This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A few people have been going through the comic book characters and creating all kinds of new categories, like US-Themed, Batman inspired, Plant characters, cold characters, Fictional giants, etc, etc, etc. I'm having some problems with this because in some cases they dup already existing ones (Fictional giants and Giants) while others seem based on subjective reasoning with no apparent proof (Wildcat as a Batman inspired hero, for example). Thoughts? CovenantD 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thought I have is that this is way out of control. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been getting on my nerves for a while. Anyone got the energy to WP:CFD some of these? - SoM 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not tonight. I just left a message for one of the main culprits on his/her talk page. CovenantD 06:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And geez-a-lou are you both right. Category:Fictional martial artists and Category:Fictional ninja parses it so unnecessarily closely that it's more cluttering than useful. Category:Daredevil love interests seems absurdly narrow while Category:Fictional vigilantes is so general that thousands of superheroes would fit there. Category:Fictional mutates? According to its page, that's every superpowered character who's not a mutant. And on and on. Category:Anti-heroes is another that seems to get everything lumped into it, from literary characters to overwhelmingly superheroic characters as Daredevil.

I'll be glad to help in any way I can. How do we go about suggesting policy and guidelines for something like this?

"This looks like a job for ... WikiProject Comics!" --Tenebrae 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Count me as part of the consensus against those poorly conceived categories. We should make a list of the offending categories here, group the ones together that fail because of a common flaw (e.g., the love interest categories), and then work on concise and well-reasoned explanations for deletion to post on CFD. Postdlf 17:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First on the list Category:Female heroines with names derived from pre-existing male characters. I can't begin to express how appalled I am by this name. Also Category:Fictional bug-based characters, Category:Femme Fatales, Category:Fictional cold characters, Category:Fictional speedsters and Category:Fictional mutates. Those are just off the top of my head. CovenantD 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Fictional teenagers is absurd! Should we categorise Sherlock Holmes there because at one point he was a teenager? This is categorisation gone mad. Hiding Talk 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, I think Category:Femme Fatales is alright. That one just needs to get populated, it's a fairly common archetype and isn't just comic-based. And uh, that first one. (Category:Female heroines with names derived from pre-existing male characters) Wow. No way.--Toffile 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the 'female characters derived...' category is probably part of some feminist project. I have to admit, while it shocked me too (mainly from it's length), it does seem to serve a purpose. In a lot of cases, the original heroes are male, and rather come up with unique new heroes, female versions of preexisting ones are made. There might be some exceptions though... Wonder Woman for example, wasn't she around before Wonder Man? Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the categories, I am the creator of Category:Fictional speedsters which extends beyond english comics, also to TV shows, manga, anime, and potentially novels, if we can find anything. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional bug-based characters- might use a name change. I used 'bug' because it is a more easily recognized term. As it mentions on the page, it is meant to contain anthropod-themed characters. Bug is just easier, not to mention shorter and easier to write. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional cold characters- might use a name change as well if there is insistance. 'Cold characters', 'cold-themed characters', I just picked what seemed appropriate. One category where I have noticed some overlap with the majority of cold characters (though for some reason not all...) is Category:Fictional elementals. While that is an interesting category, I feel it is too all-encompassing. If possible, you can put cold and flame inside elementals, but distinction should be made. Temperature-themed characters as a category is far too big. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Category:Fictional giants, I didn't make that, but I can see the necessity. Without 'fictional', the category might be used to classify humans of very large height. For example, the man who acted in Big Fish, Andre the Giant, or the Big Show. I'm afraid I don't really understand femme fatale, mutates (what's a mutate?). In regard to Wildcat being batman-inspired, I'll admit that might have been a mistake, in which case that can be removed from him, but most others do apply. Wildcat was iffy because I think they came about at roughly the same time. Batman was 3 years prior though. Wildcat was created by Bill Finger, who had an uncredited hand in creating Batman, so it's possible he recycled some of the ideas in Wildcat. They are both unpowered martial arts fighters in black animal costumes with ears, it does seem like a bit of a coincidence. They are of course wildly different today, but to say he's batman-inspired isn't really a big jump. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Batman inspired is not a suitable category for Wikipedia, as categories don't allow annotations you can't annotate why someone is added, and since category inclusion should be self-evident and non-controversial, I don't see how it can pass muster. The rest are just an example of over-categorisation, to my eye, but maybe that's best decided at WP:CFD. Hiding Talk 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the "fictional" categories are probably unneccisary. "Fictional widows and widowers"? What's the purpose? --InShaneee 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's a literature thing that goes beyond comics. It's just like you have fictional african-americans. They're methods to categorize them for people who are researching the subject, like african-americans in modern literature, or, widows in literature, studying the stereotypical representations and stuff. Tyciol 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's for research, then I would suggest lists would be better, categories are generally created for navigational purposes. Building lists would allow entries to be described and annotated within the context of the list's purview, which could also be better discussed and quantified than in a category, and thus suit the researcher's needs better. Hiding Talk 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In most cases, an article for a list will exist simultaneously with a category. The appropriate article exists as the main article ((Category:Blah| )) which describes the category. The problem with this is that it is generally more time-consuming and wasteful. The list would have to be added to every single character page as a reference, along with the character themselves being added to the list page. Adding categories is automatically organized into alphabetical order and fits with the wikipedia intent of organization more than lists. Tyciol 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Lists should not serve as main articles for categories, the main article for a category is meant to define the distinction, not the listing. Also, whilst there is overlap between lists and categories, they perform separate roles. Categories are for unambiguous classifications. Lists allow annotation. The adding of a see also section and link to the appropriate list is no more time consuming than adding a category tag to an article, and I would dispute that lists have to be in any semblance of order. That's what a table of contents is for. Areas of ambiguity, or where the commonality needs annoating are not areas to be discussed through the category system, that's the wikipedia intent of organization. Hiding Talk 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to start off, I'll volunteer, consensus pending, on A) blending the category "fictional ninjas" into "fictional martial artists" or B) creating the article "List of fictional martial artists". Any thoughts? -- Tenebrae 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, either way works for me. I'd probably prefer the blending since I do like Categories (tend to be easier to find), I just like them to have an underlying logic and structure and not be some sprawling mess.

Also in the starting off vein, several of us have put up the Fictional character by hair color" categories up for deletion and I've asked that Daredevil love interests be merged with DD supporting characters. Slowly but surely... CovenantD 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have love interests as a subcategory of supporting characters, since love interests are generally supporting characters? Some exceptions might be made like Talia and Catwoman to Batman since they're hardly supporting sometimes... a category probably isn't due except in the case of characters who have a lot of varied love interests with their own pages. In some cases love interests and supporting characters play such minor roles that they're just mentioned on the hero's page. Tyciol 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A love interest category is too subjective a distinction to make, and is also over-categorisation. The consensus appears to be against categories such as this. Hiding Talk 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And what do we all say about whether or not to keep "Category:Comic book mothers"? -- Tenebrae 02:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the precise word, but it would encapsulate disgust, shock, and something akin to road rage. Postdlf 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! And I agree.

Eh, not really, nothing wrong with the category. Odds are, there won't be many categories for comic book mothers anyway, so it's not like you're flooding. They play a subtle but important role in fiction. Tyciol 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, consensus dictates otherwise, as does categorisation policy. This category is illformed and unmanageable. Hiding Talk 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also just saw "Category:Fictional people with pyrokinesis". I can try and do something with that while I'm doing the martial-artist list, or is this just parsing categories way too finely? -- Tenebrae 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AND now I've just seen "Category:Fictional heroines" and "Category:Fictional blondes". The first would encompass a hundred thousand characters. The second just seems useless. Any thoughts toward some consensus on these? And may I just say: "Oy! What IS it with people!?" -- Tenebrae 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. -- I see that "Category:Fictional blondes" is already being considered for deletion. "Category:Fictional heroines" has only existed since this past February, and only three individuals (one of them a new user with no Talk or User page) have contributed the approx. 200 links. Any thoughts on this category's usefulness, or the need for? -- Tenebrae 10:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes" has just been created. I feel this just won't stop. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I created that last night after finding Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11#Category:Female heroines with names derived from pre-existing male characters to Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes. When I saw it, I thought it meant that the result was to create the new category in its place. Lots of these cataegories are terrible, and some of the good ones are poorly done. Now that I look at it again, I can't discern what is being said at all, actually. But I actually thought this was an interesting category; it seems like the sort of thing that might aid someone interested in writing a paper on the topic. Please correct me if you disagree. --Chris Griswold 14:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been deleted. I have recreated it. Arguments against Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes are largely an extension of the argument against Category:Fictional heroines. As that category still exists, subsectioning it is fine. If it it later deleted, that can be dealt with. On article pages, this category can replace Category:Fictional heroines, so there will be no extra categories. Tyciol 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied it as a recreation of a recently deleted page, speedy criterion G4. There has been consensus that this category should not exist, please do not recreate it. Hiding Talk 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reading above and seeing that perhaps a list is preferred. Any thoughts? --Chris Griswold 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the vote, as determined by an admin, was to delete the category. Now we have to go thru it again to delete the new category. CovenantD 18:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes to Category:Fictional heroines can quickly be concluded if Chris, as creator and sole contributor, agrees and indicates there that it can be speedily deleted. Hiding Talk 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Done Chris Griswold

I know naming conventions can be tricky, but I'm wondering if in keeping with the already in-place convention of following character names with parenthetical qualifiers like (Marvel Comics) or (DC Comics), the Ultimate character and team articles should be moved to articles with (Ultimate Marvel) after the characters' or teams' names. I recently created Ultimate Rogue and the thought came up. I figure this is the best place to post it. Psyphics 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is that the ultimate versions should be described in the parent article where at all possible. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive05#Ultimates.27 naming. We never got a consensus on whether to call them Spider-Man (Ultimate) or Ultimate Spider-Man. I lean to the latter. Hiding Talk 12:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding. The most common name should be used when possible, and for the Ultimate characters that's "Ultimate [Name of character]". --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, just checking. I figure people would probably search by typing "ultimate so-and-so" more often than the other possibility, so it'd save on redirects anyway. As for speaking of Ultimate characters in their parent article, I've figured it works that way until the differences between the two become "enough" to split them up, which I realize is subjective. Psyphics 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has any fashion model or TV series article in their watchlist has probably noticed that certain parties at Wikipedia are systematically removing virtually every magazine cover from the site. This is due to an omission (I contend it's an error) in the Fair Use image tag that indicates that magazine covers can only be used to illustrate articles about the magazine, not the people/films/etc. illustrated on the cover. Since comic books are also magazines, I wonder how long it'll be before we start losing them as well? I mean, OK I imagine an article on Superman that uses the cover to Superman No. 1 wouldn't lose that illustration ... however the historically significant cover to Action Comics No. 1 would need to be removed because the article isn't specifically about Action Comics. Ditto Batman and Detective Comics No. 27, Spiderman and Amazing Fantasy, Captain Marvel and Whiz Comics ... see where this is leading? If these images are considered safe, how did comics get around this? 23skidoo 12:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. First of all, comic covers are more like book or DVD covers in that respect. Also, the issues you mentioned are important to the articles and explicitly mentioned within the articles, while the covers currently being removed often are merely used for decorative purposes with no mentioning of the publication in the article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to who is doing it. We've discussed this here many times, and the fair use notice on ((comiccover)) still allows them in articles on the character's. However, people should realise that, per the policy at Wikipedia:Fair use they need to start writing on the image description page why they are using it under fair use provisions. If you use a cover of Wolverine in the Wolverine article, you need to place text along the lines of the following on the image description page:

This image is used in the article at insert article name here under fair use provisions. It is believed this use qualifies as fair use because:

• It illustrates the fictional character in question
• The fictional character exists only in illustrative form, the appearance being subject to copyright and trademark law
• The image is a low resolution image of a comic book cover
• A comic book cover is used by the company as a marketing tool, hence making the image somewhat promotional
• The digital representation of the cover here will not prevent the marketing of the actual physical constituent parts of the cover in question, nor of the intellectual properties associated with the cover or the characters portrayed there-upon.
• The image is used in an article which discusses the character and comic book to which this is the cover in a critical, educational manner.
• The cover represents only a small proportion of the comic book as a whole, and again a small proportion of all images of the character in question.
• No free alternative exists, since the likeness of the character is copyrighted.
• Finally:
  • Either This image is being used to illustrate the character displayed (this use can only apply to one image)
  • Or This image is used to illustrate a point discussed in the article, namely insert point being illustrated here (example would be first appearance in a new, iconic costume, or character being relaunched in new series)

You should also place a ((Non-free fair use in)) template on as well to cover your back. If such images are still deleted, after all that, let me know and I'll start a discussion about this once again. The reason the cover to Action Comics issue 1 should not be removed from Superman is because the issue is discussed critically in the article. But bear in mind, whilst a comic book cover is fair use to illustrate an article on the character's portrayed, this applies only if the image is tagged to make it clear it is the cover to X-Men #24 and also explain briefly why that image is used, for example, Wolverine's first cover appearance in new costume or whatever. And articles should have the fewest fair use images possible without reducing the illustrative points. We outlined a lot of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright but I'll maybe have a look at how to update that. Hiding Talk 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought ((Non-free fair use in)) should only be used when none of the other copyright tags apply...? --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. I do recall discussions to the effect that that template should be used in conjunction with others, in instances where the use wasn't covered by the tag or to strengthen the use of the tag. It appears the text at ((Comiccover)) To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use removes the latter point. Hiding Talk 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on this and I'm glad to see comics are well covered. Personally I have made the decision that I will no longer upload images of any kind and am seriously considering removal of all images that I have uploaded in the past (not referring to comics specifically here, to be clear). At least one other user appearst to have done his already in response to the removals. 23skidoo 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Should their alliance colors be villain or neutral? --DrBat 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to go with villain. They were both willing to kill entire worlds to get what they wanted. CovenantD 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going for villain too. Kusonaga 08:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They were definitely heroes originally, but villains now. The change wasn't explained well, either. Wilfredo Martinez 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the Infinite Crisis Secret Files? --DrBat 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have not, and trust me I looked around for it. I only know about it what I've read online. That's another of Infinite Crisis' problems- many important events/revelations happened in the wrong books (the death of Maxwell Lord is another example- it happened in Superman rather than in OMAC Project or Wonder Woman.) So, care to explain what happened? Did they really go insane from being cooped up in another dimension for a few years? Wilfredo Martinez 10:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go against the grain on this one. Comics, like all works of fiction, exist in an eternal present. References to the events of CoIE should be in the present, just as references to the events of IC should be in the present.

As such, the color of the infobox should be based on the emphasis on the article. Does the Superboy-Prime article/section focus on his role in IC, or his entire life? Likewise for Alex Luthor; does it cover both CoIE and IC, or just IC? If the prose covers both, it should be neutral, but if the prose only covers the villainous role, it should be villain. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see the harm in adding statistics from the Marvel Handbooks to Marvel charactes since they're published by the company itself. Most of the information stated in the section of these articles devoted to a character's superhuman abilities and special skills are derived from the Handbook to begin with. Some of the articles discuss virtually every detail about the character including fictional biographies, romantic relationships, key storylines, current events, and superhuman abilities and skills with excrutiating detail. Yet, why would something such as how much weight a character is capable of lifting be left out when practically everything else save their shoe size is included? Some have stated in the past that they should be removed in order to stop an editing war on the site, which hasn't been stopped. Many of the powers sections of the articles go into detail about other powers a character possesses. If a character has some degree of invulnerability, for example, it's discussed with infromation that's been gleamed from Handbooks or from websites that have gleamed the info from Handbooks. So, if all of this detail about a character is to be included from his/her parentage to relationships to personality, etc. then why should information on how much weight a character is able to lift be omitted if it's provided the the publisher itself? I've also heard some say that it violates copyright and licensing laws. I admit that I'm not extremely familiar with such things but I thought that only applied if you use something that isn't your creation and that you don't own in order to make money. If I'm wrong, then wouldn't copyright laws be violated by simply creating one of these articles to begin with? I consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia and I feel an encyclopedia should include as much factual information as possible about it's subjects. If we're going to include all this information, which I agree we should, then let's include ALL of it. I feel that a vote should be taken as to include Marvel Handbook the section of the articles needed, so long as they're stated within the Handbooks and not merely someone's opinion. Odin's Beard

Here we go again, person called Thricecube has been adding the header 'Characteristics' and putting in stuff like: Height: 6'3
Weight: 195lbs

Hair: Brown
Eyes: Brown (glow red)
Occupation: Adventurer (current), Radio announcer (former)
Place of Birth: Anchorage, Alaska
Identity: Known to certain government officials
(from the Cyclops (comics) page)

Are we going to delete this again? Kusonaga 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just assumed it was OR and deleted it from Cyclops (comics) and Colossus (comics). Psyphics 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is trivia at best, not a key feature of the character, unless one cannot read about him without being made aware of his birthplace, height and weight. A description of how he is portrayed by artists is relevant, however, so the hair/eye color could be properly discussed in that context. Thricecube needs to be reminded that these "statistics" are actually fiction, and not facts, and so they are meaningless as isolated statements. Postdlf 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and deleted all of these sections when it came to members of the X-Men, but I don't know how many more Marvel characters have been affected. Kusonaga 18:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy on use of solicitation material, such as ad copy and cover images/preview pages? This information often differs from the final product - for example, solicitations for Infinite Crisis, or even more serious, the original solicitations for the Green Lantern Emerald Twilight storyline. This isn't a news site, and it's not a spoiler site. I hope that we are holding to existing published material. Please point me to such a policy or collaborate with me on the creation of one. --Chris Griswold 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? Solicitation copy is a reliable source about itself and thus the discussion of such differences between the copy and the finished product in an article could certainly be encyclopedic. Hiding Talk 13:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a reliable source about itself, but not always about the contents of the issue in question. Covers are changed and storylines sometimes drastically altered by the time the issue sees print. I consider this in the same league as the discussions of actors that have been reported as being in talks to play characters in the upcoming Batman movies. I am concerned about the use of solicitation material when it comes to characters such as Supernova from the 52 series. Posting such information smacks of speculation or even guesswork. It seems neither professional nor encyclopedic. --Chris Griswold 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest to holding off on using solicitation material unless to compare between any drastic changes between solicitation and final release. Something in the lines of "Warren Ellis was scheduled to become the new permanent writer of Dr. Strange but unexpectedly quit after one issue" (this actually happened in 1995). --Pc13 11:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pc13 encapsulates the thrust of my point better than I was able to do. There has been precedent established in writing articles using solicitation material, news reports and press releases prior to the event, for example, 2007, Harry Potter: Book Seven and "Holy Terror, Batman!", although generally Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, if the information is sourced, written in a neutral point of view and isn't being used to make an original point, I think it's allowable. The information shouldn't be presented as fact however, and shouldn't be afforded greater weight than necessary. No article should be based solely on solicitation blurb, since Wikipedia does not allow advertising. Hiding Talk 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But in the instance of press releases outside of comics, the press release is usually much more reliable, partially because they are usually written after the product has been finished. In comics, this is often not the case. I honestly do not believe people come to Wikipedia for solicitation material. I know people have gone to Wikipedia for information on an unfamiliar character or idea presented in the comic they are reading, only to be spoiled for that very comic. It's reasonable to expect that might happen on an older comic, but not on the Wednesday the comic came out. We need to think about how people, including non-editors, are using this resource. At the very least, all solicitation material should be put inside a spoiler area, or a new template shouldbe created to address solicitation material. I am going to work on that tonight. --<b>Chris Griswold</b> 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, where such material may spoil something for a reader, the spoiler template should be used. That said, I believe the use of solicitation material to describe plot points is stretching beyond the limits in Wikipedia is not advertising. Such citations should not be verbatim, as they would be in violation of copyright, nor should they be verbose. A one sentence summary of the solicitation, to the effect that Foo comics has announced that issues surrounding Foobar's past will be revealed in a forthcoming issue, #whatever of SuperFoo. With a note citing the solicitation copy published in The Advance Catalogue in this month and this year. We shouldn't be writing that in issue whatever SuperFoo will discover that his teratanium antennae were grafted to his ears as part of the mysterious government project "Tool Y", run by the Sinister Mister. That's how I see an encyclopedia as being written, and I think that's grounded in the policies. Hiding Talk 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New spoiler warning template

When adding sales information for a yet-to-be-published comic, you may wish to precede it with ((Spoiler-solicitation)). This expands to:

I recently created Ultimate Rogue and in the process of doing so, added a portion comparing the Ultimate version to the Earth-616 version. The differences have not been reported in anything as differences specifically, to my knowledge, and reading over WP:NOR I am thinking I might be in breach of it. Can anyone comment on this? I did not favor one over the other or comment on anything, merely noted differences.Psyphics 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is original research since you clearly used the comics as a source. There's nothing "original" about it, you merely repeated information that's already found in the comics. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, similar to what we have for the X-Men, I've created a template for the Avengers, so I'd like it if ya'all would help out to implement it.

East Coast branch was never referred to as "East Coast Avengers", we don't use Roman numerals (see WT:NCC) and do we really need this in the first place? - SoM 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They were referred to as the East Coast branch in numerous issues of WCA, amongst other places. Roman numerals are used in the X-Men members template, and even then, it is easily fixed to include the character's name. Do we really need it? No, it is not necessary, but it is helpful, in my own opinion. Kusonaga 06:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

((Avengers members)) (Note: Template was deleted. —Centrx→talk • 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

To compare (although it is done alphabetically, as opposed to mine, based on chronology): (Kusonaga 10:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

((X-Men members)) (Note: Template was deleted. —Centrx→talk • 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Actually, it used to be chronological, but I alphebatized it yesterday. It easier to use that way, since a reader is more likely to know the character's name than when they joined. --Chris Griswold 10:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except it's been chronologicalized again, it seems. What do you think of having one for the Avengers? Kusonaga 10:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but because there are so many names on that list, you may want to break it up into three templates, one for each team. Each of these templates would be smaller and could list the members of that team but also link to the other two teams. --Chris Griswold 18:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting possibility as well. If I have time somewhere soon (exams and all), I'll break 'em up. Any other people that would like to comment? Kusonaga 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been working on it, but I'm not sure what to do with all those names, since there's already a list of Avengers members on Wikipedia that we can link to. --<b>Chris Griswold</b> 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I myself prefer the use of this template over the use of a see also: other Avengers. It's a handy navigation tool between Avengers articles. Kusonaga 09:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what's it gonna be?

I'm partial to just going on and inserting this template into the relevant articles... Kusonaga 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of squabbling lately over the choice of main images used on various characters pages (mainly female characters). Do we have a policy on this? If so, what is it/where can I find it? If not, I would like to begin work on one, so we have some guiding principles to refer to. --Chris Griswold 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Several of these seem to be the result of Rorschach567 (talk • contribs) uploading unsourced images. If you see someone uploading an unsourced image, please revert (to a version with sourced/licenced images) or upload a new, sourced image. I've done Shadowcat, but it's too late for me to do any others tonight. - SoM 02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion before, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive08#Bias towards recent images and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive07#Dazzler. No real consensus has formed on either position, although my understanding of fair use is that we're better off using the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume, and using a noteworthy image, either well discussed or used in many other sources, or a promotional piece of artwork the copyright holders have released for promotional purposes. Those are the areas where our use is most likely to be deemed as fair. Hiding Talk 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

When discussing a specific issue, please use literary present. For more information, please see [1]. --Chris Griswold 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I feel I need to add, now that this has become a more understood and accepted idea (myself included) that this does not apply only to individual issues, but any event which is shown in the present tense. And, as Understanding Comics points out, everything shown in a comicbook is in present tense. However, you may use the past tense when discussing events that take place in a specific story's past. You are essentially using the story as a point of reference for "now". But, as I said, it is only if you are anchoring your discussion in a specific story, which might be useful in a section or an article concerning that story. --Chris Griswold 19:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Just to clarify and expand, Chris is right, and this is a part of policy on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read and exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense. Hiding Talk 09:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Regardless of Wikipedia policy, these are past events. Writing about past events in present tense makes no sense, and is confusing to the reader. But since it is a strict policy, I will not protest Chris' changes. However, I do feel my original article (which was edited heavily from other major contributors) was more accurate and effective. In the present state, the article is not fluid and is jumbled in some areas. We can work on the present tense edits together, but the details and descriptions should remain the same. Cheeto74 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called editing boldly. I took the information that was there. We don't need to know that a couple found Jason Todd; we just need to know he ended up in a hospital. It's important to write that he was homeless, and that he began to regain his memory when another homeless man attacked him; it's not quite as pressing to say that he was sleeping specifically in an alley or that the fight started becaues he was "in the man's spot." And I don't need to know all the details of the criminal's life, only that he recognized Jason and informed Talia. This section detailing the events of a single comic book took up much more room than was needed. Now, all the important information is still there, but it's shorter, and flowery, awkward language like "bestowed upon him a kiss" is gone. I'm really sorry if you're feelings were hurt, but it was awkward and long and in the wrong tense, and now it isn't. Instead of repeatedly deleting all the work I did, it might have been nice to work with what I had done - or add something at all to the article instead of merely subtracting. Please stop complaining and do some work, dude. Or at the very least, explain what you think needs to be changed and keep the insulting comments to yourself. --Chris Griswold 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

uh, okay. then there is a lot to fix. the whole Superman article is past tense after the intro. John Henry Irons... Spider-man. ugh. someone should've said something earlier. i don't feel like doing it, so get to work chris. Exvicious 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been. See: Titans (comics, Superboy (Kon-El), Alexander Luthor, Professor X, and Batman. I am also putting together a list of common grammatical errors primarily seen in this Wikiproject. --Chris Griswold 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're might be problems putting it in present tense. When you go through a character history, it all can't be happening at the same time. I can see in storyline descriptions like Legends (comics) and Infinite Crisis where present tense makes sense. A lot of times a past event is implied, and then it is described in the present tense. For example, here's a Wonder Girl exerpt put in present tense:

Cassie heavily idolizes Donna Troy, the original Wonder Girl, and to that effect wears a black wig over her natural blonde hair (it also helps to conceal her identity). Donna gives Cassie the second costume she wears as Wonder Girl, but Cassie is afraid to wear it lest it were ruined (she dons the outfit during the "Sins of Youth" crossover when she is temporarily aged to adulthood).

She wears two costumes if stated in present tense. I'm not saying it's wrong to write it that way, we just have to be careful.

How about: Cassie emulates Donna Troy, the original Wonder Girl, whom she idolizes, by wearing a black wig over her natural blonde hair. (This also helps to conceal her identity). Donna later gives Cassie her second Wonder Girl costume, but Cassie is afraid to wear it lest she ruin it. She first dons the outfit during the "Sins of Youth" crossover when she is temporarily aged to adulthood. I think that works just fine. --Chris Griswold 05:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Check your fiction. "In early stories, Cassie idolizes Donna Troy, the original Wonder Girl, and emulates her by wearing a black wig over her naturally blonde hair. (This wig also helps to conceal her identity. In a later story, Donna gives Cassie her second costume. While Cassie is initially afraid to wear it lest she ruin it, she first dons it in the "Sins of Youth" crossover when she is temporarily aged to adulthood." I don't see the problem with something like that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That works, too. "Check your fiction?" --Chris Griswold 07:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Place your fiction in a real-world context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some anon-users are pushing to have it mentioned in Claremont's article that its rumored he gets fisted by prostitutes dressed up as Storm. Any help with this one? --DrBat 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist and I'll protect it if necessary. Gamaliel 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look up the source later, but I certainly remember this being mentioned on a comic news site before as having actually happened... - SoM 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this, but just as a general thing, I'd ask anyone contributing to an encyclopedia to stop and think: How could anyone IMAGINE mentioning something about an individual's private sex life — even if it somehow were relevant — without being absolutely, concretely, 100% sure? Would any of us want someone to do that in an article about us? And please think also: Just because a comic news site may have mentioned soemthing doesn't make it verifiable on an encyclopedic level. I don't mean to get down on you, SoM; you're a longtime contributor whom I've considered a responsible person. That's why I'm so surprised that such standards aren't self-evident. Thanks for taking a deep breath, a step back, and another look. -- Tenebrae 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't added it and plan on steering well clear of the actual wikifight (note I made a careful point of phrasing it so I didn't state it as a fact, merely that I remember it being reported somewhere, which I do - it lead to quite the flame war on an X-Men board I visit) - if I did, I would have added it long ago when I could remember where I had read it. It was just a mention in passing that I'm sure I had read it somewhere before and was wondering aloud what the context was. - SoM 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. NetK made character-specific versions of ((GreenLantern)) (((HalJordan)), ((KyleRayner)), and possibly others) and implemented them in one single article each (sigh). He then removed GreenLantern from every article in which it appears, then nominated it for deletion.

His argument, a valid one, is that ((GreenLantern)) included too many character-specific links; it has now been trimmed down (by NetK) to pertain to topics concerning the Green Lanterns as a whole.

Right now, though, we have an unused navbox, at least two templates that serve as nothing more than a "See also" list, and an unannounced TFD on ((GreenLantern)), and a huge mess. Any advice on cleaning this up? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new GL template...I say put that on all the GL pages and TfD the others. --InShaneee 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article desperately needs to be reduced (WP:AS). There are too many unencyclopedic (useless) and repeated info. Take a look at sections "Modern Age" and "Modern origin and history". —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who knows a lot about the character flesh out her history pre-OYL on the Catwoman page? --DrBat 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks. The latest issue of Teen Titans (#36) reveals that longtime Titan Mal Duncan, formerly known as Herald, is now going by the name Vox. Should his article be moved from Herald (comics) to Vox (comics), to Malcolm Duncan or kept where it is? Please discuss at Talk:Herald (comics). Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that an article is now up for the venerable Stan Goldberg, longtime artist for Archie Comics and Marvel's Millie the Model. Enjoy, flesh out more, etc. -- Tenebrae 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New Shadowhawk, Girls, Freshmen, Rising stars, Hard Time, The American Way--Brown Shoes22 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Good to have these additions. No Shadowhawk previously? Amazing. -- Tenebrae 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, Rising Stars does have an article. I guess it could just use a redirect from Rising stars.Newt 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the URLs for that incredible resource, the The Grand Comics Database (a.k.a. The Grand Comic Book Database; both names appear on the site), is no longer operational.

If you go to http://comics.org, you will get an Apple OS page. The working URL is http://www.comics.org. If you run across the other URL, please update it. -- Tenebrae 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I has to removed spoilers for the new X-Men movie from the Professor X entry three times last night. This movie only came out yesterday. Do we need to spoil it already?--Chris Griswold 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

...Yeah. This is an encyclopedia, so any relevant information should be added as soon as possible, I'd think. Nothing wrong with throwing up a spoiler tag. --InShaneee 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this one for a while.

• A single page that gives background info on superhuman prisons in comics mainly DC and Marvel, places like Belle Reve, the Slab, Enclave M, and so forth.
• As well as one for enhancer/catalyst drugs like MGH, Kick, Furballs, Tar, Venom, Gingold, Miraclo, Krotan, Vitamin X, etc.
• And two separate consolidated pages for government institutions in the DC Universe and Marvel where we'd have smaller groups like the ASA, DEO, and CBI. The bigger agencies like Shield and Checkmate already have their own pages. Basique 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that could work. I've been vaguely surprised the DEO doesn't have its own article. --Chris Griswold 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All great ideas. Go for it. Hueysheridan 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks guys, I'll gather up the source text and create them next weekend. Basique 00:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently listed the confused category Category:World War II superheroes for deletion; see CFD nomination here. A couple voters have suggested transforming it into a category for superheroes created during the golden age, so I thought I'd invite comments here so that a sensible structure for categorizing when a character was created can be developed. By year? By decade? By "age" (e.g., golden, silver, etc.)? Postdlf 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not by Age - those are so ill-defined as to make them worse than useless. CovenantD 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to start work on an article listing villains whom the Doom Patrol has opposed. (The Doom Patrol article currently has an extensive list of villains from Grant Morrison's run on the title, which is a bit too detailed for the article but would fit well in a list-style article. I also think that folks like the Animal-Vegetable-Mineral Man or Mr. 103 would fit better in a list of Doom Patrol villains than in individual articles, per the guidelines at WP:FICT.)

I was wondering whether there's any particular format I should follow in article naming or structure. Does the WikiProject like the format at Enemies of Superman and Enemies of Batman, or, since the DP's history is easily divided into eras by author, would a chronological approach by author be OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With Doom Patrol particularly, I think it is smart to list them by era. You can always list a character, and if it was previously used, you can write, "See above." --Chris Griswold 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest problem I have with the comics pages on wikipedia is the lack of an overarching structure. You have some characters who have played multiple superheroes (or supervillains). You have some superheroes (or supervillains) who have been played by multiple characters (or secret identities). Then there's the question of whether a "secret identity" needs its own character page distinct from the superhero entry, i.e. one to focus on the person "behind the mask" and one to focus on the public persona (although even this falls apart, e.g. Jonah Hex). Not unexpectedly, things get quite confusing.

In particular, it is hard to tell which sets of stories are related to others and frequently cross-appear in monthly titles. It's clear that such a "mini-universe" happens around Superman, Batman, Justice League, Spider-Man, or the X-Men. Take, for example, Batman: We have the regular Bat-books, but we also have Catwoman, Birds of Prey, etc. I'd like to propose that we officially recognize these "mini-universe" as Milieu entry pages that discuss common themes and interactions between characters in that Milieu. For example, entries for Gotham City Milieu (comics), Mutant Milieu (comics), Metropolis Milieu (comics), Green Lantern Milieu (comics), Justice League Milieu (comics), Spider-Man Milieu (comics) would all be welcome to provide a portal into various related sub-topics (very roughly shown below).

Green Lantern Milieu (comics)

Publisher: DC Comics

Premise: Superheroes that wield power ring weapons capable of making 'hard-light' green creations, the people who created these power rings, the galactic defense corps they created, and topics related to these superheroes.

Themes: <blah>

Titles:

• Green Lantern (Vol. 1)
• Green Lantern (Vol. 2)
• Green Lantern (Vol. 3)
• Green Lantern Corps Quarterly
• Green Lantern Mosaic

Major Characters:

• Alan Scott (hero, golden age)
• Hal Jordan (hero, silver age; vilain, modern age)
• Guy Gardner (hero/antagonist)
• John Stewart (hero)
• Kyle Rayner (hero, modern age)

Supporting Cast:

• Thomas Kalmaku
• Carol Ferris

Major Nemeses:

• Goldface
• Sinestro
• Star Sapphire

Related Entries:

• Green Lantern Corps
• Guardians of the Universe
• Justice League
• Justice Society
• Power Ring (weapon)
• Oa

Thoughts? Jester 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this something that the Green Lantern article itself can't organize? It looks like it covers most of this, (though I don't see a clear section for comic book titles) with separate sections for each of the GLs that then link to main articles on each. The same would go for the rest of the articles that are franchise "parents," such as Batman, X-Men, etc. I don't like us inventing a "milieu" system. This is just a matter of editing the articles effectively, and organizing the more in-depth coverage of each element into effective subtopic articles (e.g., List of Superman comics, Flash's Rogues Gallery). Postdlf 01:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Chris Griswold 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone's just (in the last twenty minutes) moved X-Factor to X-Factor (superhero) because "it isn't notable enough." From the non-standard (disambig) bit, I think it's safe to say this is not a "comics guy" - and I've just checked, he hasn't bothered fixing the redirects (including double-redirects).

Can an admin please move this back for the nonce, and start a WP:RM on the change? If consensus goes to move to X-Factor (comics) [itself now a double-redirect], fine, but it should be taken "properly" rather than stuck on a non-standard page from someone else's whim. A RM this way round will default to leaving it on the non-standard page, and hands up the guy who wants to fix the redirects three times. - SoM 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the disambiguation pages for X-Factor now redirect to X Factor. Any pages specifically about the comic book that link there, should be fixed to link to X-Factor (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)