to long term semi-protect Symbiote (comics), but if it goes on it may be necessary.

Beyond that... the minor characters - and that may be generious - really should be consolidated elsewhere.

- J Greb (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I get some help/advise with this article?

Hi guys,

I've got this comics-related article that I created last month, and that since has become sort of my baby: Spaceman (comics). Right now, I'm just sorta gathering sources, and slowly expanding the article, biding my time as the series unfolds. I'm most likely going to take it to GA status, ultimately. But, right now, I'd like to get some opinions on -- how to go from here, what to expand, organizational help, etc. -- and since you guys obviously seem knowledgeable about comics and comics-related articles, I thought I'd come to you. If you'd like, you could look at this as a request for a sort of informal peer review. Alright? Thanks. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should include the price in the Publication history section. Not unless the price were in some way noteworthy. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's noteworthy. At least, I seem to remember a number of writers specifically mentioned it. Which makes sense, since it's an unusually low price for a comic book, especially one from such a well-established pair. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's noteworthy, then I think it's important to explain what's noteworthy about it. "Each issue will sell for $1 at retail stores and $0.99 online" gives us no context whatever, and leaves me wondering why it's there. As it is, the statement sounds more like an advertisement. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I merged all the material that belongs under "Publication history", and moved some material to the Lead to give more explanatory details to the reader. I also put a citation for the passage about Mulvihill and Johnson previously working on 100 Bullets, and added an External links section with a cbdb link. I think it's big enough now that it's no longer a stub, so I removed the stub tag too. Hope this helps. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Nightscream. Sometimes it's really great news that this site is a wiki, open to anyone who chooses to swoop down and lend a hand. :D Bobnorwal (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian comics workgroup

Really sorry, I just noticed the "Please discuss any proposals for new work groups with the project as a whole before creating them" notice all nice and bold at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Workgroups, right after going and creating a bunch of pages and categories and whatever to get a Canadian comics workgroup started.

I was just in the process of creating a few templates (like Template:Canadian cartoonists navbox), and thought it would be a good idea to have a workgroup to keep this stuff organized, and hopefully draw interest in Canadian comics articles.

Was that a bad idea? I intend to do more work on Canadian comics articles regardless. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On the face of it, no, it isn't a bad idea. That template however...

• The color coding isn't a good idea.
• The flag is inappropriate - see WP:MOSFLAG
• I'm not sure making a template out of the category is useful.

- J Greb (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So what would you suggest?

I've added a Template:Canadian comics navbox as well. Do you have any suggestions about that? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative comics articles in desparate need of attention

It doesn't seem like there are many editors here who are interested in working on alternative comics articles, but I'm hoping to bring more attention to them. They really do tend to be of extremely poor quality.

For an example of just how bad thisngs are, compare the Maus article to the Watchmen article. Maus is a book that's sold over a million copies, been translated into numerous languages, has been taught in universities, and you could fill a shelf with what's been written about it. It's a book that has become synonymous with the whole idea of the graphic novel (I hope this is not news to anyone on this WikiProject—I'm saying it for emphasis).

The following is a very short off-the-top-of-my-head list of articles I'd have attacked myself if only time permitted:

• Maus
• Art Spiegelman
• RAW (magazine)
• Love and Rockets (comics)
• Gilberto Hernandez
• Jaime Hernandez
• Seth (cartoonist)
• Palookaville (comics)
• It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken
• The Comics Journal
• Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth

There is plenty of citable material on all of the above subjects out there—nothing on this list is obscure. I've been spending my time working mostly on Chester Brown-related articles, while also trying to bring Jim Woodring- and Cerebus-related articles up to non-embarassment (not yet succesfully). It's very time consuming, especially when you have a full-time job and a family.

Please tell me there is someone on this project who is willing and able to contribute to these pages. I only started contributing earlier this year after being frustrated at seeing how poor some of these articles were for years. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and help. Loved Jimmy Corrigan and the vast bulk of Love and Rockets. Keep up the great work, and I'm glad to see someone shining a light into a nelgected corner of the Comics Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and looking forward to seeing what you can do. It's so frustrating to see such well-documented subjects go neglected for so many years. Maus in particular has serious FA potential, if someone could just give it the treatment it deserves. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have some other alternative comics on my to-do list. Cloveapple (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Comics films format

Okay, so after about a month of discussion, we've come up with the following template. Noone so far has any problems with it, so I figured I'd check with everyone here. If you have any feedback, yell out.

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems good. Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain Comics

some titles that are already in the public domain already hosted on the Commons and sites like Digital Comic Museum Golde Age Comics, Public Domain Superheroes, Public Domain Funnies Wiki but here, a few covers and images of these titles are published in fair use, how to explain?

some files that would be in the public domain:

File:Sheena18.jpg, File:RulahZoot7.jpg, File:Blue Beetle 04.jpg, File:ZagoJunglePrince1.jpg, File:WonderworldComics3.jpg, File:BlackHood.jpg. Hyju (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe whoever posted them assumed they were under copyright, as they were published after 1923. Or maybe they just chose "comic book stuff", since they're, you know, comic book stuff. If you're positive they're in the public domain, I'm sure you could go in and change the file pages to bring them in line. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved these and other images to the Commons.Hyju (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Image in infobox for Northguard

I added {{Infobox comics character}} to the Northguard article, but for some reason, I can't get Image:New Triumph1.jpg to display (it had already been on the page, and I moved it to the infobox).

I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I've added plenty of infoboxes before, so it's not that I'm unfamiliar with how they work. Can someone take a look and see if they can get the image to display? And let me know what I did wrong? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You should read the information on Template:Infobox comics character.

"NOTICE: this template is currently undergoing a slow update.

The end result will be that the placed image will use:

| image = example.jpg

| imagesize =

Currently this can be used and will show properly by including:

| converted = y

The infobox will also continue to support the old formatting until all of the articles have been updated. The old format is:

| image = [[Image:example.jpg|205px]]"

--Crazy runner (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Carnage USA

Could someone please keep an eye on this article and verify these claims to stop this editor from edit warring? [3] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What he posted was correct. Not very important, but correct and verifiable. Spidey 104 15:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it amounts to something - the last thing we need is a list of every trivial appearance where a character happens to appear in a comic panel. There's too much of that already as it is. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether it was "correct" or not isn't the issue. And if it is only "verifiable" from a primary source, it's not really "verifiable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. It's completely trivial, and does nothing to improve the article. Hybrid is mentioned, without even making an appearance! It's exactly the kind of thing people use as fodder when they want to show how worthless Wikipedia is. Aside from that, the comment the editor left was inappropriate, to be far too polite. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but Araña-Lobo has gone and added the text back the day after Spidey 104 asked him to stop edit warring. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret my statements or my intentions here. I only said that the information was correct because 129.33.19.254's comment that we need to "verify these claims" seemed to imply that he thought it was wrong. I completely agree that this information should not be in the Hybrid article. I was only stating that it was correct so if future reversions of this information became necessary then the editor would mark the edit summary as removing the information because it was trivial and not because it was incorrect. My previous experience with Araña-Lobo (evidence in his talk page and my talk page) made me believe that he would keep adding the information back in if he thought it was being removed for being incorrect.

Also, Curly Turkey is incorrect (mistakes happen) in stating that Araña-Lobo added the information after I gave him an additional warning. He hasn't made any edits since I gave that warning. He was edit warring before that, but we shouldn't make it sound worse than it actually is. Araña-Lobo is very confrontational, but hopefully we can help calm him down and help him realize the mistake's he's making. Spidey 104 15:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the timestamps on the edits. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of a WikiProject

I'm trying to start a wikiproject to cover fictional lists and I'd like to have some people who know a thing or two about comics to help out. Quite a number of the articles under WikiProject Fictional Lists also falls under wikiproject comics (Lists of Dogs, Cats, and drugs in comics) just to name a few, Let me know if any of you are interested. Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Need any Help?

Hiya Folks:

I'm a Comic Book Professional for about 30 years and I really dig all the Wiki thing... especially the Comic and Music-related Resources. Wiki is a very cool thing.

I am just offering my Services if anyone needs any info. I'm not exactly a Comic Book Expert but I've been Inking and Writing for Marvel, DC, Image and a few other Comic Companies for a long time. So, if anyone needs some information or feedback about something or someone and suspects I may have a clue, please feel free to contact me. I am at your disposal.

~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)

http://www.facebook.com/albabe.Al.Gordon http://www.flickr.com/photos/albabe-algordon/ http://www.comicon.com/gordon/ http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Al_Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albabe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Albabe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks so much for your kind offer. Wikipedia slows down over the winter holidays so most people won't see your note until after the new year.

One thing that occurs to me is that a lot of articles need images or could use better images. If you have any photos of people or events in the comics industry that you'd be willing to upload they'd be very welcome. (They'd have to be pictures that you'd be willing to release under one of the Creative Commons licenses that Wikipedia uses.)

Likewise if you know of any artists who would be willing to put a free license on small versions of any sketches or artwork that would be amazing. Wikipedia is very very limited in it's use of most copyrighted artwork. So many comics articles only have minimal images. (This is not asking any artists to release the large versions of their works under free licenses, it's totally possible to just put a small screen version that isn't at a good print resolution under a free license so that you can still sell the large print version commercially. That way it doesn't deprive the artists of the income they deserve from their art.) Cloveapple (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

John Pham

I'd like to have some more eyes on this article. If I keep reverting I'll be in danger of edit warring, but some of the edits don't seem right to me. The birth year keeps getting pulled and an unsourced slang phrase supposedly based on the name keeps getting put in. Cloveapple (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The slan related paragraph is gone. As for the rest... the easily verifiable ref are realle refs - spxpo.com isn't connecting and xericfoundation.org is very, very light on information.

I'll take on faith that The Best American Comics 2010 contains some biographical data related to his place and date of birth and later relocation.

As for the categories... they have to be supported by the article itself, not just the sources. And FWIW "People from..." categories tend to be applied to places of birth and places of long "permanent" residence. It may be time for you and the other constructive editors to use the article's talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all of your response. Maybe my own post was confusing? Sorry about that. I persionally believe the refs are real since I put them in when I wrote the earliest stub. :-) (But would be glad to share a scan or other proof if needed.) Thanks for the heads up on the dead link. I'll see if I can get another ref for the Ignatz award nominations.

The article originally did have the birth year [4] but it keeps getting taken out [5] or changed [6] in both the article and the categories/person data. So far posting to the talk page hasn't seemed to help which is why I didn't repost this all there. I have wondered if I should just leave the birth date off and let it go. Cloveapple (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Did a little more digging. Turns out this is the 4th article to be located under "John Pham". The 1st 2 covered a businessman born in 1981 in either Methuen, Massachusetts or Salem, New Hampshire (the 2 articles differed on that point) and the 3rd on a musician/lawyer. And that there was a concern re COI and hoaxing with those.

Right now the article is semi-ed to trim the prior IPs, but it would be a good idea to try to find additional relavent informatin and sources to show the person's notability. This is what originally got he previous unrelated article initially nominated for deletion. - J Greb (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew something had been deleted under the same name, but I didn't know there'd been possible hoax issues back then. That makes things make a little more sense. In any case you are right that I should make the notability clearer. I'll get working on that. Cloveapple (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR Notification

I have nominated Superman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Spamusement deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spamusement! (2nd nomination)

The Spamusement! article was deleted once in January '07, then it was recreated in July '07. This later version is up for deletion right now. Please register your thoughts at the discussion page linked above. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Albums

I just noticed that Comic album redirects to Franco-Belgian comics#Formats while Comic Album redirects to Comics (also, Graphic album redirects to Comics). I think this ought to be fixed, but I'm not sure I understand the difference between "graphic album" and "comic album"---is there one? Redirecting Comic Album to Comics I found to be particularly unhelpful, but I'd like to see someone who is more certain of the terms' usage than I am to fix it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

British comics terminology redux

Further to previous discussion here, I think the current naming conventions need amended regarding the disambiguation terminology for British comics. In particular, British comics are not called "comic books", and we need to establish some kind of standard disambiguation phrase that will stop people renaming articles to things like Knockout (comic book). Although the naming conventions do not appear to say so in so many words, it appears a lot of editors find the disambig "(comic)" unacceptable and change it to either "(comics)" or "(comic book)" wherever they find it. "(comics)" is fine when there is only one comics-related article of that title, but when there are more than one, as in the case of Knockout, a better alternative than "(comic book)" needs to be agreed and written into the naming conventions. Might I suggest "(UK comic)"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is (UK comics) un-British? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's an actual comic then i think (UK comic) or (British comic) should be used but if it relates to British comics but isnt a comic in itself for example a strip inside a comic then I believe (UK comics) or (British comics) would be more appropriate. Eopsid (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have been guilty of changing the disambiguation of a British comic article to "(comic book)" before, just because there was already an article or disambiguation page with "(comics)" on it. I agree that "(comics)" is fine when there is only one comics-related article of that title, but when there are more than one, I think "(UK comic)" would be more acceptable, if necessary. And if an article relates to British comics but isn't a comic in itself, then wouldn't "(comic strip)" be more appropriate? Fortdj33 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is a comic strip yes but if it's an article about a specific character in a comic strip then (comics) would make more sense than (comic strip) but there are very few articles about characters in British Comics most articles about a character tend to be more about the comic strip from which the character originates instead, which is a good thing because most characters have the same name as the comic strip and it would be hard to write about the character without duplicating information on the comic strip. On the topic of confusion between comic meaning comedian and the meaning discussed here. Comedians usually have articles named after the first and last names and british comics are just usually one word so Knockout (British comic) doesnt sound like a British comedian called Knockout because comedians rarely go by a single word name. Eopsid (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was more worried about the confusion "comic" would cause, considering that a "comic" is also a comedian. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any real danger in that - context should make the meaning obvious. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What context do you get from the search box suggestions? The disambiguation is useful before you find the article, not after. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Eopside says above, if "(comic)" follows a personal name it's probably a comedian, if otherwise then it's probably not. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Probably", but if it's labeled (comics) you know it's not a person. Why rely on "probably"? Why assume we can predict the future, that there will never be a comic book named John Smith (UK comics), and 20 years later there happens to be a UK comedian named John Smith? "Comics" is the simple solution that we won't have to regret 20 years from now. It also follows convention better. Why have Spawn (comics), but Some Title (UK comic)? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about situations where "comics" is not available. There are several comics-related subjects called "Knockout" and they can't all be "Knockout (comics)". --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is where you see examples like Sandman (Marvel Comics), Sandman (DC Comics), Sandman (Sandy Hawkins) and Sandman (Wesley Dodds). Or Weasel (Marvel Comics) and Weasel (DC Comics). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always believed that the word "comic" refers to an individual book, but should not be used by itself as disambiguation, whereas the word "comics" refers to the medium in general. And I think that the context of the article would be enough to differentiate the title, if both words were used for British titles only. For example, take the word "Eagle". Eagle (comics) is understandably a disambiguation page. The British comic of that name should probably be retitled Eagle (UK comic). If there were also a strip inside a British comic named Eagle, the article could then be titled Eagle (comic strip), and if there were also an an article for a character named Eagle, that's when we would use Eagle (UK comics). But IMO, using Eagle (comic) for any of those is still too ambiguous. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What's ambiguous about Eagle (comic)? What else could it mean? --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about trying to find a simple convention that fits the largest number of situations. Eagle (comic) is unlikely to be a comedian, but John Smith (comic) quite likely could be. Or would it be better to have a multipage set of rules on how to name articles, based on how likely the title could be construed as a name? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I fail to see how, if (comic) is ambiguous, then that (UK comic) is much less so. Anyways, given that "comics" refers to the medium, and therefore is less specific than "comic", wouldn't (UK comics) be the default, unless further disambiguation were necessary? And, seriously, if that hairsplittingly fine a level of disambiguation were actually needed, wouldn't you agree that "comic" would then come more dangerously close to being confused with "comedian"?

Imagine there were both a UK character and and US character named "John Smith", as well as a UK comedian of the same name. Should we have Eagle (UK comic), but John Smith (UK comics)? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A comic character or a comic strip would not be disambiguated as "(comic)" - a "clmic" in UK parlance refers only to a publication. But "(UK comics)" works for me - better than "comic book" at any rate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You also have to think about those who may be looking for an article wo are not familiar with British terminology. By that token, I agree that "(comic book)" is too North American biased. We have to keep in mind the international audience. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "(UK comics)" is probably better than "(comic book)" for British comics. But if that is the consensus, then it should be reflected at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) and probably also the British comics work group before we make any sweeping changes. I would be happy to change Eagle (comic) to Eagle (UK comics), but a featured article like that will get changed right back, if a standard is not established first. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Between media types says "when needing to further disambiguate a comics-related article related to media (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), use only one of the following, as appropriate:

• • • • • (comic book)
        • (comic strip)
        • (film) or (film series)
        • (TV series)
        • (video game) or (video game series)"

As well as British comics, "comic book" would not be appropriate for manga or European comics, so some thought needs to be given to the appropriate terminology for them. At the very least, "(manga)" needs to be inserted as a permitted disambiguator. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could add an another section on disambiguation by country of origin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is (manga) really needed as a disambiguator? Manga fans are pretty ferocious about the terminology to, but back in the 1990s, I can attest the few would have fought for it, so who is to say that the fans ten years from now people will still fight for it? (Japanese comics) is neutral, easy to understand (especially for people unfamiliar with otaku flamewars and their terminology—someone simply looking for "that Japanese comic that guy was reading"), and semantically correct. If (manga) goes to a vote, I'd be voting strongly against it. Or are we going to start diasmbiguating using "(BD)", "(fumetti)", "(manhua)" as well?

I do agree that "(comic book)" is very, very North American. How about something along the lines of "(comics title)"? "(comics magazine)"? "(comics periodical)"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "manga" is probably widely enough understood, but "BD", "fumetti" and "manhua" are not. European comics are generally published in albums, at least that's the form Anglophone readers would usually encounter them, so perhaps "(comics album)" might be permiisible is "(comics)" is already taken? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this desire to overcomplicate things. We're in the middle of a manga boom right now, and the otaku are insisting on people using the word "manga" to distinguish their corner of the comics world from everything else. 10 years from now, it may be a fumetti boom, and then a manhua boom 10 yeas after that. Are we going to change the naming conventions every time a new fad blows into town? Are we going to use our Crystal Balls and assume that this imaginary wall the fans are putting up between Japanese and American comics will always be there? (Japanese comics) is semantically correct. It was correct ten years ago, it will be correct ten years from now and ten years after that, and it doesn't assume that everyone is up on the latest jargon. Remember when "anime" was called "Japanimation"? What will be the "in" term for it be for the next generation?

As for (comics album), that might be fine in certain cases, but what if it's a series of albums, like Tintin. Or Michel Rabagliati's Paul series? (Now there's one that'll need some fine disambiguation!) There's an infobox, {{Infobox comic book title}}, so why not go with (comics title) unless finer disambiguation is needed? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Case in point, Eopsid just created an article for The Phoenix (comic). I was about to move it to The Phoenix (comics) per WP:NCC, but given the discussion above, would it be prefereable to move it to The Phoenix (UK comics) instead? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If The Phoenix (comics) is available, then is there any need for further disambiguation? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think British Comics is preferential to UK comics as their is an article for British comics and UK comics doesnt even exist as a redirect (until I just made a new redirect as I was writing this) Is there any reason for the use of UK comics as opposed to British comicsEopsid (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's shorter. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nicknack009. "(UK comics)" is more in line with WP:PRECISE, but it's unnecessary if "(comics)" will suffice instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are pretty clear here. It should be Phoenix (comics) until the time arrives that further disambiguation is necessary. I've gone and moved it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

help with justifications for non-free use

Could someone who has more experience writing these things help me supply justifications for non-free use for the file File:PowerPack1.jpg? RJFJR (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Hi guys. I remember a lot of comic-related articles had a section 'Bibliography' a few months ago, which where very helpful for tracking the character's bio, but they seem to have been removed now. I guess the section is discouraged then, but why? Ipsumesse (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic. Everything should be included in the Publication history section. All the information can be found on http://www.comicbookdb.com/ (alphabetic listing or chronological listing). --Crazy runner (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I agree that it should all be included in the Publication history section (which unfortunately often isn't), but nevertheless a special section may be needed as well, with only the list of titles (with no need of further explanations, like a kind of quick-look resume). I think so because the information given in a Bibliography section is not the same than an appearance list. A panel showing a character might suffice for an appearance list, but would be irrelevant for a bibliography section, except something important for his bio happens in that panel (a death, for instance). The Bibliography section is important then for knowing which titles had a character in a leading role, and then, which titles should be considered the main source for canonical info on the character's bio. This should be done by including a character's own titles but also his back-up stories, but at the same time ignoring irrelevant panel-appearances. This distinction is impossible for an automatic search in any comic databases (they can't distinguish relevant from irrelevant), and is crucial for structuring a solid character's bio. Heck, that's supposed to be the goal of a bibliography section in academic articles: to state which are the main sources of a specific matter (own titles and own stories) and distinguish them from secondary literature (appearances). From this perspective (not aiming an irrelevant and usually hardly complete appearance list), how come a Bibliography is not encyclopedic?? I think this issue might need a deeper debate here. Opinions? Ipsumesse (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There already was a deeper debate. You can read it in the archive. Spidey 104 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well...

• The issues and titles with real world context should be in the prose of the "Publication history". That covers the first appearance, solo series, prominent use, origin issue(s), and the like.
• Issues that are key point in the in-universe history of the character should be integrated into the "FCB" as references/sources.
• Cannon is a fluid thing in a medium that coined "retcon". It can and does change. And that is without dealing with a lack of clear secondary sources that consistently codify what is "in" and what is "out".
  • An aside to this: We don't get to decide what is and isn't cannon, either by consensus or fiat. Doing that with the original source material is original research.
• Most academic papers are, by definition, works of original research where a theory or topic is presented by the writers as their conclusion with the sources and/or data supporting their point of view. Wikipedia articles are supposed to keep a neutral point of view and not unduly favor on section or perios in covering a work of serial fiction.
  • An aside on this: The type of bibliography you are pointing to is what is genreally the "References" section of an article.
• By nature of the general topic of comics characters and the contributors that generally work on the articles, the lists quickly become full appearance lists.
• Both versions tend to fail list criteria. The full version is indiscriminate in trying to catch all appearances. Any abridged list is arbitrary.

- J Greb (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Thanks for the answers and sorry for my delayed answering, but I was on vacation. I'll check out that previous discussion and let you know my point of view. Thanks again. Ipsumesse (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I've read the previous discussion and the first thing is to assure you I'm not asking for an appearance list. I'm simply pointing out a distinction already operative (only that not always explicit) between 'main source' and 'secondary source' in comics (and I just want to make it explicit). That's what I was understanding simply as a Bibliography, following this, and trying to answer question #5 here ('Characters'). The distinction already operative here is, I think, what's underneath J Greb's 3rd point. Of course that canon is dynamic, but what's J Greb calling 'secondary sources'? If he's leaving aside books and issues like 'who's who' or 'secret files', then he sees a difference between 'canonical' stories/books and non-canonical stories/books, which I might call (main source) and (secondary source). This differentiation that doesn't involve original research, but simply interpretation. I just want to extend that interpretation for distinguishing titles and stories that conforms the canon from those that don't (see canon (fiction) and continuity (fiction)). This should be done explicit, I think, for a better tracking of the character's bio, which is the responsibility of any editor, who has to give due weight to the info at his disposal.

So I think the question is what is the concept of canon/primary source when applied to comics? Or better yet, considering we should avoid original research: what criteria should we use to differentiate in comics those canonical stories (main sources) from those who aren't (secondary sources)? I think this is quite the point, and my opinion is that, in comics, canon is basically given by the own stories of the character, which not always appear in a title of its own (e.g., Marvel Comics Presents, featuring different stories of different characters; back-up stories could also be listed as examples here). I don't mean here guests appearances like Punisher's in 'Mark Spector: Moon Knight 8' (1993), nor Black Knight's appearances in Avengers, but rather those starring roles like the ones in back-up stories, or in titles as the aforementioned Marvel Comics Presents. Even when the first kind of appearances should prove relevant for some motive, they shouldn’t be listed in a Bibliography section, which should contain only stories that featured a character on a regular basis (e.g., Green Lantern in Action Comics Weekly).

Sorry for the length. If I'm too confusing here, I hope to make myself clear with the help of your contrasting thoughts. Ipsumesse (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to be boring! Please let me know your thoughts! Ipsumesse (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed discussion on disambiguation naming conventions

15 January, 2012

It looks like some folks had a similar discussion in 2008 to the one above at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(comics), as well as the one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_44#Terminology_for_British_comics that User:Nicknack009 pointed out. I wouldn't be surprised if it came up again in the future. Clearly the terminology differs from region to region, and I think it would be helpful to everyone if a discussion took place deciding on and clarifying the naming conventions---and not just British versus American, but finding something that works for BD, fumetti, manga, manhua, and whatever else, rather than having a different set of conventions for each nationality and subculture.

My first proposal (please tear this to shreds):

• The word comics should be basic, referring to the artform as a whole, in the singular (as with economics and politics. This is also accepted usage in every English-speaking region I'm aware of---please let everyone know if this is not true).
• As such, as much as possible, I think (comics) should be used unless further disambiguation is needed, in which case comics should be part of the disambiguation. Thus, for national disambiguation, (Mexican comics) or (Korean comics); for types, maybe (comics title), (comics character), (comics artist), (comics writer); etc.
• An exception would be (comic strip), as "comic strip" is the accepted usage, and "comics strip" is virtually unknown.
• Possibly another exception might be (cartoonist), for those whose work integrates writing and drawing (virtually everyone working in comics outside of the Marvel/DC assembly-line world---this means virtually all comic strip cartoonists, alternative cartoonists, gag and editorial cartoonists, and an increasing number of superhero cartoonists over the last 20 years or more). A search netted me over 200 hits for articles with (cartoonist) in the title already.
• I think (graphic novel) should be avoided, since, after all these decades of use, we can't all agree on what "graphic novel" means (novelistic comics? or just any book of comics, regardless of length and content, that happens to have a spine?) I have no proposed solution to this, though. There to be a couple dozen articles with (graphic novel) in the title, though (although it appears that at least a few of them should just simply be (comics) (EDIT: I've just gone and moved most of them.)).

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well...

• I agree the base dab should be consistent and "comics" is.
• Real people though should be a singular general or primary profession first - "artist", "writer", "editor", etc. "penciler", "inker", etc being used when there is a need to dab multiple artists. "cartoonist" and "mangaka" (sp) are very specific cases.
• Nationality/region would tend to crop up after that.
• The biggest friction comes where there are multiple comics articles for characters and publications. Especially if there are character articles from outside of comics. That's where we start seeing "comic book", "comic strip", "comic magazine", "story arc", etc. There is where it is necessary to know what the publications are called with in context of the UK comics industry, the Franco-Belgian one, the larger European one, etc.
• "comic", alone or with a nationality, generally has a connotation of being a comedian.

- J Greb (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that the general disambiguation phrase for articles related to comics, including creators, publications and content, should be "(comics)". That means it should be the default disambiguation for anything comics related. And if further disambiguation is needed, I am comfortable with using any number of secondary disambiguators (e.g. "comic book", "comic strip", "graphic novel", "artist", "writer", "editor", "cartoonist", etc.), AS LONG AS "comics" is already in use! The issue is, if "comics" does not apply, such as in other nationalities/regions, how much further disambiguation is needed? Fortdj33 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem that came up was with "comic book", which is what's mandated at WP:NCC, but is pretty North America-specific---in Britain (according to Nicknack009) "comic book" is not used. So the issue was whether we should use (comic book) for American titles and (comic) for British ones. My points were (a) do we have separate standards for separate countries (and just where do we draw the line there?);, and (b) how is that helpful for readers in their searches, especially if they are not from the specific locale?

I think we should be looking for something that can be demonstrated to be applicable across borders---e.g. (comics title), (comics publication), (comics periodical), or whatever seems most helpful/least ridiculous. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy with "(comics)" as the basic disambiguator, with one quibble regarding individuals. There are many writers and artists who worked in comics but also outside comics. Brian Lewis, for example, is notable as a comics artist but also as a science fiction book and magazine illustrator, so I titled the article Brian Lewis (illustrator), as that covers both, with Brian Lewis (comics) and Brian Lewis (artist) as redirects. Similarly, Alan Grant is at Alan Grant (writer) with Alan Grant (comics) as a redirect, and I think that's appropriate because, although the article currently only covers his comics work, he's also written for TV animation. The disambig shouldn't be over-specific. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right that we should only use (comics) when the person in question works exclusively (on nearly exclusively) in comics. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The conversation started with a need for more options than "(comic book)" and "(comic strip)" as types of publication. I agree that country of origin should be available, and "(comics title)" seems to be an elegant solution. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need "more options", but rather more flexible options. (manga) and (anime) are already out of hand (that community is not likely to accept input from outsiders---far too insulated and addicted to their own jargon), but I'd hate to see a proliferation of jargony and locale-specific terms. (comics title) would eliminate both (comic) and (comic book). (UK comic title) is certainly longer than (comic), but it's also semantically correct, crosses borders well, and avoids confusion with "comedian". It also would only show up when both (comics) and (UK comics) are taken, would would be pretty infrequent. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we are starting to come to a consensus, but I'd like to clarify a couple points:

• I can see the advantage of the disambiguation being specific for comics creators, as long as the article title accurately reflects the content of the article. Using "artist", "writer", "illustrator", "cartoonist", etc. is fine, if that is what the person is specifically known for, and it is reflected that way in the article. But in general, if disambiguation is needed, "comics" should be used before anything else.
• And I agree that "comics title" should be an alternative, but only for those articles where "comic book" doesn't apply, AND only if the disambiguation "comics" is already in use. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The major reservation I've got with articles on real people using "comics" as a single word dab in the title proper is that we have pretty much established it as referring to elements of fiction. Characters routinely use it as a first stop if there are one or more articles on real people with the same name. Using it as a first stop for real people can be confusing. Better for an article on Fred Doe, known for his work as a penciler, to be titled as Fred Doe (artist) if none of the other Fred Does are known for fields within the arts than Fred Doe (comics).

It also may be worth looking at WP:ENGVAR before acting on "cases where 'comic book' doesn't apply" or arguing using region/country specific terms is "jargony". Bluntly: If there is a need to differentiate between an article on a publication/series and one on a character, the publication/series article should reflect what is the norm in the version of English where it originates. Not forced to an outside standard. Most of the trouble stems from, AFAICT, mainly North American, and specifically US, editors not knowing or understanding the terminology used in other places.

- J Greb (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to complicate things here, but as long as were revamping the naming conventions for comics articles, maybe we should have separate criteria for creators and articles of different nationalities. I propose the following:

• Have "comics" as the standard disambiguation for articles about characters, publications or general articles about comics in the US, if such disambiguation is needed. If "comics" is already in use, there would be a separate section in the guidelines for further disambiguation of character names, publishers, or types of publication (which would include "comic book", "comic strip", "graphic novel", "manga", "manhua", etc.), again IF "comics" is already being used.
• One exception to this, would be articles about creators of comics and comic strips. They would have their own section of the naming conventions, where specific terms like "artist", "writer", "illustrator", "cartoonist", etc. would be used first, IF the creator is known for a specific field. Otherwise, any article about a comics creator that works in multiple fields and requires disambiguation, would still use the standard "comics".
• The other exception, would be for articles related to comics outside of the US. These would also have their own section of the naming conventions, separated by region ("UK comics", "French comics", "Belgian comics", "Italian comics", etc.) Each one of these regions could have its own sub-section for further disambiguation if necessary.

This might seem like a lot of work, but once a consensus is reached, any changes that need to be made can be delegated to the respective workgroups for creators and regions. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts: (and keeping this to dabning ATM)

1. People
   • Broadly, use the general format of other biographies: If a dab is needed, profession first, modified as needed.
   • General professions include: editor, publisher, writer, artist, and letterer. That's about it.
   • Comics related professions are: penciller, inker, colo(u)rist, illustrator (all under "artist"), cartoonist, mangaka, and comics creator.
   • Other modifiers would be "comics" ("comics writer" for example), Nationality (Canadian inker), date of birth. (See also WP:QUALIFIER
   • Again, this is to avoid the default impression that exists that "comics" relates not the in-story material or the actual publications.
2. Companies
   • For the most part nationality or founding year can be used if absolutely needed. WP:NCCORP would hold that full corporate names be used though, and I believe that should pass through to divisions and imprints.
3. Works and elements within the works
4. Generally this is where "comics" would be used as an initial dab unless there is a regional preference for another term such as manga, manhua, manhwa, or similar.
   • Method of publication
     1. Cartoon: Generally this is applied to things like editorial cartoons. Is this likely to be needed for a Wikipedia article.
     2. Strips: Generally applied one of two ways - what appears on the "funnies page" of a newspaper or a recurring feature in periodical. "comic strip" is the general term for the newspaper version in North America. I'm not sure as to the term used for the latter though. I would be tempted to go with "comics series" or "comic series" though.
     3. Periodicals:
        • Most originating from North America (US and Canada) fall under "comic book". "trade paperback" or "graphic novel" may be valid alternates, but should not be used unless there is also a "comic book".
        • WP:A&M and manga both provide clear criteria for what should use "manga". IIUC it's Japanese comics produced in Japan for a domestic audience.
        • Manhua and Manhwa provide rough definitions as to what would use "manhua" or "manhwa". Both have regional and stylistic criteria.
        • My under standing is that the UK uses both "comics" and "comics magazine". Clarity on this is needed as is the english term generally used for European comics.
        • That still leaves some areas untouched.
     4. "webcomics"
   • Stories: "comics story" or "story arc" seems the natural fit here, though I believe I've seen "comics series", "series", and/or "serial". Is "comics story" a universal that can be used if needed?
   • Elements (characters, places, things, plot devices, etc): Again, "comics" would be the start, but after that the dab has generally relied on publisher rather than nationality.

- J Greb (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

16 January, 2012

So if we have, let's say, Transformers, which is a franchise that has multiple regional varieties, do we end up with Transformers (comics) for the article that does an overview of all the different comics incarnations of the franchise, then Transformers (comic book) for the American series, and Transformers (comic) for the British series? Does (comics), (comic book) and (comic) all popping up at the same time help anyone at all? Does this help an American who has heard about the British series and wants to look it up? Sticking with (comics) for the general article and using (UK comics) and (US comics) is a far simpler solution, and is much more future proof---it can easily deal with any South African series that might pop up without having to have yet another discussion on naming conventions because South Africa happens to call comic books "floppies" or something.

My objection to using (manga), (manhua), (BD), (fumetti) etc. is that that are not "regional varieties", but subcultural jargon. The word "manga" in Japanese has a different (vastly broader) meaning than "manga" as used in English. The English usage of the word differs drastically from the original Japanese. The English word is not specific to any region---it's used throughout the anglosphere, but only within the comics subculture. For casual readers who just want to look up "that Japanese thing that Billy was reading", (manga) is not going to be nearly as helpful as (Japanese comics), which is clearly parsable by anyone.

Of course, there's no use trying to convince the anime/manga crowd to change this, but we don't have to let it happen elsewhere. When the manga boom fades it could be replaced by a BD fad (hey, Spielberg just did a Tintin movie, right?) Are we going to have a proliferation of new standards to deal with it? Will we had a (bédéist) dab? (BD), (BD album), etc etc, we could go wild! Then the same with the inevitable fumetti fad that'll break out in 2032. Who does it help to have this kind of complexity? (French comics) is semantically correct now and will continue to be twenty, thirty, forty years from now. And it's easy. Easy to implement, easy for causal readers to parse, and doesn't rely on readers to be familiar with the subcultural jargon. And, of course, it would only be used when (comics) wasn't available.

"Trade paperback" I think should be avoided. Again, it's very jargony, and very specific to its printed form, whereas it should be focusing on its content. A collection of songs is an (album), not an (LP). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Major thing to keep in mind: we are bumping into a number of other Wikiprojects: WP:BIOG and WP:A&M being the biggest - and A&M is with in reason to get upset if "Japanese comics" is suggested as a dab instead of "manga", the term is used and understood, even if pure anglocentric mindsets don't like it. On lesser-sh points we've got WP:TRANSFORMERS, WP:GIJOE, WP:BUFFY, WP:FILM, WP:VG, WP:TELEVISION, WP:DOCTORWHO, WP:STARTREK, WP:STARWARS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters and other we share pages with.

As for the example of Transformers (comics) there is The Transformers (Marvel Comics) and The Transformers (IDW Publishing), which are fine. The Transformers (IDW Publishing) could do with going to The Transformers (IDW Publishing 2005) to allow Transformers (film comic series) to be moved to Transformers (IDW Publishing 2007). Also, if an article is warranted, The Transformers (Marvel UK) is an option. The rest either do not exist, are heavily sub titled, are dabbed by publisher (a good thing), or the base "comics" if there is a corresponding toy line or show.

Manhua and Manhwa have some advantages since 1) they cover stylistic aspects with out being tied to a strict geographic region, and 2) they avoid thorny issues of "Which 'Korean'?" and the entire mess that would be calling something Chinese/Tiwanese/etc.

As for "fumetti", "BD", and "bédéist" - honestly, are they likely to be used? Is there situation where (comics) isn't going to cut it? Or are we just playing with beans and balls?

- J Greb (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean, "are they likely to be used in 2012?" No, of course not. I've been reading comics for 30 years, and Japanese ones for 20. I came to live in Japan in 1998 (still here, so don't assume I'm being "anglocentric"), and at that time I never would have imagined the Japanese comics audience insisting people call their favourite publications "manga" rather than comics--you know I mean? Insisting that they are actually something different? It's not crystal balling to say the exact same thing could happen with BD or fumetti. It's saying this ridiculousness has actually happened before, making a complicated mess, so let's do something simple and comprehensible to everyone in order to prevent it from happening again. It's also about coming up with a naming convention newbies are unlikely to screw up because they didn't notice a particular footnote to a footnote of a subsection of an appendix to the subpage on naming conventions for a particular WikiProject. And they weren't hep to the fact that what they always called "Japanimation" is now called "anime" amongst the cool kids.

Please note that I've already stated above that I already know this will go nowhere with the A&M crowd. They're a lost cause. What I want to do is make sure that it doesn't spread further. I mean, how complicated do we really want the naming conventions to be? How many pages? How many subpages? I mean, we have a proposal here to have different standards for different English-speaking regions already, why not just go whole hog and name all comics using the standards of their countries of origin?

The Transformers thing was just a random example off the top of my head, because I remembered reading both the American and the British series back in the 1980s, so it seemed like a candidate to present an idea. Next time I'll use "John Doe" instead, to avoid having people miss the point.

So here's the point again: A comics franchise called John Doe. There are local varieties all over the world, which are covered by John Doe (comics). The British and American series were each deemed significant enough to warrant their own articles. So do we go with John Doe (comics), John Doe (comic) and John Doe (comic book); or with John Doe (comics), John Doe (UK Comics) and John Doe (US comics)? Or do we thoroughly consult a manual on naming conventions every time we want to create or move a page?

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(Massive edit conflic with the re-lay)

If we are dealing with a franchise that has identical names for publications in multiple countries, the first step based on current practice would be to use the publishers as dabs. Beyond that, discussion since it will likely be a near one-off situation.

And continuing down this path - "What if this...?" - verges on pointless. It is trying to guess all eventualities and cover them. Nice in theory, but not necessarily practical.

The main rubs I'm seeing are:

• That "comic book" as a non-starter with UK sets where "comics" can be seen pointing equally to a character, feature, story, and/or publication that are notable enough and have enough coverage for inclusion on Wikipedia as separate articles. IIRC that has cropped up.
• It also doesn't work when "comics" covers equally a US and a UK topic.
• Non-English terms.

At this point I'm close to advocating that using "comic" for the UK publications is OK. It shuts down one of the major problems.

As for the non-English... I'm sorry, but "use 'Korean comics' or 'comic book'" registers as "PFK".

- J Greb (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the term "PFK", and Google's not being helpful.

I also don't understand why you find (UK comics) to be unacceptable. Could you please elaborate? I see it opening up quite a number of problems, and I don't see what it "shuts down" that (UK comics) or (UK comics title) doesn't already shut down. I also notice that User:Nicknack009 supports (comics title), and he was the one proposing (comic) in the first place. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"PFK"... Man you have been out of country a long time. Canada the only French speaking country where KFC isn't KFC in French.

"We will use the American term, even for articles that use British English." Please read WP:EGNVAR.

And please, stop futzing with the secting. I've already had one edit conflict because of it. I may have a second one now.

And now one because you had an incomplete thought.

- J Greb (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally familiar with KFC being called PFK, but knowing that isn't helping me parse that sentence.

The quote "We will use the American term, even for articles that use British English." doesn't appear on WP:ENGVAR. The section does, however, open with "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." This raises two questions:

1. Why would you consider advocating (comic) if the quote were true?
2. Have you read MOS:COMMONALITY?

It would also be very helpful, given that you're accusing my proposal as WP:BEANS, where my proposal would reasonably fail. It seems to me that the proposal covers the vast majority of cases in a simple and easy-to-understand way, both for editors and readers, and that cases that don't fall under it are truly exceptional, and should be dealt with as such. It seems to me that including every possible permutation of comics terminology that may pop up in any region or subregion or international subculture at any time is, itself, a never-ending quest for beans. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Try looking at WP:TIES. As for commonality... that would be "(publications)".

The PFK issue is language policing. In this case it being not to use a loan word simply because it is a loan word even if it is being use appropriately.

And it's not so much fail, but the "What if..?" rout you were using becomes a bureaucratic nightmare to construct and enact. Literally, you were going for every possible worst case situation even though the likelihood of that happening is all but nil. Better to look at where we are now, what works, what doesn't, and how to streamline that.

- J Greb (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of trouble comprehending the statement "Literally, you were going for every possible worst case situation even though the likelihood of that happening is all but nil" when my aim is to do exactly the opposite---reducing bureaucracy and the fine print of the guidelines drastically. It seems to me that what I have proposed would make things simpler and easier, and you haven't shown us why that's not the case. Please explicate how it becomes a "bureaucratic nightmare", because I absolutely do not see it.

I have looked at WP:TIES, but it talks about article titles and content. DABing is a whole other kettle of fish. "(publication)" seems reasonable to me. Are there other options to consider? Shorter ones?

I don't see avoiding (manhua) as language policing---it would be so if we purged the actual articles of the word, but here we're talking about DABing, where we want readers to find the article they're looking for with the least headaches. You also haven't explained why you would support (manhua) but oppose (BD). I've read articles on Franco-Belgian comics going back as far as the 1980s that use the term BD in English. Of course, I'm opposed to using both, but I'm curious about this inconsistency. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the subsection title to reflect that fact that we're talking about disambiguation (dab) pages, and not the content of articles. I think we all knew that, but there were a couple of times in this discussion in which it didn't seem clear. I've also broken this up by day, because it was getting long and I wanted to make it easier to navigate.

Curly Turkey's second proposal

Disclaimer: This is not based on consensus, but on my own current thoughts as to what I think might be best, after reading through and considering the preceding feedback.

My biases

I'm aiming for simplicity, flexibility, generality and understandability (parsability) to outsiders (you should not have to be steeped in the latest versions of comics jargon to find the article you are looking for).

The proposal

1. (comics) should be used as the most basic and general dab and others should be avoided unless absolutely necessary---this only applies, of course, if the articles in question are considered mainly to be within the realm of comics
2. People: by occupation---(artist), (writer), etc---unless further dabbing is necessary, in which case precedence would be (comics) and then (comics artist), (comics writer) etc. (cartoonist) should be used for any comics creator who primarily both writes and draws, even if this makes Hal Foster cry
3. Publications: precedence (comics), then (NATIONALITY comics) or (comics title) or (comic strip), then (NATIONALITY comics title)
   • an exception for manga, as the manga crowd is convinced that what they read is not comics and is not open to negotiations, but we should do nothing to promote this kind of needless splitting
   • non-comics media would be dealt with using the standards of the particular medium
   • any thoughts on (comics periodical)? North Americans consider a "comic book" not to be a "magazine"---Kurtzman's MAD "becoming" a magazine was considered an earth-shaking change, and was considered a significant enough difference that it ceased to fall under the CCA
4. Characters: precedence (comics), then (comics character), then (COMPANY comics) or (NATIONALITY comics), then (COMPANY comics character), then whatever is recommended at WP:NCC#By codename
   • (comics character) is more general and easier to understand to people outside fandom than using a company name
   • some companies, like (Marvel Comics) or (Vortex Comics), make it obvious that the article is about comics, but others, like (Maple Leaf Publishing), do not---another reason I think (comics character) should have precedence over company names
5. Truly special cases should be handled in a way deemed most helpful to people who may be searching for the article---jargon and recentisms should be kept within the body of the article (where it can be linked to if necessary)

• (trade paperback) et al. should never be used (otherwise, what happens then the TPB has a hardcover edition? a digest edition?);
• (graphic novel) should be used as a last resort. Its usage is incredibly vague
  • some use it to mean a "novelistic" comic
  • others use it to mean any comic that is not stapled (up to and including, sometimes, collections of short and even one-page comics, regardless of length, intent and content)
  • an increasing number use it to refer to any and all comics—a synonym for comics in the PC-doubletalk age (I see this in a lot of newspaper and magazine articles these days)
  • and others consider it pretentious or buzzwordy, lacking substance, thus refusing to use it—even a large number of erstwhile "graphic novelists".
  • the only reason it should ever be acceptable (other than if its actually in the title of the book) is because there is no other widely-understood term to replace it....or is there?

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Generally, I agree, "(comics)" should be the first thing looked at if a dab is needed.
2. Again, generally I agree. There is some quibble room with "(comics artist)" as the "next choice" if there are other artists of the same name. "(inker)", "(penciler)", and "(colorist)" are valid options if the person's notability is one of those specific fields. "(illustrator)" is also valid if the person is unique for that among the group. "(cartoonist)" does come with baggage that makes me hesitant to apply it to Frank Miller and the dab "(comic book cartoonist)" is awkward, at the least, to separate him from the editorial and newspaper cartoonists. "(comics creator)" seems like an option here.
3. "(comic book)"; "(comic strip)"; "(comic)", which seems UK standard for the publications; "(manhua}"; and "(manhwa)" seem to work when dealing with specific publication types. If we are going to chuck the lot that are currently being used, under this Project, we may want to drop to "(publication)" which would eliminate "(grapic novel)" as well in most cases, "(comic strip)" for newspapers, and either "(comics serial)" or "(comics title)" for articles on notable strips that run in anthology publications. I'm not real comfortable with the latter two since it feels like neologism.
   • A little bit of clarity on two things:
     1. I do have a problem forcing a US English based term - "comic book" - on articles where a different term would be used based on the variation of English used in that article. If British English uses it to cover all the periodicals, fine. If not...
     2. I don't have a problem with non-English labels for things if there is a clear indication of what they are referring to. As far as I can tell, manhua and manhwa fall into that category.

This is not self-evident. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not that convinced "Nationality" is a necessary component. For the most part I can't see cases where it shouldn't end with the company.
2. This is a bit self evident.
3. Trades - my error for bring it up earlier. These are either collections of unrelated stories, which have unique titles, or of specific story arcs. Dabbing there would be "(story)" or "(story arc)".
4. You have a point, the term "graphic novel" has been abused, but there rare cases where it should be used as a dab.

- J Greb (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(5) should be self-evident, but I personally favour being explicit, especially when being explicit doesn't complicate things. A single line acknowledging special cases is appropriate, I think.

Also, what I'm implying is that terms like (manhwa) and (BD) would be considered under (5)---as in, should not be used unless it were a truly special case in which the other options just weren't applicable. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents (echoing my opinion above):

1. I agree that (comics) should be used as the standard disambiguation, for characters, publications and other articles about comics in general
2. For people in the comics field, disambiguation should be by occupation, e.g. (artist), (writer), (cartoonist), (illustrator), etc. if a specific disambiguation is needed. But the generic (comics) should still be acceptable, especially for people who perform more than one role in creating comics. Only if further disambiguation is needed, should the two be combined (e.g. John Smith (artist) first, John Smith (comics) if there's already an artist by that name, and if there's more that one comics creator named John Smith, then we start using John Smith (comics artist), John Smith (comics writer), etc).
3. Publications: (comics) again should be used as the standard disambiguation for the most part, unless the article falls into one of the exceptions below.
   • by media type: I think that (comic book), (comic strip) and (graphic novel) should all be acceptable for US publications, if (comics) is already in use. Or are you proposing that we replace (comic book) with (comics title)?
   • by nationality seems to be where we are running into the most confusion. I'm OK with using (UK comics) instead of (comic), and some editors have already started to implement this change, but I also think that (manga) needs to be added to the conventions, for obvious reasons.
   • by company is already spelled out pretty clearly in the guidelines at WP:NCC#Between publishers.
   • and I think that (comics magazine) is preferable to (comics periodical)
4. Characters: again (comics) should be used as the standard disambiguation. If further disambiguation is needed, the next level should be (COMPANY comics). I understand that you think (comics character) is easier to understand, but the disambiguation should be specific. If there is more than one character by that name, that's when further disambiguation by character name or codename would be needed, per WP:NCC#Character articles. And as stated there, (character) should be the last choice in disambiguation, only when all others appear to be inappropriate.

Hopefully we can come to a consensus soon, and the changes can be implemented in the naming conventions, so that we're all on the same page when it comes to naming comics articles! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• The reason I'm not thrilled with COMPANY having higher precedence than NATIONALITY is that
  1. non-fans are not always familiar with the companies
  2. some comics have switched companies (like Bone and Usagi Yojimbo) without starting new series. In the Marvel/DC world, the characters are owned by the companies, which gives rise to their strong association with their respective companies. That's far from the case outside that world, however.
• My understanding is that we want DABs to be general unless they need to be more specific. That's why (comics) takes precedence over (1967 South African children's comics magazine). That's why I think (comics character) should take precedence over (COMPANY comics), especially since a character may belong to more than one company (Captain Marvel, Alfred E. Newman), or no company at all (creator-owned).
• I am indeed proposing that something like (comics title) entirely replace (comic book).
• The problem with (comics magazine) is: is a (comic book) a comics magazine? Technically, it certainly is, but culturally, North Americans consider magazines and comic books to be different things---for some reason, people don't see "comic book" as being a subset of "magazine". I haven't lived in North America for quite some time, but online at least the mentality seems still to be around.
• I don't think we need to promote the use of (manga), since the A&M crowd are doing it themselves. Should we explicitly be discouraging people from using (Japanese comics)? It's a religious issue, and I don't think this project should say a word about it---either promoting or deprecating it (meaning no change to how it is already handled).
• I don't think (comics title) would qualify as a "neologism". It's descriptive and neutral. It's also in use by {{Infobox comic book title}}, which is why I brought it up. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some comments. I'll not follow your original numbering.

I have no problem with the use of the dab "(comic book)" where it's appropriate - for American comic books, even for similar titles published in the US market by creators and publishers from other countries. I don't think it's at all necessary to replace "(comic book)" as a dab - in fact I think to do so would be silly - but I don't think it's appropriate for the "traditional" British comic.

As far as terms like manga, manhua, BD etc, these should be permissible where they are understood by the general reader, which I think is probably the case for manga but not for the others.

Disambiguating articles by publisher founders, again, for British comics. DC Thomson is fine, but the other major publisher of comics in the UK has been variously known as Amalgamated Press, Fleetway Publications, IPC, Fleetway Publications again, Fleetway Editions, and Egmont. Other companies, like J. B. Allen, Hulton Press, Odhams Press (also known as Longacre Press) and London Editions have been amalgamated into that company, so good luck trying to find a single disambiguator for a title that ran through various changes of company name and ownership, as many of them did.

Finally though, I don't think we need to have absolute rules of precedence. The basic dab is "(comics)", and we should have a range of approved options where that's already taken, to be chosen according to what's appropriate for the subject. "(NATIONALITY comics)", "(PUBLISHER comics)", "comic book", "comic strip", "comics character", "comics title", and combinations thereof, seem to me to be reasonable. There should also be a bit of common-sense flexibility built into the policy, as there'll always be cases that haven't been foreseen. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Appealing to "common sense" would mean that an American writing an article on a British comic periodical would likely have disambiguated using (comic book). I even used to collect a number of British comics back in the 1980s, and I was not aware of "comic book" being un-British until you brought it up.

further, the more exceptions we allow the more of a mess things will be. Just 15 years ago, it would have been laughable to disambiguate using (manga)---even readers like myself, with shelves full of the stuff, always referred to them as "Japanese comics" when talking about the stuff to outsiders. If the manga bubble doesn't survive the next 15 years, will we be re-DABing the articles to (Japanese comics)? And then again re-DABing Franco-Belgian comics to (BD) when their turn comes, and then back again when their bubble breaks? And then again for (manhua), then (manhwa), then (fumetti), then (historietas)? We could solve it once by using (NATIONALITY comics) and have it done with---it'll remain comprehensible 15 years from now and 15 years after that, instead of chasing down every faddish, fleeting exception as it momentarily (but vociferously) pops into the spotlight. It would also serve the largest audience---the vast majority of the public who aren't, and never will be, "in-the-know"---this is an issue I see none of the editors here addressing, and I think it's one of the most important. Who is hurt or confused by (UK comics)? Who is helped by (BD) to the degree that they would be put out by (Belgian comics)? And who is going to maintain the mess, and keep on top of the changing fads to make sure all the articles are correctly DABed and reDABed for their moment in the spotlight?

I see an awful lot of effort being spent on arguing for what I only see as an overcomplicated, messy, exception-overloaded, hard-to-comprehend, error-prone recentist maintenance nightmare. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If an American disambiguates a British comic as "(comic book)", then it can be fixed so long as a reasonable range of alternatives are written into the policy, and no harm done. I think all we really need to do is add "(comics title)" and a section on disambiguating by nationality to the policy, and everything's more-or-less covered.

To my mind, "manga" has been a reasonably well-known term since the early 90s, when there was a UK newsstand magazine called Manga Mania, but as you've pointed out there is another WikiProject covering manga and anime so we should let them worry about their terminology. In any case, BD, fumetti, historietas, manhua etc are certainly not understood by the general reader, so they should be avoided. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There were an awful lot more than just one magazine in 1998 that used the word "manga" in the title, yet when talking to people who were not already fans, I found it was rare that people had ever heard the word at that point.

The perceived popularity at any given point of an insider term should not be the gauge we use for DABing. Use it in the article---it can be linked to, for people who require explanation. But if a word is not universal (I know my mother doesn't know the word "manga", and I'm a comics-collecting nerd raising a family in Japan!), and there is a universally understood alternative (who in the English-speaking world wouldn't understand (Japanese comics)?), then I can't see why we would go with the jargon.

I think it's a huge mistake to think what happened with manga will not happen with any other variety of comics---fads always come and go. After World War II, superhero comics became amongst the worst-selling comics in North America---most of the superhero titles died off completely, even as the market rapidly expanded. Later, the romance comics and fuzzy animals that sold millions in the 1950s became nearly forgotten footnotes in comics history. I think it would be a mistake to let fads dictate how we DAB.

Again, I'm not suggesting we start a war with the A&M crowd, just that we should make the guidelines clear that it's inappropriate to do that when the next fad tries to foist their jargon on DABs, which are supposed to be as generalized a possible---and (manga) is not. Nor is (comic book), for that matter.

And keep in mind that the A&M crowd has not deemed that (manga) will be used when (comics) isn't available (which is what has been suggested here), but instead of (comics), as if they are not comics at all (and many manga fans actually do argue exactly that). With that precedent, we could easily see the BD fans (for example---don't take this as a prediction) do exactly the same thing. It's a great ego-trip for the fans, but doesn't help the general reader in a search. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, maybe we're getting too specific here. If we keep any changes to the conventions at a minimum, I think we need to basically emphasize the use of "comics" as a standard disambiguation, and then add sections regarding nationality (specifically for "UK comics"), and exceptions for comics creators (with "artist", "writer", "cartoonist" taking precedence). The rest about publications and characters seems to already be pretty well covered by WP:NCC, unless we want to add specific terms for further disambiguation of comics articles related to media (such as "graphic novel", "manga", "manhua", "manhwa", etc), which would only be used in extreme circumstances when "comics" is not available. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this with the other opinions chiming in...

• Manga is off the table. We can walk away from that one now.
• If the general consensus is to move lesser used or niche terms to a case by case bases, fair enough. There is still going to need to be a good look at those that are currently in use to make sure they can be safely "bumped up".
• Having a list of examples of what are commonly used and a general indication of what compounds with "comics" are reasonable is a good way forward. This may take a little hashing, but it looks like there's a good base at the moment.
• We may also want to avoid general examples. If we can find specific ones already in use to illustrate a point, great. But pulling out Usagi Yojimbo or Dreadstar as "shifting publishers" doesn't work. Usagi Yojimbo is a unique search result which is unlikely to be split among the 3 publishers. Dreadstar is a similar case, though Dreadstar (comics) could be a prime example where (graphic novel) could, and likely should, be used since (comics), (comic book), (publication), and (comics publication) apply to both articles.

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, manga is off the table, as I've said myself. I bring it up as the prime concrete example of where things have gone wrong, not the target of a proposed change. There's no walking away from the issue it raises.

The primary reason for avoiding using publishers is not because characters switch publishers, but because the goal is to find something general, and understandable to people who are unfamiliar with, and couldn't care less about, which publisher published a particular character. Does your average person even know who Superman's publisher is? I think, if you asked around, you'd be surprised.

And here's a concrete example, as you requested. I've been doing a lot of work on Canadian comics, and adding a number of pages. One thing that came up in my research was the very first Canadian superhero---Vernon Miller's Iron Man. Being the very first Canadian superhero makes it potentially notable enough to create a page for it. Iron Man (comics) is obviously out; so is Iron Man (comics character). Next up would be either Iron Man (Better Comics) or Iron Man (Canadian comics). Someone who "heard something about a Canadian Iron Man" or "heard the first Canadian superhero was called Iron Man" would be far better served by Iron Man (Canadian comics) when performing a search, especially since that's almost certainly the context in which they would have heard about the character. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Wolverine a ninja?

Rather than edit war, what is your feeling on this? [7] [8] [9] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable third-party source that clearly states Wolverine is a ninja? If not, then it's clear-cut: out it goes. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we even need a third-party source; it would be enough for the comics themselves to unambiguously (key word here) identify Wolverine as a ninja. Either way though, a source is needed. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I don't want to edit war with this IP though, as they are starting to get abusive with their comments. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Postdlf: If it can be source to a comic, and not the OHOTMU, it can be incorporated into the article in a reasonable way. Even if it can be sourced, if it isn't expressly and clearly noted in the article, the category should not be present.

- J Greb (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it then, but please someone keep an eye out in case this editor restores it again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please see if this is a valid source, as this IP is getting even more hostile. [10] [11] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is making repeated personal attacks, you can always file a complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:DEFINING. It says to concentrate on defining characteristics, and that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Spidey 104 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a standard for the creation of categories, not for inclusion once a category is already created. Otherwise we'd have wildly underinclusive category membership, fluctuating based not on whether the category factually applies but on its relative importance to a given subject. The simplest standard applicable here is just that an existing category shouldn't be applied to an article that does not have a verifiable statement of fact supporting its membership in that category. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

postdlf, that specific section I linked to is the standard for inclusion of a category on the page. "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." This was the reason why Category:Vampire was not included for the Spider-Man page. I opposed that removal, but it is a Wikipedia guideline. Spidey 104 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that this is turning into too much of a tangent from the main issue, but your interpretation is incorrect: WP:OCAT is about what categories should not be created ("To address these concerns, this page lists types of categories that should generally be avoided."). From WP:DEFINING: "Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic." (emphasis added.) Not the test for whether a category that has already been created should be applied to an article. "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." Obviously that suggestion makes no sense if we were talking about just applying an existing category to a particular article rather than whether a category should be created. There are certainly other sound reasons why not to categorize fictional characters based on temporary plot points, but WP:DEFINING is still focused on category creation. postdlf (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

With further reading I see that you are indeed correct, but my analysis was initially supported by the lack of Wikipedia being clear and concise about their intentions for the page we were linking to, but that is Wikipedia's fault and neither of ours.

Off of that tangent: since WP:DEFINING does NOT say this category should not be included then I see no reason why it isn't included. The IP address has engaged in inappropriate personal attacks, but his inclusion of the template does seem correct under your arguments. Spidey 104 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you get that from anything said above, particularly since WP:DEFINING (and WP:OCAT generally) has nothing to do with category application, only category creation. Silent on that issue, it's a non sequitur to say that because it isn't violated a category therefore should be added. The issue here is that there is no verifiable statement within the article supporting the application of the ninja category to Wolverine; that's rather more fundamental, a question of WP:V. Re: the Spider-Man vampire category, it is also sensible not to include that category if it was based purely on a transitory plot story. Fictional characters have a particular problem in that changes can be introduced that have no lasting effect on the character (see also retcon), unlike anything that happens in a real person's life that remains true regardless of it eventually ending. For this reason, many categories that might be appropriate for people (such as being prisoner, death-related categories) are not for fictional characters because they are mere narrative devices. Spider-Man has had a fifty-year publication history, in addition to other media adaptations, so categorizing the article on the basis of everything that has ever been done to the character, no matter how temporary, would just be bad editing. Spider-Man "is" obviously not a vampire any more than Superman "is" dead or Batman "is" a paraplegic. All stories they perhaps went through (The Death of Superman, Batman: Knightfall), but that's not integral to the characters (Spider-Man doesn't even include the word "vampire", a clear sign the category does not belong if there ever was one). An even more extreme example would be the characters in Family Guy, which uses multiple cutaway gags per episode that have nothing to do with reality or continuity; otherwise we'd be categorizing Peter Griffin in everything from people who have fallen from airplanes to people who were in hiding from the Nazis during WWII. All of which might be said that I'm talking about the same principle in WP:DEFINING applied to category application for fictional characters, but WP:DEFINING is still about category creation (maybe I'm being pedantic, but there it is). postdlf (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hal Jordan

I've noticed that the 2010 section of the Publication History is turning into a plot summary for the recent Green Lantern comics. It needs to be cut down and put into a smaller summary with just the basic and important details. -50.137.10.10 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking changes to Infobox comic book title

I made some non-breaking, backwards compatible changes to {{Infobox comic book title}}, which User:J Greb has now reverted twice. Could someone please take a look? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He's also being uncivil, leaving messages like "You are doing a fine job as being disruptive" without explaining what has been disrupted. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And this verges on forum shopping. You can use the templates talk page to discus the bold change that you want to make. Coming here to sell you case or paint yourself as the victem isn't appropriate.

Now, coming here to point out to the Project that a change to the template is under discussion and a possibly a short version of what the change entails would be.

- J Greb (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought it here because you kept reverting my changes without making any attempt at explaining why, and being aggressively insulting in the bargain. You were demanding I use the talk page there after I had already started a new section on the changes, so you obviously were not using the talk page yourself to communicate, and I had no reason to believe you would. I saw you aggressively verging on an edit war with {{Infobox comics creator}} recently, which, coupled with your aggressiveness towards me, gave me the strong impression you just weren't open to communicating, or being civil. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Science fiction comics

Anyone care to weight in on the merger proposal between Science fiction comics and science fiction graphic novel? There are currently 3 users in favor (myself included) and no one against.--Cattus ^talk 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Both articles are short, and I'm not aware of any other "GENRE graphic novel" pages, and I can't see anything in the article making it clear why science fiction graphic novels are in and of themselves notable apart from science fiction comics. I'd say merge. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability (web) criterion three

A discussion has been underway for a couple of weeks about criterion three of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The debate is about whether or not this criterion is necessary, and if the guideline is changed it could affect AfD discussions on webcomics, flash games, and other online content. Editors are warmly invited to take a look and leave their opinions. The discussion thread can be found here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Comics will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in comics; as writers, characters, artists, publishers, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who can size changeing

Category:Fictional characters who can size changeing, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Jean Grey

There is edit warring going on over the character's name, and while there has been an attempt at discussion on the talk page, one side has not participated in the discussion. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Forestlicious is preferring to discuss the issue in edit summaries rather than on the talk page. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if this is an overly harsh thing to say (please let me know if it is), but User:Forestlicious is also one of those people that seems to border on worshipping Jean Grey with his "Jean is Phoenix and Phoenix is Jean and they're one and the same and burn with cosmic fire and can resurrect people at will" comments and their almost-religious fervor. Am I correct in thinking that kind of thing doesn't belong on Wikipedia? DeadpoolRP (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

He also just reverted to a version with vandalism on it, although I'm sure that's a mistake. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this Brian Boru?

Just wondering if this is him - seems familiar to me. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe this one? I don't know, but they way they have been edit warring, and blanking warnings off of their talk page seems particularly familiar. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I interacted with Brian Boru is awesome shortly before he was indef blocked, so I'm fairly familiar with his modus operandi. Just by glancing at the edit summaries it's very similar to Brian Boru is awesome. I'll open an SPI. - SudoGhost 04:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the SPI, if anyone has anything to add. - SudoGhost 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 96.238.36.171 is definitely part of it, just did a bunch of edit warring. Will try to fix it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a third IP involved, 24.38.181.81. I told him to discuss these changes with other users, which he agreed to do, but he just comes back from another IP and does the same thing. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the IP jumping, that they are static, and that they are under 3 different locations/ISPs in the same state. we've got 2 options really:

• Whack a puppet - yes, there is enough to say the three are the same disruptive editor or at least like-minded editors; or
• semi-protect each and every one of the pages and any new ones they move on to.

- J Greb (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette: Moving inactive users' sandboxed pages into mainspace

I've been working on Canadian comics-related articles, and was hunting down information on Ted McCall to start a page with when I came across this page in Bookcats' sandbox. Starting a page myself would just be duplicating that user's own work, so I would have just left it at that, but it doesn't look like the user is very active---last user contribution was 27 December, and the last one before that was 26 October. The last edit to the sandboxed page was 18 June.

I left a message for the user about it, but haven't gotten a response. I was wondering how terrible it would be to just move the page into mainspace. I've got different sources than the ones Bookcats used, so I think I could probably expand the page somewhat, as well. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, I say; just leave a message on the user's talk page. Article drafts in userspace are, after all, valid only if they are intended for eventual transfer to mainspace, and there's no sense in duplicating all that effort. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Figured I'd chime in... Curly Turkey, thanks for moving the page. I kept meaning to get back to it and haven't been wikipedia-ing much lately (as you noticed). It looks good in mainspace rather than just as my sandbox. First (and only) page I ever wrote from scratch... Bookcats (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a relief. I hope you'll be contributing more! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Green Goblin - huge mess

Hello,

someone made a huge mess of the Green Goblin and related articles. I fixed that one, but I don't have time at the moment to fix them all. Could someone please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.100 (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Already cleaned up. Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah, cool. 66.99.0.100 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone's using multiple IP addresses to vandalize Maus

Someone's using multiple IP addresses to vandalize Maus. You can see it's the same person, because they keep adding "I dont know wether or not if the book is fiction or nonfiction but from the look of it I guess its Non fiction" to random places in the text. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask for the page to be protected. Kurt Parker (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And I wouldn't say "multiple" since some og the IPs look to have been trying to clean up another IP's mess. - J Greb (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Two addresses making the exact same vandalistic "contribution", I think, counts as "multiple". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Comic Collections Format

Lists of collections on cartoons' pages do not have any consistent format. We need to figure out what format works the best and fix the lists to be consistent.

Examples:

Dilbert (List)

Get Fuzzy (Tables)

Sherman's Lagoon (List)

RolandRock (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "best practice" recommendations would be helpful in the guidelines, but as long as the lists/tables are readable and self-consistent within the individual articles, I don't see it as being an issue. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples

I have created this Project proposal that must cover fictional couples of any fixed medium, print or electronic, such as soap opera couples, Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, and Sam and Diane. I wonder if you can join in the linked title rather than here. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox edit wars

There is currently a couple of edit wars going on in Anya Corazon and Julia Carpenter about what name should go in their infobox. Both articles have the character's real name for their article name since they have both used two different aliases as superheroes so naming the article one of the specific aliases does not make sense, but they both have their currently used alias as the name in the infobox. I thought this is how it was typically, but an IP address (who is possibly the blocked user Brian Boru is awesome returning to continue is disruptive edits) has started an edit war over this. So should the infobox use the article's name or the character's currently used alias? Hopefully there is an MOS about this, but if not I vote for the article's name. Kurt Parker (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:Brian Boru is awesome is IP hopping again. - SudoGhost 21:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the naming conventions state: "When confronted with a difficult or complex naming issue, please check for community consensus at the WikiProject talk page". So if the consensus is that the Infobox field for character_name should always equal the article name, then it should be stated in the naming conventions. That way, any editor who feels differently can be referred to a concrete reason, as to why their edit is being reverted. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The naming conventions page you referred to is for naming the article. So far no one has contested the article names, just the name shown in the infobox. Can we get a consensus here on what should go there. I already stated my opinion; what do other people think? Kurt Parker (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest? I'm more inclined to go with the article title first unless a very good, case by case, argument is made for something else. Most cases of characters with multiple codenames should have the infobox image captioned with "Character as ID from..."

- J Greb (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I went to check page histories to compare these edits to User:Forestlicious (to see if we have a wider socking problem), and found this surprising diff [12]. So do we have 2 sockpuppeteers edit warring with each other? - jc37 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that Forestlicious is auto confirmed, I'd seriously consider semi-ing that article as limiting the disruption would outweigh the inconvenience to IPs editing in good faith. - J Greb (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nod, I did that already, once the SPA sock of Forestlicious appeared, supporting him. - jc37 00:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I made edits ([13], [14]) to go with J Greb's suggestion. Hopefully with those sockpuppets being blocked we can finally get peace in these edit wars. Kurt Parker (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of comics publishing companies

After being asked repeatedly to join the discussion over List of comics publishing companies, MikeWazowski has continued unilaterally to delete en masse large numbers of items from the least, despite the fact that at least two other editors have stated that they should be kept. After leaving a message (message deleted, here's what was there) on his talk page to cease edit warring, instead of either responding or joining in the discussion, he slapped me with an Edit War warning on my talk page. He still has not joined in the discussion or responded to any of my messages. Could a third party please step in and help us solve this? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

He must have seen me bring it up here, because he has now deleted any evidence of our discussion. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template: Marvel Comics films

Right now there is a discussion going on at Template talk:Marvel Comics films#Animated films regarding the current content and scope of the nabbox. Wider input would be helpful.

- J Greb (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Help referencing List of comics publishing companies

Could anyone help out getting citations for the companies listed on the List of comics publishing companies? I thought it would just be a matter of copy & pasting from the individual articles, but it turns out most of the articles themselves are poorly referenced. Mostly just looking for refs for country, date of foundation, and (if applicable) date the company went under. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have some old comics-related magazines I picked up to reference other stuff. I'll see if any of them have that info. Cloveapple (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Life in Philadelphia

I created an article about E.W. Clay's Life in Philadelphia. I am currently researching on Google Books and getting permission to upload some pictures of the cartoons. However, I would like help with the article especially E.W. Clay's importance as a cartoonist and the series' influence in other cartoonist/cartoons.

CPsju 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Comics MoS changes

I'm posting this here to get a wider range of input. And yes, I'm deliberately separating the topics.

- J Greb (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PLOT

The Project level MoS needs to address plot, plot bloat, and only plot situations in articles we look after. I'm suggesting the following:

• Plot summaries in standalone articles covering a single issue cap at 150-200 words. Remember, inmost cases we would be dealing with 22 pages, max in an issue. And in some cases 150 words may be too much since older issues ran less pages.
• Plot summaries in standalone articles covering a story arc or event cap at 500 words. This is total not "per section". Most large events or long story arcs are equatable to films which cap at 700.
• Plot summaries in standalone articles covering an in-story element in comics - characters, places, equipment, concept - fall into one of two limits: 400-500 words for elements with long and complex back-stories, 150 words for those which are straight forward or cover few issues. It is preferable that these "fictographies" be reworked into sections with real world context and cover the notable aspects of the element as opposed to trying to include all appearances of the element.
• Plot sections within articles on publications or strips cap at 500 words if the publication/strip is one story, 300 words of individual story arcs, 150 for individual issues, or 50-100 for arcs or issues that have their own articles. Such sections should be limited to notable stories and minimized as much as possible. ie "Filler" issues should not be included and a notable story arc that ran 6 issues in an ongoing series might warrant 1 section, but not 6.

- J Greb (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than cap, I'd say "strongly recommend against" anything longer than a given number of words. There are always potential exceptions---Chris Ware in particular is noted for the extreme density of his pages. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to keep in mind that this is dealing with the in-story elements. Not with real people or real companies. Articles like Chris Ware - which is the biography of an actual person - should not be providing plot.

- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, but I wasn't suggesting such, either. I wrote "Chris Ware" as a catch-all for all his works (Acme Novelty Library, Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth, Quimby the Mouse and Rusty Brown have articles so far). Certain issues of Acme Novelty Library (like #1 and #3) were stand-alone issues, and given the amount of writing devoted to his work (at least two stand-alone books), it's not unreasonable to suppose that someone might start a page on one of those stand-alone issues (not that I'm planning to do it myself, but I have seen multiple articles on both of those issues in reliable sources, so don't laugh it off).

Of course, I used Ware only as an example. It could easily happen with someone else. Besides, what's wrong with "strongly recommend against" or something similar? Why automatically exclude all exceptions? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point in a way. I'm looking at WP:FILMPLOT as a basis and that does use:

“ Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. ”

My use of "cap" is due to my understanding of guidelines - there are expected to be exceptions - and setting a bright line to shoot at for keeping articles in line with PLOT.

- J Greb (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So how does my recommendation of "strongly recommend against" fall out of line with what you quoted above? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In universe details

There are a lot of pejorative terms that could be used here for the in-story material that wind up in articles, but the upshot is that we need to work towards making the articles appropriate for a general use encyclopedia. Not one aimed at fans or worse, one that tries to ascribe real world details to fictional things.

• Sections or articles on in-story elements should avoid ascribing transient details or fine tuning details where broader ones are more appropriate. That is, Batman is a martial artist, but giving a list of the various styles stories have stated he knows or are assumed by artistic depiction isn't necessary.
• Sections or articles on tools, equipment, vehicles, etc should not go into explicit and full detail about construction, contents, real-world components, etc related to the object. Giving a short list of firearms the Punisher favors or general examples of the contents of Batman's utility belt should be enough. Laminar construction of Iron Man's armor, fabric layers of the Batsuit, full handbook details of all the weapons in War Machin's armor, in-story build specs of the Batmobile, and the like are going overboard.

- J Greb (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One other item...

• For articles on characters, creatures, items, places, etc that are feature in the stores, the names used in the lead and infobox should be the ones that are commonly used. Aliases noted in the infobox should be notable aliases. That would be "Peter Parker", not "Peter Benjamin Parker"; "Dick Grayson" not "Richard John Grayson"; and so on.

- J Greb (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aliases - WP:COMMONNAME comes to mind. We just have an interesting situation in that many of the characters we deal with have more than one. Peter Parker and Spider-Man, for example. That said, I do think we should have a place for full name "somewhere" in a character infobox (presuming it differs from a common name). - jc37 03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• And I dunno about the specs of unique equipment. Especially since so many articles of a characters equipment are being merged/redirected back to the character's page. But I would be happy to discuss this further. - jc37 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

While we're at it, that whole discussion on disambiguation never really came to a consensus. Even if you take my (unpopular) views out of the picture, the rest of those in the discussion never seemed to quite agree on something. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

General comments

Not to throw cold water on all of this, but does anyone seriously think that the innumerable editors of comics-related articles out there actually read the comics MoS? And further, so we expect that we will be able to point to the MoS during XfD discussions nd the like and that will be given any weight by the closer? - jc37 03:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If for nothing else, it's there to point to in the event of a dispute, and to provide some level of consistency. Personally, I think it would an awful lot more useful if it were heavier on providing a rationale for each guideline, though. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Action Universe

I recently disabled auto-categorization of articles by Template:Marvel Action Universe since such categorization, particularly by navigation templates (as opposed to, say, infoboxes), is extremely problematic. This resulted in several articles being removed from the category:

• Marvel Action Universe - still categorized
• Defenders of the Earth
• Dino-Riders - still categorized
• Dungeons & Dragons (TV series)
• Fantastic Four (1978 TV series)
• List of animated television series created for syndication
• Marvel Productions
• New World Pictures
• Orion Pictures
• RoboCop: The Animated Series - still categorized
• Spider-Man (1981 TV series) - still categorized
• Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends - still categorized
• Spider-Woman (TV series)
• Sunbow Productions
• Sunday morning cartoon
• The Incredible Hulk (1982 TV series)
• X-Men: Pryde of the X-Men - still categorized

Some may need to be re-added to category but some, such as Sunday morning cartoon and the list, almost certainly do not belong. Could someone who is more knowledgeable about comics than I take a look at this? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian comic characters

A user created the "Russian comic characters" and replaced the category for a bunch of characters in the "Fictional Russian people" category. The new category was deleted by a bot, but the old category needs to be restored. I started with a few, but there are a bunch and I am running late for an appointment - could anyone else lend a hand in restoring the "Fictional Russian people" people category on the rest? Cydebot did the removals. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

HYDRA

Is the name supposed to be capitalized or not? [15] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you move the discussion here?

Both WP's MOS and Marvel demand common mixed case, there is nothing indicating that all upper case would be a good idea. --91.10.51.18 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

1. 91.10.24.244, please take a look at WP:BRD - You were Bold, you were Reverted, you Discuss the change you want. You do not edit war to get your way. You do not get to have your version up in lieu of a discusion showin consensus for the change.
2. 129.33.19.254 there is an old discusion - Talk:HYDRA#It's not "HYDRA" anywhere but on Wikipedia. It should be "Hydra". that has grafted into.
3. Wikis are not considered reliable sources, official or not.
4. If an MoS or source is coing to be cited, provide a link so that others can see what you are pointing to.

Now, can you work it out in the right place from here?

- J Greb (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Nobody even mentioned a single argument for all-caps. Not a single one.
2. I would appreciate that and in fact commented there before 129 posted here. (I would like to add that since 2010, nobody could name a reason for all-caps.)
3. I have to admit that I have neither time nor patience to look for a specific phrase in the MOS that would proscribe that words are not capitalized just for shits and giggles. Again, there is NO reason given that support all-caps.

This is a non-issue unless someone can make at least starts trying to make a case against common use of the English language and Marvel. --91.10.22.189 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is correct that Marvel's Wiki cannot be used as a valid source. I think the Marvel Universe handbooks are better as primary sources; I'll try to dig up a few of those later and see. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IP 91.10., your action has resulted in the page being locked. If you cannot be bothered to show why your change should be instituted, you are just disrupting the article. And "'They' have to argue to keep the standing version" is not an acceptable reason at this point.

As far as this thread goes, consider it closed as a Project level topic and seal with it on the article's talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the 1983 OHOTMU writes it "HYDRA" in every instance it is used, as does the OHOTMU Deluxe Edition. But, I'll continue on the article's talk page. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month follow-up

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Any legit licensing way to add example cartoon for Richard Q. Yardley (Baltimore Sun editorial cartoonist)?

I just started a stub for Yardley, who was apparently one of the most renowned cartoonists of The Baltimore Sun in the mid-20th C., a contemporary of H. L. Mencken, etc. It's a short stub now, but there are plenty of bio bits on gBooks Preview that can be used to flesh it out over time. I'd love to add an image of his work, but he started at the Sun in 1923, and most of his famous cartoons are from the 1930s and later, so don't fall easily into an obvious Public Domain category. Is there any legit way to give an example of his work in the article, or just not possible? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Darknight Detective

Someone might like to assess this person's contributions, as they are very subjective - [16]. Of special note are the contributions to this template :[17], which is becoming unwieldy. 113.21.40.134 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Superboy (Kon-El)

Just wanted to bring up that I stumbled upon Superboy (Kon-El) and found in need of major cleanup and trimming. It's 147kb long, and most of that is excessive in-universe history. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ALL!

I owe a great debt of gratitude to everybody who's helped with WikiProject Comics over the years. While we all know these comics articles still need improvement, they contain so much valuable information. I wish I could tell you more specifically why I feel a great need to thank you all right now, but spelling it out more clearly could come across as promoting something. (So might the mere act of saying it could come across as promotion, I know. Such is life. At least I'm not saying what I have to promote in 2012, much as I'd love to share my big news.) I've always had fun participating in the project even after outside projects started reducing my active participation. The articles, while imperfect, are precious resources and truly helpful in leading to original sources.

You do a lot of good.

Best wishes to every one of you. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, way to hint around what you are trying to say.  :) Well, glad to hear... whatever it is you may or may not be working on, and if some such thing does come to fruition, I know I for one would love to hear about it.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ. Good luck and let us know when/if you can about anything that happens. Spidey104 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maus rewrite---call for help!

I've rewritten and greatly expanded the Maus article. I've spent the last couple of months on it in my sandbox, and it's making me go crosseyed---the number of available references was far beyond my expectations, and I'm having trouble synthesizing it all into a coherent article.

Rather than continuing "in secret" in my sandbox, I've replaced the contents of the article as it was with what I've written (even in its unfinished state, I think it's far better than what was there).

It would be awesome if anyone else were interested in helping to bring this article to the FA status we all know it deserves. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

X-23

The X-23 article, particularly the "Fictional character biography" section, has gotten very long and very detailed. I think it should be shortened. Normally I would do it myself, but I have almost know knowledge about this character. I don't want to inadvertently remove an important detail while shortening it. So if someone (or someones) could work on shortening the article it would be a great service to the WikiProject. Thanks. Spidey104 17:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Images for character articles

Can someone please explain to me the policy for images of characters when using cover art?

I ask because User:TriiipleThreat is insisting on using a cover scan of New Avengers #11 for the article Ronin_(Marvel_Comics) as opposed to the original promotional image to identify the character in question on the grounds that the textless image infringes on the copyrights more. I think that both images would equally fall under fair use given their status as copyrighted art from Marvel.

However, I've noticed that a majority of comic character articles just have textless images, even when using cover art. For example, the current image of Batman shows the promotional art for an issue. So is there official policy or is just guesswork as to which one is more "legal"?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The images fair use rationale does not indicate it is a promotional image. If it is please cite the source from the promotor. Otherwise we should use the version that we know the copyright holder intended to be released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's available on Marvel.com as seen here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Then please update the rationale, thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Shattered Heroes

Unlike most articles similar to the Shattered Heroes article (about specific comic book storylines) there is no "Plot summary" section in the Shattered Heroes article. I have read only one of the numerous involved titles, so I'm not really qualified to add a "Plot summary" to this article, but I'm hoping someone here will see that this post and be able to help improve that article. Thank you. Spidey104 13:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really is a storyline, at least not one that crosses over. Its more of a market branding in the aftermath of Fear Itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize it is more of a market branding (my mistake on calling it a storyline), but I'm still hoping for people to add the "Plot summary" section if possible. I think it has been done for similar articles in the past. Honestly, it's a personal interest in knowing what happened rather than a desire for that article to change. Because of this edit I am curious about what exactly happened in the Avengers comic books. I can only get so many comic books per month, and I put my money towards what I believe are the better books and that hasn't included any of the Avengers titles recently. Does anyone know what issues that edit references or can give a description of what happened? Thanks! Spidey104 15:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read every Shattered Heroes branded book, but the ones I have read weren't that eventful in terms of affecting the larger Marvel Universe. The books were pretty much self contained in each title's storyline. As far as The Avengers are concerned Captain America restructures the main team in issue #19 and Spidey and Wolverine simply choose not be involved, with Spider-Man stating that they already have their Spider-person and mutant (no further explanation was given). They both are still active members of the New Avengers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a running thematic of perception that icons have suddenly been tarnished out of nowhere and lashing out at that. Although it is a bit dishonest, and there is plenty more depth to it, let's leave it at that. David A (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

NYCC Panel on WikiProject Comics?

Which of you are likely to attend New York Comic Con in the fall - or would go if the right opportunity arose? NYCC has a scholarly track. If enough project regulars got together, I'll bet it wouldn't be hard to fill an hour presenting a convention panel about WikiProject Comics. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Canadian comics workgroup request (again)

The January 3rd request to have the Canadian comics work group added to the {{WikiProject Comics}} template. There seem to be at least two other editors who support this. Could someone with administrative superpowers please take a look? If it is to be rejected, it would be nice if someone at least said so. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Skrull edit war

Much edit warring going on at the Skrull page over whether or not they are the villains in the Avengers movie. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John Barber

Hi WikiProject Comics. I have noticed that:

• Prowl (Transformers), 2003 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards and 2005 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards link to John Barber (cartoonist), and
• Marvel Zombies, Ultimate Galactus Trilogy, Turf (Image Comics) and Smokescreen (Transformers) link to John Barber (comics).

Are these two "John Barber"s the same person? (I suspect they are) If so, I'd like to update the links (and the links in about a dozen other comics/Transformers-related articles which currently link to John Barber) to point to the same place. So my question for you is: What would be the preferred format for the link?: John Barber (cartoonist) or John Barber (comics) (or something else?) Thanks in advance for any guidance you may be able to provide. DH85868993 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If they are indeed the same person, then it should link to John Barber (cartoonist) (the profession) rather than John Barber (comics) (which would imply perhaps a character or publisher's name).

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony DeZuniga

Tony DeZuniga has passed away today. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Increased coverage of Daniel Clowes

I'm working on expanding the coverage of the work of Daniel Clowes - at present many of his major works don't have articles, or even substantive mention on his article. I'm working in my sandbox on an article for Pussey!, but I'm having trouble finding sources to establish notability, as well as references for the various allegorical elements of the story, can anyone suggest anything? I haven't read Wilson or Mister Wonderful, but if people who have could start an article I'd hapily pitch in.Euchrid (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Google Books is awesome. Check this out for Pussey!. When you use Google Books, you should click on "Preview and full view" on the left side, otherwise you'll get a bunch of hits for books whose contents you can't view. Another source would be The Comics Journal (basically a Dan Clowes/Chris Ware fanzine), which has its entire archive of old issues online, which you can access if you have a subscription.

You probably won't find a lot of people to help you. There's a frustratingly small number of editors working on alternative comics articles. The demand far outstrips the supply. I've had Clowes in the back of my mind for some time (I created the navbox on the bottom of the page). His articles are pretty awful, but there are so many other cartoonists that deserve better as well (take a look at the horrifying state of the Hernandez Bros' articles, for instance). The best thing is to hunker down and get to work on them, and expect it to take a long, lonely time. If you're looking for help on something, drop me a line on my talk page. I particularly like formatting refs. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help you get an article or two to GA status. I've never really collaborated, but I'm fairly experienced in writing small articles now and, of course, I'm a big fan of alternative comics -- I've read almost all of the graphic novels at my local library branch. :D I think working together with a fellow fan could make things easier and more fun. Just leave me a comment on my talk page about what you'd like to work on, and we'll go from there. (PS I loved Mister Wonderful). Bobnorwal (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Message me. I can put you in touch with someone who did a Comic-Con presentation, "Dan Clowes: An Excellent Pornographer." He might have additional sources. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU (doing it right this time)

Okay, there's no way I can properly thank you without saying this outright: My book, Batman and Psychology: A Dark and Stormy Knight, comes out next month, and WikiProject Comics helped me reach this wonderful point in my life.

Editing here was my first step as a comics scholar. My book's acknowledgments section describes how it all started the first summer I attended Comic-Con, but WikiProject Comics came before that. If I'd ever imagined that I would simply tell you this outright, I'd have said the same in the book's acknowledgments. Instead, a note in my reference section says WikiProject Comics helped "in ways they may never know" - which, even before the book comes out, I'm rendering inaccurate by telling you this now. You don't have to buy the book to see that remark in print. Amazon's "LOOK INSIDE!" (which shows way too much book, if you ask me) can show it to you on p. 303. Once I realized I needed to thank you more explicitly, I went ahead and outed myself on my user page, as a few of you noticed, and then I waited until I could point that page out to you.

Once I realized I wanted to write a book on the psychology of Batman, I knew I'd need to spend about 3 years building the kind of credentials that would land me a publisher - relevant journal articles, conference presentations, connections. Not only did that give me less time to stay in the thick of what's going on around here, it meant I had growing conflict of interest issues because I've gotten to know a lot of the people we write about.

WikiProject Comics got me in the habit of writing about comic books, superheroes, and their creators, and taught me a great deal about the complex issues involved in verifying the source material. Trying to figure out who really wrote and drew stories attributed to Bob Kane is difficult, sometimes impossible. I think I would have had much more trouble writing about fictional events in present tense if not for several years of practice here; it's hard to convey exactly how big a difference that made. Enormous!

I could ramble on and on about this. I'm reminded of when Harpo Marx received an award and the silent Marx Brother's acceptance speech went on and on. I'm not 100% sure I should post this here, but I'm 100% sure it would bug me not to express clearly the depths of my gratitude to you all. Since I was little kid, I've always loved Batman and I've always wanted to write a book. My interest in psychology came later. WikiProject Comics has played an important part in getting me to this point where I get to pull all these great loves of mine together. Truly, thank you. Doczilla _STOMP! 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

S.H.I.E.L.D.

Does the {{S.H.I.E.L.D.}} template belong on articles such as Ultron and Quicksilver (comics)? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As it's currently structured? Possibly.

But then the current structure has a lot of problems. Most of them stemming from it being a "team" template that tries to cram in all the members and blending two topics.

Ideally:

• Split out the Howling Commandos to its own 'box. It is likely that the 'box won't be overly useful, but that material does not belong here.
• Remove all of the characters not originally created for SHIELD or part of the original team line up.
• Remove anything that was co-opted into SHIELD
• Remove the section links
• Remove anything that would require a section link to get to the minimal content that is related to shield.

- J Greb (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, let the other people add the links to Ultimate SHIELD, I mean the template has links to every Agent page on Wikipedia, let the Ultimate SHIELD section have links to Agents like Fury, Danvers, Barton, Romanoff, Stark, Karma, Dr. Stark, etc. And have a small listing of enemies like Reed Richards, Zorn twins, Loki, the Liberators and Ultron/Yellowjacket. Maybe even Doom. It's a section only for 1610 fans, so let them add it, but keep with in the guidelines. (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

Joe, you may want to re-think "let's not just too power hungry or facist" real damn fast. It isn't civil, it stinks of an attack on another editor, and it comes off as as an attempt to shut down discussion.

- J Greb (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

1610 fans??? I don't understand the reference? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate Marvel fans. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

They've measured this? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the OHOTHMU designation for the reality the Ultimate comics are set is is "Earth-1610". Reading the comment, it seems to amount to "Let the fans dictate, not Wikipedia common practice." - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So J.Greb......what's your prefrence?? I say let's keep the Ultimate members and stuff, but since I have no power in the deprtment and just gonna be over-ruled, what now? (JoeLoeb (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

After a bit of mulling: What I'd prefer is to not see fan-centric bias try and over ride standing general consensus and best practice - those based on the wider Wikipedia community, not just WikiProject Comics.

Those being that Naveigation Boxes are:

• Tools to allow movement between articles generally related to a specific topic.
• They are aimed at the general user of this site, not a specific sub-set.
• Links not be to a section of an article. Two reasons:
  • The coding of the template base is designed to de-link the article link when the 'box is on that article.
  • The link should be to the article if the article is overall related to the topic. A small section of an otherwise unrelated article does not justify inclusion in a navbox.
  • The navbox should not duplicate/replace an articles table of contents. That is: If all of the SHIELD divisions have been redirected to SHIELD, they are in the ToC. That should be used to navigate with in the article, not the navbox.

Also, I'd prefer to see the Project level consensus on "team members in the navbox" be followed. L&S being that exhaustive member lists make the navbox hard to use and creates template forests at the foot of some article pages.

- J Greb (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Icon: character vs. series

Hi folks -- I've just been doing a bit of work on Icon (comics) and notice that most of the page is a character page, but in the absence of a page on the series, it all serves as the page for Icon-the-title as well. It makes sense to me that the page should be broken up into one page for the character and another for the series, but I thought I'd get your advice/assistance/etc in doing so rather than doing that unilaterally. I imagine that the Comics project has a semi-standard approach to making some of those decisions. Can someone more experienced than I please suggest a sensible approach. (Or, if anyone wants to take on the division themselves, that would suit me too.) Thanks! Kenirwin/(talk) 01:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Icon, but you might want to think about a couple of things:

1. Does the Icon character appear frequently outside the Icon series?
2. Does the Icon character appear frequently in other media?
3. Is the article as it is unduly long?

If the answer is "no" to all of those questions, then it would not be a good idea to split up the article. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Need some help with an orphan

I was trying to de-orphan Neeraj Gupta, but I could only find two articles to link to him (List of cartoonists and List of Indian artists). I tried searching for more info on him to add to the article, but it appears that's a very common name in that part of the world. Anybody want to help me? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

New user needs help with editing

The Multiverse (contribs) looks like they could use some help with basic editing skills - I'm not sure what to say to them. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left some tips on his talk page.Euchrid (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! They might do just fine once they can grasp the basics. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Comic book with American comic book?

Anyone want to chip in on whether or not we should merge Comic book and American comic book? The discussion is here. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Names of articles about comics franchises

Hi, I have a question about article names. The page Transformers (comics) seems to me to be wrongly named, and should instead be at Transformers comics. The reason is that the word "comics" is not needed to disambiguate, but to properly name the article. If this article were at Transformers it would be wrongly named, because it is not about Transformers in general, and it is not about a comic or series named "Transformers". The page is about Transformers comics, or comics related to the Transformers franchise. Parenthetical disambiguation is only needed when two articles should be at the same title, but that is not the case here. I bring this up here as the current title appears to be the result of WP:NCC, although does not address cases like this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually "(comics)" is disambiguating. In this case, the comics franchise from the rest of the franchise. - jc37 05:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is literally doing that because that is the name of the article. The point is that the article could not realistically be named Transformers because it is not about Transformers or something called Transformers, it is about Transformer comics. In contrast, an article like XIII (comics) would make sense at XIII because that is the title, but cannot be because it shares a title name with other articles. Think about the subject of the article. An article about a specific comic called "Transformers" could be at Transformers (comics), but an article on "Transformers comics" should be at Transformers comics. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I have a vague recollection that this has been discussed before (several times?)

But besides that, I understand where you're saying, but I disagree. If it's "Transformers comics" then it makes the name seem that the page is about comics under the "topic" Transformers. As opposed to Transformers (comics) which has the semantic sense that it's about Transformers which happen to be in comics. As the point is (as you mentioned at the top) to have Transformers as the main topic, and not comics, I would think that Transformers (comics) would be the way to go.

Does that better clarify what I was trying to say? - jc37 06:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're saying, but I disagree. The article is not about the Transformers that were in those comics, the article is about the comics themselves. That's why the article was previously at List of Transformers comic books, vs. List of Transformers in comic books or something similar. It's why there is still an article called List of minor Transformers comics. It's the difference between in-universe vs real-word perspective. The subject of the article is any comic that has had a Transformer in it. 06:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the current style for two reasons. First, changing it would require more effort than renaming just one article, because then pages for Transformers cartoons, films, and toys would also have to be changed. Not to mention every other multimedia franchise, like spider-man or x-men. Second, most of the various incarnations are titled "Transformers", so it makes sense to diambiguate the title by media. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Archenemy

I think we've had this problem before. IP 64.90.250.252 has been pasting the term "archenemy" over all sorts of character articles, often in places where it makes no sense. For example, this recent set of edits: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. I've been reverting them because, the last I remember it was project consensus that applying the term "archenemy" to a character required a reliable source. Since this IP has been edit warring on several articles to keep this term in there, I am looking for guidance here. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Left the school a note and reverted the ones you pointed to... and there are likely more that need a look... - J Greb (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but they are back at it again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Now it seems like a new IP, 74.47.130.156, is up to the same tricks. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on what websites qualify is reliable sources for comics

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/References#Websites_that_qualify_as_a_reliable_source_for_comic_book_reviews Please join in. Add in anything you can think of that might be considered a reliable source. I searched about, surprised there wasn't a list already like other Wikiprojects have. Dream Focus 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Are there any other books similar to Slings and Arrows Comics Guide that give extensive listings of various comics and summaries of them? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bump. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of. I found the Slings and Arrows guide myself a few years ago, and, so far as I know, it is more or less unique in its field. Some books exist on the publications of various specific publishers, but they tend to be more focused on either characters rather than titles. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New Director of SHIELD?

Is Marcus Johnson the new Director of SHIELD?

I only flipped through Battle Scars #6 at the store and didn't buy it so I can't go check it, but I thought he was introduced as only an agent of SHIELD at the end. Furthermore, in Scarlet Spider #5 they showed Fury/Johnson, Coulson, and Daisy Johnson -- Johnson was the one identified as the director of SHIELD. Media sources say he is the new director, but those can be wrong since they're mostly talking about Disney mandating this change and not concerning themselves with the details. (Note: I am putting this conversation here since it could have been on the talk page for Marcus Johnson, the SHIELD template, AND S.H.I.E.L.D..) Spidey104 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I only read the wiki stuff and comic vine, I assumed it was made clear that Johnson/Fury, Jr. was the Director of SHIELD... but if it's made otherwise, inform me. (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

Is Wolverine immortal?

I'm pretty sure it's never been stated in the comics (implied, maybe) but it seems that someone with a changing IP address has been adding this category[23] for about two weeks now. Could someone please keep an eye on this page? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone please take a look at this section? The other IP refuses to provide any WP:RS other than their own unusual sense of logic. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• He has been proven to be immortal already in the comics. They have completely and totally obliterated him, and he still came back. Originally he could be killed with enough effort, but in recent years they have him totally immortal. Check the Marvel comics website if you don't believe it. I see they have a comic called Wolverine: The Amazing Immortal Man & Other Bloody Tales [24] Dream Focus 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

that's a reference to a name he used as a circus act not a literal statement. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just finished reading it, and was about to come and erase that part of my comment. The rest still holds true though. In the opening section of one issue, they mentioned they had previously made him regenerate from a single drop of blood, and then decided he didn't even need that. Maybe that's when Nitro incinerated him completely, they chasing him down after the school children got killed which started the registration act and then the super hero civil war. Dream Focus 19:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the above are indicators of immortality to physical damage to his body. Didn't I read somewhere that he himself said that he was thought he could be killed by being deprived of oxygen, like by drowning or maybe asphyxiation in space? That sort of "damage" would be of an entirely different type, and I think it may well be that the cells might not be able to regenerate if there were insufficient oxygen and other material with which to regenerate. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Different writers changed things over time. He was shown being killed by a sentinel blasts that left only his adamantium skeleton in Days of Future Past, but then in Wolverine issue #43 you had him incinerated entirely as well, nothing but his metal skeleton remaining [25] and he emerged a few seconds after, before the guy could finish his cell phone conversation, totally restored. Doesn't even take any time for him to heal anymore. Current version of Wolverine is in fact immortal. Dream Focus 20:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

<fanwankery>How do the bones of his adamantium skeleton remain connected under catastrophic injury when his tendons and ligaments are not adamantium?</fanwankery> postdlf (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• As there seem to be no references for this, AND looking at the primary sources apparently requires interpretation (even as seen in the discussion above), calling Wolverine immortal would appear to be synthesis. - jc37 19:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no "current version" in fiction. Wolverine can die even if he can't easily die. The comics do not call him immortal, therefore we should not offer that interpretation. Doczilla _STOMP! 17:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• He can't be immortal, because Doom has his body in the year 3000.Argento Surfer (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_3#Category:Fictional_immortals. - jc37 00:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Hiding

• User_talk:Hiding#Notification_of_pending_suspension_of_administrative_permissions_due_to_inactivity

Yes, I know that this is uncontroversial, and he would receive them again the moment he asks for the tools upon return.

But to me it's more just a reminder how long he has been gone from the project.

Many of us put a lot of time and effort into this WikiProject. But he, abundantly so. For example, a lot of the work concerning ratings and the 1.0 project were things he was keeping up on.

And I remember a time when he was one of the few (if not only) admins actively working in the project. (and if you look around, many of the current admins - including myself - were nominated or co-nominated by him.)

He also designed or helped design many of the project pages that we commonly reference as we go about our efforts here.

Anyway, I just thought it would be nice to say something nice to the project in his behalf. I won't speak for anyone else, and at times we, like any two individuals, of course had differences of opinion on things, but I miss his thought-filled insight. I learned a lot from him, and there is rarely a day that I'm editing I don't think about past advice he had given me. Wherever he is, I wish him well. - jc37 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement. I sincerely hope that he receives the appreciation in his current activities, whatever they are, that he deserved, and at times received, while he was here. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

[http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Hiding&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=4&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 This is a list of just the projectspace pages he created. (A list of the ones he edited after they were created would be, imo, prohibitively large : )

I'll admit it was fun going through and reading (in several cases re-reading). - jc37 13:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Punisher comics

I know that this subject has been discussed before, but I think that a new consensus needs to be made, regarding the volume numbers of the various Punisher ongoing series. There has been some debate on the talk page for List of The Punisher comics, about where to include The Punisher: Purgatory, because the indicia for that comic simply said "The Punisher". I thought this issue had been resolved last year, but now several IP editors are edit warring over placing it with all the other ongoing series instead of the limited series. These editors have also changed the volume numbers on all the other articles about Punisher titles, to support their POV. Please help by joining in the discussion, so that we can decide once and for all the proper way to indicate the various Punisher titles on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Some help is still needed on the Punisher titles, because of an editor that insists The Punisher: Purgatory be listed as Vol. 4 on the List of The Punisher comics. This editor also continues to change all the other Punisher articles accordingly [26] [27] [28] [29], without trying to come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please contribute your suggestions at Talk:List of The Punisher comics#Full protection. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man's origins

Is this legit or WP:OR? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Some info appears true, based on this link. But we still need someone to check the bio. - jc37 00:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Another link - jc37 00:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that it is a very interesting piece of information, and should definitely be included in the article, I don't think that it belongs in the lead paragraph as presented. Including it in the "Premiere" section as a source of Stan Lee's inspiration should be sufficient. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stan Lee

I wanted his birth name (Stanley Martin Lieber) to show in the infobox, and although the parameter is in there, it doesn't show up on the article. Is this a problem with the infobox, or the way it was entered? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The parameter wasn't included in the actual template for some reason. It works now. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notice

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board#Deletion_discussions

In case it wasn't noticed on the noticeboard, several pages are under discussion. - jc37 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Last Dream of the Rarebit Fiend strip?

Does anyone know the date that the last Dream of the Rarebit Fiend strip ran (and a source to back it up)? It was in 1913 in the New York Herald, but I don't have the precise date. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel proposed move

I have proposed moving the Ms. Marvel article to the new article name "Carol Danvers." Please post all thoughts on the talk page where the discussion is appropriate; this post is to inform everyone of the discussion but not to have the discussion here. Spidey104 15:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Powers (comics) production details.

I'm not sure if this section is desirable. Maybe some of the information is useful but as most of it seems extraneous. 203.35.82.171 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

Should 2012 Aurora shooting be covered by this project? It's a real world incident related to Batman. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article that suggests the Batman screening was anything more than strictly incidental, so absolutely not. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, and no. Despite taking place at the screening of a comic book movie, the incident itself is not about comics. Even the shooter's comment calling himself the Joker is not about comics and we don't know what he really thinks. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Professor X

There was a big trim on the Professor X article; while this might be just fine, it might be good for someone with an attention to detail to have a look and make sure nothing critical was lost. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Eddie Brock as Toxin

Requesting outside opinions on a debate about whether or not Eddie Brock's recent alias as Toxin and his association with the Savage Six should be included in Eddie's infobox. Thank you. Spidey104 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discusison

I have started a discussion to merge Miz Mam'selle Hepzibah into Pogo (comic strip) and would appreciate some discussion. Please join here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comicsproj Peer review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review is totally out of date---the |peer-review= parameter doesn't work anymore (for how long, I wonder?). Shouldn't the page be updated/deleted/redirected? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, it should be marked as an archive as it as. As for |peer-review= parameter, the {{WikiProject Comics}} project banner doesn't have it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pics of toys

Specifically referring to the page for Loki, is it possible to upload a pic of one of the hot wheels 12" figurines/toys of his character from the avengers? It has a section on that page about toys specifically and was wondering if it's allowed to put pics of toys up or not. Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not not allowed, but it's uncommon and it would probably be removed by another editor who felt it was unneccessary or set a bad precident. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Black Spider

I was wondering, is it typical to use new infoboxes when a different persons assumes a hero/villain? I'm seeing it in Black Spider, but it looks particularly awkward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it before, but it looks awkward on Black Spider because there isn't enough space between the sections. So maybe getting rid of the infoboxes on that particular article (which I've also seen for articles about an alias with multiple users) would be fine. Spidey104 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It really should be collapsed down to one. - J Greb (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Walking Dead comic character articles

There are a couple of articles for characters from The Walking Dead, which can be at the moment accessed at Template:The Walking Dead.

For some reason, all of the main infoboxes feature the television version with the comicbook image being in a subsection. The characters are first and foremost comicbook characters, not television characters. It makes as much sense IMO as putting an image of Heath Ledger for the infobox on The Joker's article to put a picture of Andrew Lincoln for Rick Grimes' article.

Would someone mind, if they have the time, swapping the images around so that the comic art is in the infobox? If no one else does it I'll end up doing it but my time is slim at the moment.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jigsaw and Stuart Clarke

Need stories about Jigsaw and Stuart Clarke are dead in Punisher: In the Blood, since no one adding new stories for Jigsaw and Stuart Clarke.-Krejasibergj333 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Need help with categorisation

I recently created a comic book story arc related page Pratishodh Ki Jwala. I want it to be placed in the category Category:Dhruva storylines but instead it is getting placed automatically into its parent category Category:Storylines in comics. Can somebody help me with that and tell me where I'm going wrong? Also the infobox of the article should mention its Genre as Superhero which it is not mentioning. Kindly help. Skagrawal4k (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of ComicsAlliance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ComicsAlliance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComicsAlliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

IP keeps vandalising The Beano article

An IP keeps adding a vandalous section to the article on The Beano. The edit has been reverted numerous times but the IP keeps reverting the reversions. Is there a way to prevent this IP from editing the page eg by blocking them. I dont know how to do that. Eopsid (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it again, and left a friendly warning on the talk page. If it happens again, you should continue to leave warnings on their talk page each time it is reverted, until it escalates to the point of them violating the 3RR rule, or it reaches the final vandalism warning: {{uw-vandalism4}}. At that point, you can report the IP address for violating Wikipedia policy, or request to have the article protected. But you have to give them a chance to stop the vandalism first, and document it every time they choose not to stop, for them to possibly be blocked. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Recently created Marvel NOW! articles

It seems an IP has recently created articles for Uncanny Avengers and Indestructible Hulk and has nominated All-New X-Men and Thor: God of Thunder for creation. All of the articles just copy information from Marvel NOW! and in my opinion do not yet meet general notability guidelines. Should they be kept, deleted or redirected elsewhere?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave them. No harm in them duplicating info for now, and no sense in redirecting them for just two months. The "See also" sections should probably be redone into a template or trimmed down. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see enough sources being published on the subjects until well after their debuts to make them independently notable. For now I'd say the information should merged into team or characters articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

By "well after", do you mean "the day after"? Because I'm betting titles this high profile will be reviewed (and probably in advance) by every notable comic newsite, and the writers interviewed repeatedly. I think it can be taken for granted these titles will be notable, and I think leaving them up now would allow for better coverage of their beginnings later. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If The Incredible Hulk, which has been around since 1962, can be housed at Hulk (comics) then I do not see why Indestructible Hulk cannot be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So I propose Uncanny Avengers and All-New X-Men be kept since they are both new teams / titles and Indestructible Hulk and Thor: God of Thunder be merged into their respective parent character articles since they will become the primary titles for each character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I redirected Indestructible Hulk. The Thor page is a video game with a For the Comic link to Thor (Marvel Comics) already. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Men In Black listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Люди в чёрном 3 and Қара киімділер 3. Since you had some involvement with the Men In Black redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

List of "Primary series" in character articles

Are additions like these appropriate? [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not per WP:CMOS#LSECTION.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not... - J Greb (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like the editor went this route after getting "Bibliographies" nixed... - J Greb (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanos

I think someone should check the edit history of Thanos for a familiar pattern. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FACs

Hey, just letting everyone know at the project that Louis Riel (comics) has just passed FAC. Also, I've just put Maus up for FAC, if anyone would like to take a look at it (or take part in the review). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Avengers Assemble 09 Marvel NOW!.jpg

File:Avengers Assemble 09 Marvel NOW!.jpg has been nominated for deletion, because it is missing a fair use rationale, and the sourcing is improperly formatted -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)