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.

There has been some renaming recently. Any thoughts on where we should go with these characters' articles? I've only wikified the current title for the character's entry: Jamie Reyes / Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes) / Blue Beetle (Modern Age)? Alan Scott / Green Lantern (Alan Scott) / Green Lantern (Golden Age)? Jay Garrick / Flash (Jay Garrick) / Flash (Golden Age)? Ted Kord / / Blue Beetle (Ted Kord) / Blue Beetle (Silver Age)? Michael Holt / Mister Terrific (Michael Holt) / Mister Terrific (modern)? --Chris Griswold 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I shared my opinion on the Jay Garrick page and that seems to have led directly to the exact opposite being done on the Blue Beetle and Mister Terrific articles. CovenantD 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Garrick, I left that alone for the time being since he does often serve as a supporting character to other Flashes (which might cause confusion to readers) and he was listed in the JLA/JSA hardcover role call as "Jay Garrick". On the other hand, if you saw Justice League Unlimited and wanted to look up Mr. Terrific, it's awfully inconvenient if the article is named "Michael Holt" and he not only isn't called that in the show, but he's predominantly referred to by his superhero name in the comics themselves. I mean, the name "Mr. Terrific" is on his jacket, for Christ's sake.

Wiki naming convetions ask that we give article a name most people would recognize, and in the case of a lot of these examples, the current names are pretty insular. It's one thing if the article on Hal Jordan is named "Hal Jordan"; he's had a number of notable aliases and in the years following Emerald Twilight he's become just as known by his real name (such as the prevalence of HEAT suggest). On the other hand, if you're not a comics fan you won't know who a lot of these people are, and that's what concerns me. WesleyDodds 09:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But if you look up "Mr. Terrific", you get an article about the two characters who use that name. From there, you can choose to read more about Michael Holt. --Chris Griswold 09:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Mr. Terrific, a separate ambiguation page already exists, so both pages could be listed there and the two articles could be made more specific to the characters. Or the pages could be merged (which I was considering; they were the same entry before and seperately they don't contain much information). It's really a case-by-case basis, but there's a number of factors to consider. For example, my latest reaction to the naming of character pages was heightened by browsing the Categories, which don't disambiguate. So if you look up the category on Justice League members, you get listings of Hal Jordan, Connor Hawke, Wally West, Ted Kord, and lots of other such naming approaches. WesleyDodds 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall I think words like Golden Age, Silver Age and Modern Age are not specific enough. As I pointed out with Jay Garrick, he's had more appearances and been more active since the end of the Golden Age than during. And what exactly is "the Modern Age?" Is it different from the Bronze Age? The Dark Age? The Diamond Age? As noted here, it's not clear. I prefer the trend towards "real names" being used for the character's article when there's more than one character with that code name. CovenantD 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So how about something like Flash (Jay Garrick)? Thinking in terms of disambiguation, variations on the same basic concept still tend to have the primary name listed. So even though there are films, games, and TV shows named after Spider-Man, they are all listed as Spider-Man (insert detail here). Also a lot of these characters, including Garrick, were published under their superhero names. For 15 years he was the only Flash, starring in Flash Comics and All-Flash. It's not like he's had any other identity; he's not Hank Pym. And when it comes to writing the actual text of the article, it seems rather fannish if the character is continually referred to by his cilvian name, especially if it isn't used much if at all outside of the comics. WesleyDodds 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You raise very good points. We are talking about revamping the entire Naming Conventions for Comics, so I'm interested to find out what others think. CovenantD 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the community should have voted before all these recent changes. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's done now. So what do we do with them? Move them back, leave them, revamp the naming conventions (which need work anyway IMO)... ? User:CovenantD 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We also have to address the inconsistency that exists, ie. Hal Jordan, Connor Hawke, Terry Sloane vs. Ant-Man (Scott Lang), The Sandman (DC Comics Golden Age)/The Sandman (DC Comics Silver Age)/The Sandman (DC Comics Modern Age), Starman (Ted Knight)/Starman (Jack Knight). WesleyDodds 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing as the naming convention for comics directs people here if there's a confusion or problem I'm confused as to why these moves are taking place if there's no clear idea on how to solve it. Certainly, the issue of the usage of the "age" terms is one that probably should be re-examined, they aren't conveniently defined and should be phased out. I have no real preference on any other suggestions except that I have a preference against using roman ordinals. The spirit for naming conventions is to use the simplest name possible. That should guide us as to how best to approach this problem. All points of view have limits and areas where confusion will creep in, but we should avoid being over-specific in our disambig phrases where possible, I would hate to see arguments over whether Guy Gardner is more identified with Guy Gardner (Green Lantern) or Guy Gardner (JLA) when Guy Gardner (comics) would solve such arguments, so I still see (comics) as being the first point of call for a disambig phrase. The options after that all have equal merit. It may be easier to use the character's no super-hero identity, since I don't really buy the idea that the casual browser is going to be in any way confused as to where the article on Jay Garrick should lie, they are most likely to browse their way to the page from the Flash page. However, the reverse could also apply, that Flash (Jay Garrick) is just as easily found in the same manner, but, since the point of the naming conventions is that "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I think we have to go with the idea that the majority of English speakers who are familiar with the topic will expect the article at Jay Garrick, and since that is the easiest name for linking, I would suggest that the naming policy directs us to use the character's non super-hero identity wherever possible. Remember, redirects are free. Hiding Talk 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posed a question on that talk page about setting up tables for members and ordering them chronologically, but haven't gotten a response. Somebody did a good job of adding given names and I want to expand on that. I thought I'd bring it up here because it touches on how membership lists should be ordered, by date or alphabetically. Are there guidelines for this? CovenantD 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the resounding lack of a response, I'm going ahead. CovenantD 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could members from this project just take a decision as to whatthey want done with this template? I closed the nomination as improper, but it is left unused as of now. Circeus 03:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'd delete it. This is what categories are for. And article text with links to related topics. Postdlf 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again I bring the issue on alternate reality info in the SHB. User 69.60.189.202 (talk · contribs) has recently made several edits regarding the Justice Leagues storyline. If we begin including these kind of info, this is going to be a mess. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "Justice Leagues" an alternate reality storyline? --Chris Griswold 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it was a mindwipe-story.

It was also crap, but that's beside the point - SoM 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but all that crap *lol* has happened only in their minds. Kinda alternate reality, but it was a mindwipe. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 03:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm going to make sure that Superman is noted as having been in JLApe. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I remember it as they were made to forget about the JLA, started forming their own JLAs (Batman's was particuarly stupid), but it all happened, and their memories were fixed at the end. - SoM 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the Terra page be modified so it reads as one Terra? It was pretty much confirmed the second Terra was the original one. --DrBat 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Or sort of a clone, something like that. I think the second one didn't have the memories of the original. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

From TitansTower.com:

The orb was sent by the Time Trapper, who revealed that Mirage, Deathwing and Terra were from this timeline, not an alternate timeline, as they had thought - which is why they survived the time crisis. Mirage was actually a runaway street urchin from Brazil. Mirage had been implanted with false memories by the Time Trapper and turned into a "sleeper agent" who would fight the villainous Monarch in the coming Zero Hour event. The Time Trapper also revealed that Terra was from this timeline as well. The Trapper explained: "Terra, you come from this time period. I found you moments befo--". At that point, Terra destroyed the orb, not wanting to know the truth about her past.

Curious about the Time Trapper's message, Terra visited the first Terra's graveside soon after, only to find an empty coffin! Could this new Terra actually be the original, traitorous Titan? Was her origin in Chaos' false future a complete and utter sham? What was the Time Trapper about to reveal concerning her past? These questions have plagued this second Tara Markov, and she was unsure if she even wanted to discover the true answers.

While staying in Markovia, Terra II had the Markovian scientists conduct a D.N.A. test to discover, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if she was the original Terra. Terra II was frightened at the prospect that she could be this psychopathic traitor. Her brother Geo-Force received the test results. He mercifully told Terra that the results are negative, when they were, in fact, postive. At the present time, Geo-Force is the only one aware of this information.

Judging from all this, most of the information points to her being the real Terra.--DrBat 00:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I think that's a safe idea. --InShaneee 23:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm prodding this article about a comic because notability isn't clearly established. I'm also not sure if it is a webcomic or paper comic. Described as a "cult classic" in the article. To me that says it is only significant in a small niche, and I can't size the niche. GRBerry 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just by checking out the categories I found out what Viz really is, and it's this: Viz (comic). You'll find a lot more characters with the same issues you described if you follow the Viz characters category. Considering the length of the Viz article though, I think a case can easily by made for notability. Kusonaga 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came across Super-Soldier, and I am kind of surprised that it exists. Parts of the article are from an in-world perspective, with regard to comicbooks fitionally published by the fictitious publisher Amalgam Comics. These characters are just derivatives of existing DC and Marvel characters who make maybe a handful of appearances, and they really ought to be merged into the applicable sections of those articles (cross-overs, alternate versions) where appropriate. --Chris Griswold 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've put in a line or so on the Captain America page to mention Super-Soldier. Haven't done so on Superman, because the article doesn't already contain an "alternate versions" section - I guess this either means there aren't any (in which case there's not much point in creating a new section just to mention Super-Soldier) or that I'll need to find out what other alternate Supermen there are. Also, should we serve a "deletion" or a "merge" notice on Super-Soldier? Gamesmaster 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As part of a noteworthy historical comics crossover event as Amalgam Comics was, Super-Soldier certainly deserves a mention in Wikipedia. Certainly, there's more relevance (and material) on this character than there is on actual but more obscure comics characters that are already included in Wikipedia. Whether he deserves his own entry is debatable, though, and certainly writing an article as if he had been an actual historical comics character is misleading. Wilfredo Martinez 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree he deserves mention, but an whole article of such length seems a bit much for a character that only existed as alternative versions of two others, and doesn't exist anywhere outside of the Amalgam Comics reality, which doesn't exist anymore in comics continuity as far as I know. Gamesmaster 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking List of Amalgam characters is long overdue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --Chris Griswold 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just been checking through the list of requested articles and I came across something called "superpowers comparison." I'm not 100% sure what it wants. Does it want comparisons of superpowers themselves, or of the heroes who have them? Should it be anything more than a list of superpowers, and if so, is it really required, given that we already have one of those? It sounds a bit non-encylopedia, more like the sort of poll you'd get on a fansite rather than on Wikipedia. Thought I should open this up for discussion before I try to do anything with it. Gamesmaster 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should compare flying with invisibility? --Chris Griswold 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a completely useless original research magnet to me... --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably somebody wanting game stats, Official Handbook info or a DC/Marvel comparison (e.g. Superman v Hulk). I say it doesn't need to exist. CovenantD 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers? Oh, please, I say no. Definitely no. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. Any reason why I can't remove it? Gamesmaster 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quickly, very quickly. CovenantD 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gamesmaster 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed three naming trends in a multitude of entries that give me pause:

1. Secret Identities / Code Name Switch - It is easy to do: Editors need to be careful to introduce a character's second name if they are going to switch back and forth between them. Not sure what the policy is on this sort of thing. When using a character's real name in its own entry, I personally prefer to use the first name, and I prefer to use the full name or the last name when referring to a character in a separate entry.
2. Nicknames - Editors writing about a superhero sometimes refer to the character by a nickname(Spidey, the Masked Manhunter), despite this nickname never having been introduced in the article. Regardless of whether it is, in fact, explained as a nickname, it seems too informal and unencyclopedic.
3. Middle names - From time to time, I notice an editor seeding entries with middle names. These have appeared in SHBs, in introductory sentences, and sometimes even throughout the article. These incidents invariably occur with characters who do not regularly use their middle name. Additionally, I sometimes see edits that reverse these, but I am not clear on the convention for the usage of names like "Bruce Thaddeus Wayne".

Thoughts? --Chris Griswold 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Middle names certainly aren't important unless they've been used consistenly, since comic writes are bound to contradict them. For example, for years it was maintained that Bruce Wayne didn't have a middle name, so I'm not sure where that reference of "Thaddeus" comes from. WesleyDodds 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1) All Secret Identities and Code Names should be in the first sentence of the article. No exceptions.

2) An easy fix is to place qualifiers where a nickname is first used, e.g., "Spidey, as he's sometimes called, is one of Marvel Comics..." Another possibility is to place a nicknames line in the SHB, but I think that could quickly get out of hand.

3) Don't include middle names unless you note on the talk page where you found it. They are too easy a target of stealth vandals. CovenantD 12:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The general MoS Biographical style guidelines are to use surname, but of course, these aren't strictly biographical articles. I'd still be tempted to use Surname, as first name sounds a little too informal for an encyclopedia article to me.

2) On a similar thread, I also find nicknames too informal to be used to refer to the character later in the article, although they may be notable enough to mention that they are used.

3) I broadly agree with CovenantD on this one. If a middle name is strongly verifiable, I'd use it in the first mention of the character's name (as the style is for a standard bio article), but otherwise leave it out. I would never use it to refer to the character after the first mention. — Estarriol ^talk 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I say, if a specific issue can be cited to establish a middle name, then it should go in. If there is an explicit contradiction among writers/issues that can be cited, then the "sometimes" format can be used, as in (sometimes given as...), which I've seen people use with the Intro's first line on WP. Nightscream 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention the nomination of Batman for FARC. Please leave your comments or try to improve the article to avoid defeaturing it. Joelito (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created an article for longtime DC artist Howard Purcell — who drew the cover of the Golden Age Green Lantern #1, co-created Sargon the Sorcerer, DC's Enchantress and other characters, and whose work appears on the cover of the just-release All Star Archives Vol. 0 — yet I might have reached a dead end. I'm finding little material on him online or in the print sources I've had a chance to consult so far.

I can't even find his birth and presumed death dates (which is a sad truth of many of the old professionals who died before the current mainstream interest in comics; see George Klein (comics)). I also can't track down so far if he's any relation to present-day artist Gordon Purcell.

If anyone has any source material on Howard Purcell, it'd be great to flesh out the article with some additional biographics basics of his life, education, and career. Thanks! --Tenebrae 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have archived articles up until three weeks ago.--Chris Griswold 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I move that we fold the animated versions of DC's characters into the character's main article. There is no reason we need separate entries for these derivatives. Current disputes can be seen at Talk:Power Girl and Talk:Animated Series Batman. Previously, Hawkgirl (animated).--Chris Griswold 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's absolutely no reason to give these characters their own page. Kusonaga 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Postdlf 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Hawkgirl merge was turned down. And there is strong support on the Power Girl talk page not to integrate her DCAU counterpart Galatea, despite her obvious basis in the character. (Appearance, mention of bustline, relationship to Supergirl as an alternate version of her.) --Chris Griswold 02:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Except for space reasons. Most of the animated versions have too little material based on them to deserve their own article. But others are distinct characters with a long career behind them. The animated John Stewart, for example, should just be listed in the John Stewart (Comics) article. On the other hand, adding the Animated Batman material to the parent Batman article would just bloat it out even more. Wilfredo Martinez 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is Batman in other media as another tier separate from the Batman main article. And beyond that, there are articles on the separate animated shows, which could possibly be expanded into articles on seasons, and individual episodes (if this hasn't already been done). The character article can just explain the basics of the animated character without getting into a play-by-play of everything that character had been through. The complete "biography" that Animated Series Batman attempts is mostly inappropriate in-world fiction and OR inferences at any rate. Postdlf 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can just do a blanket merge. I agree that we probably should in the case of characters where the names, characters and etc are sufficiently similar or identical, but there's some cases certainly where the animated "versions" of characters are different enough that there's a case for separate articles. For example, I personally would think that Galatea is sufficiently separate from Power Girl to keep them in separate articles. Gamesmaster 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some characters, despite surface similaries, were created for the animated series (see Galatea (Justice League Unlimited) and should have their own article. Most others are just slight variations of the comics characters. These should be incorporated into the characters entries (Main page, Other media, Cultural references, etc.). I think a blanket policy is incorrect in this instance. CovenantD 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that stance. I've read that Galatea was created because the JLU writers wanted to use Power Girl but her origin wasn't settled yet, and DC wanted the on-screen characters to match the comic versions. I need to find a hard copy of this claim, though. --Chris Griswold 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the only reason an animated version should get their own article is when it's a part of their own show (ie, versions of Batman can be discussed at whatever length is neccisary on the article of his animated series). --InShaneee 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For his time-consuming volunteer efforts organizing WikiProject Comics, his lending a helping hand to many newbies and others, and his efforts on the entire history of comics and not just what's popular now, I've nominated Hiding for a Wikihalo award. Please see details and give your comments here. I have notified the nominee. -- Tenebrae 13:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominee withdrew, and I respectfully accept his decision. -- Tenebrae 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Newest category I'd suggest for deletion: "Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers|Fury, Nick" -- Tenebrae 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS IMPORTANT! You underestimate that category's importance to a one-eyed child! --Chris Griswold 18:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A whole category dedicated to a pirate accessory with only one pirate? --Newt 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A travesty! --Chris Griswold 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a credible reason and I'll list it. CovenantD 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a totally unnecessary category? It's based around a single pirate accessory? There's just not enough people for it? Will any of these do? Gamesmaster 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There may be enough people for it. It could be early in the life of that category. It seems trivial, but if there could be some sort of running theme for the characters that requires an eyepatch of them it may not be. --Newt 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been another round of edit wars over these, over what makes a good pic, etc. Here's what I suggest makes a good SHB picture:

1. Follow the fair use criteria, especially the Images that cannot be fair use guidelines. These supersede all the following criteria. Also, source your images fully (including all applicable from issue/page/panel, scan source, web source) and give a fair use rationale.
2. Ensure that the picture clearly shows as much of the character as possible:
   • The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best.
   • If a full-body shot is unavailable, the picture must show the whole of the head and torso (or the equivalent for non-humanoid characters).
   • Visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances.
   • Pictures which hide significant areas of the character in shadow should be avoided (exceptions apply only where the shadow is itself part of the character's look - e.g. Raven.), as should pictures where blur or distortion effects are applied.
   • Colouring should be neutral - pictures which have a heavy colour cast, or otherwise depict the character with false colours should not be uploaded unless the cast has been removed first.
   • Heavily stylised art should only be considered for use when the character is closely associated with the style to the exclusion of less extreme styles.
3. Pictures which have more characters and/or objects than the subject of the article should only be used if the subject is the most prominent object - editing the picture, by cropping, obscuring and/or painting out the other characters may help to ensure this.
4. If the character has a clearly-defined primary costume (e.g. Superman), a picture of this should be used. Otherwise, the most recent ongoing costume of the character should be used.

Thoughts? - SoM 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll third that. Gamesmaster 09:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the sound of this, but I have a question - would this mean the current picture on Spider-Man should be replaced? It's contorted, and the colors are not really what I would call neutral. (On the other hand, one could argue that a contorted Spider-Man image summarizes him better than a standing one.) Tinderblast 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "yeah", it should be - after all, his arm cuts across his chest so we can't see the whole costume. - SoM 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The current lead image adds no information; use the Amazing Fantasy #15 cover instead. The costume is in full view, and it's the most historically important issue for the character so we have the strongest fair use for using it. Postdlf 02:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The current AF15 image is from a reprint (you can tell - the original was coloured differently, especially in the background).

Plus, there have been numerous small changes to the costume over time - the most notable being that the chest logo was changed in the early 1980s, a change which has stuck to the present day, even in flashbacks to before the change. - SoM 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of possibilities from recent covers, then (either one would have to be smaller, obviously):

http://spiderfan.org/cgi-bin/cover.pl?12312,spiderman_amazing_v2,054.jpg

http://spiderfan.org/cgi-bin/cover.pl?12312,spiderman_amazing_v2,053.jpg

Both have much softer lighting and show Spidey "in action" without contorting him too much. Thoughts?

Been changed since (from the JSC ASMv2 #50 cover to an excerpt from the Frank Cho ASM v2 #47 cover). I'm fine with the new one. (correction, an anon one had reverted. I've changed back again) - SoM 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, can someone do something about the image on Two-Face? It isn't very representative at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it ok that I gave the character Demona a SHB box? She isn't really a comicbook character, though the series' creator Greg Weisman is continuing the Gargoyles continuity in a comicbook series this summer. --DrBat 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Facto is trying to delete my images, saying "Since interior pages are actually the content being sold, they have to be used sparingly." Is this true, and is this a valid enough reason to delete images? --DrBat 23:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that there's definitely less of a fair use claim to interior images than covers because the covers are displayed to the world and identify the product, while the interior content is the product. However, copying a single panel, like a cover, just copies a small part of the complete work, placing it in the context of an informative article because it illustrates something key about the subject matter is transformative, and there is no independent commercial market for single comics panels for such a use to supplant. So fair use arguments can be made, as long as you are careful about selecting comics panels not because they are neat, but because they are important to the article. And use them sparingly. Postdlf 23:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So is something like image:jean.png fa? --DrBat 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad choice of image to represent Jean Grey, especially since the red [Dark] Phoenix costume is primary - and brings up the whole Jean vs Phoenix thing.

Leaving that aside for a moment, I'm not sure (although one could argue that picking a bad image is in and of itself bad on FU grounds). I think some of your other images (e.g. Image:Polaris426.PNG, which, as someone said on the article talk, could be reduced to just the speech balloons without losing anything) are on pretty shaky ground if someone made a determined challenge. - SoM 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good choice; it's more confusing than informative, and the total lack of any identifiers as a panel of a comic book (was this a splash page?) such as captions, speech balloons, etc., makes it more like a stand-alone poster image than a fragment. I also agree with the over-emphasis on Phoenix, which is endemic throughout the whole article; most of the images significantly overlap in what they depict.

I don't know that you're responsible for the overall image selection for the article, but it's interesting that a 40+ year old character should only have two out of nine comic book pictures older than the past ten years. Where are the pictures showing her as Marvel Girl, pre-Phoenix or during the X-Factor years? Where are the pictures showing how her telekinesis powers were depicted (the wavy lines in the 1960s or the pink energy in the 1980s)? That's the type of thing you use comic panels for, to give information that text falls short of. I think we need a central guideline page explaining the proper way to illustrate an article. Postdlf 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article - that "my friends" closeup is absolutely inexcusable - it conveys nothing that couldn't be summarised in "she sadly said goodbye", while the green costume pinup conveys nothing - especially since there's a shot of the green costume further up

Further down, if there's going to be an AoA picture, it should be of Jean from the actual event - probably from Weapon X or Factor X (or maybe XM:Omega), not the footnote miniseries from ten years later. Further up, is the Phoenix-homage FF cover particuarly useful, since the character was defined in large part by "I'm NOT Phoenix" throughout the next decade-plus. And that's just a quick skim, not even reading the text. - SoM 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree about AoA picture. --Chris Griswold 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you define "sparingly?" Do you mean, "Use interior art if no cover is available" or "Use each panel only once?" Wilfredo Martinez 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean "use only to provide important information about a character, never to decorate an article." Most of our comics images probably violate this. And yes, if there is a cover that would provide equal information, that should be used instead. And by "cover," I don't mean "the art used for a cover but stripped of all tags that identified it as a cover." I mean the actual cover of the actual comic book that exists in our world. Postdlf 00:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we establish that generally-released promo material (i.e. solicits) was fine before? (if used appropriately, of course) - SoM 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there was a consensus on the fair use issue, but what I am more bothered by is that using the promos over the actual covers further divorces the images from the real world; they're treated as if they are depicting real subjects, when they are simply fragments of fictional works. The titles, issue numbers, prices, and bar codes on covers, and speech balloons and captions on panels, are great indicators of context, because they tie the art to a physical object (and from elements such as cover price, to a particular period of time). And, as fair use goes, they help keep the images more informative than decorative. Postdlf 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to work with me on putting together a complete stylebook for this Wikiproject? I want to address grammar and writing errors primarily seen in the comics articles, proper image selection, the use of the SHB, the format of the articles, and general guidelines/policies. This would incorporate existing guidelines, as well as information culled from this talk page's archives. --Chris Griswold 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a great guideline being established now that would be a great jumping off point: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Postdlf 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. In fact, I think we should monitor or contribute to the progress of that project, so that the comicbook articles aren't negatively affected by it. For instance, the "Describe this universe" section at the very beginning. --Chris Griswold 00:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean we can't write fictional character biographies per the superhero template? If so, we're in for a lot of slash and burn editing. --Newt 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That proposal would be very destructive to writing about comic books. It would force complete rewrites of very good articles. I think Watchmen has more or less the right balance, and includes plot information and what they are calling "out-of-universe" information. I don't see why this encyclopedia cannot contain both. — Estarriol ^talk 08:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be destructive but it would require rewritings of hundreds of articles, if not more. And I do agree that an in-universe POV synopsis is acceptable as long as it is clearly framed as being part of a fictional creation. That seems to be the standard in these cases. Wilfredo Martinez 05:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that proposal cites Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Spoo, amongst others, as being appropriate. Thoughts? — Estarriol ^talk 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It fits less Spoo and more the Captain Marvel article that there is no fictional character biography (which is to be included per the character article template) but rather an extended publication history. There is an origin story and a storied list of changes to the publication of the character (rebirths and reboots and revitalization attempts), but nothing so extensive (and uncited) as Magneto (comics). This does make for a more informative article, so my question is: is there much point in wholesale editing of many of the "fictional character biographies" to be in literary present tense when the "in-universe" info should rather largely be phased out with mostly the notable changes to the character spoken of, and the writer who made the changes, possibly why the changes were made, etc.? Daredevil (Marvel Comics) seems like it's on its way there at least in the realm of "biography". Or am I just totally reading this new guide wrong? I am still new at this. --Newt ΨΦ 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, count me in - SoM 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. --Newt 02:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. CovenantD 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Postdlf, we have an excellent guide written at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which we should wholesale adopt. Hiding Talk 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I expanded The Raft (comics) as much as I could from the sources I had at hand (namely New Avengers #1-3). I noticed that there may also be references in Spider-Man: Breakout but I don't have that. Without a template to guide me, I just added "Background" and "Security features" sections and cleaned up the lead. I took out the reference to Daredevil as he's an inmate on Ryker's Island not The Raft. Any more additions are welcome. --Newt 01:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon-user 69.183.73.241 removed all references of Mystique and Destiny being lovers (this has been confirmed in the comics, btw. It isn't something ambiguous). Would someone mind restoring what he deleted? --DrBat 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I don't believe it (I know Claremont intended it that way, he has said so) but could you provide a reference to an issue where it is confirmed they were lovers? For verification. Wilfredo Martinez 05:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unofficial, but well accepted, was the Mystique-Destiny relationship. Marvel tried not to admit it, but Claremont did, and enough in-comic evidence exists to be certain on that score. For years, the most definitive evidence was UXM #254. In it, Irene said, "This is Raven as I know her, the spirit-soul within my dearest friend--full of strength and courage and passion--that I have loved from the moment we met." Later, Mystique said, "Irenie? You had a rough night..is anything the matter?" You can work it out for herself how Mystique would know that. In UXM #265, the Shadow King referred to Destiny as Mystique's leman--an archaic word meaning "lover"--which Chris Claremont seemed to have sneaked in under the censors' radar. As of the X-Men Forever miniseries (2001), the two are officially out of the closet, since the recap in issue #5 clearly states that Irene was Raven's lover. X-Treme X-Men #1 concurs; Mystique is referred to as Destiny's "true love." [1]--DrBat 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've updated the collab to Maus, please improve the article! --Jamdav86 09:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Ive been adding dates to some articles which refer to specific comic issues; for instance adding (December, 1979) after a reference to Adventure Comics #466. However, given that the cover dates on comics are very inaccurate as publishing dates and really are only supposed to function as "best before" dates, how useful is this information? I think its particuliarly problematic when the cover dates are given in the context that a series was published between certain times, for instance "America vs. The Justice Society was released between January and April 1985" (which incidentally is my own work). Obviously its very difficult to extrapolate actual on sale dates from the cover date given that the gap between the two has shifted over the years but what should we do? should every reference to these dates contain the proviso "cover date"? or has this issue already been resolved somewhere?

2.I noticed earlier today that the infoboxes for individual films have a link at the end to the IMDB.com page on each flick. Given that the Grand Comic Book Database serves a similar function for comics as the IMDB does for film would it be a good idea to create such a link at the end of the Comics Book Title infobox template? I think so, but I have no clue about how you would go about doing it. Hueysheridan 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Go with the cover date for issues. It's the only way to date them with any sort of certainty—it's quite clear what the cover/indicia said, but who can tell when they were actually on the shelf? Cover dates are just a further way of identifying the specific issue. Monthly periodicals are always dated forward too, yet one still refers to "the August, 2006 issue of Vanity Fair" based on that cover date. No opinion on your other question at this time, except that GCBD is pretty awesome. Postdlf 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I actually created ((Comic book reference)) for this purpose, basing it on Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide, who writes that the "date, from the indicia, should include the month, abbreviated, (or season, if a quarterly is so identified) and year, and be presented within parentheses." This has become the adopted guidance for comics scholars. I also have no opinion to offer on the GCBD linking, although maybe, if we utilise dates from their information we should better place them in the references section? Hiding Talk 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've been adding the invaluable Grand Comics Database (a.k.a. Grand Comic Book Database — both names appear on the site) to the References section whenever I use it; see Howard Purcell and All-American Publications for examples in a comics-creator and a comics-company article. For many such, GCD is the primary source of confirmed credits for some things.

It might be good to standardize the ComicsProject style for it, since the site itself goes by two names. I'd suggest Grand Comics Database since it conforms to the site's own abbreviation for itself, GCD, and is more compact and less wordy than the alternative. — Tenebrae 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please take some time to talk to Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs)? Take a look at his recent edits. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a slew of categories like category:cartoonists, category:comics artists, category:comics creators, category:comics writers, category:graphic novelists and then all of the variants by nationality... I think the project page should start look into the possibility of cleaning this up by possibly merging redundant categories and then issuing some rough guidelines as to how the classification should be done. Pascal.Tesson 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

/Archive01#Categories. Probably others too. - SoM 23:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the archive. Still, can we get this on the to-do list of the comics project? It's as though 20 people implemented 20 different reasonnable ideas to clear this up but the result is more confusion than ever. If we get this to stay on the project page, there will at least be some consistency on everyone's efforts. Pascal.Tesson 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

category:comics creators is the top level category, all the rest are branches of it. It's a mess because there are so many different terms and most people in the field have performed at least three of them. Hiding Talk 12:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's my point. I understand that people want to be extra-precise when classifying the artists but the result is that none of the categories are correctly populated and they are impossible to maintain coherently. I think we should all take a step back, figure out a way to reduce the number of categories and then clean up the whole thing. It's tempting for comics afficonados to want and strictly distinghuish between authors, creators, artists, illustrators, writers and so on but the result is that the average wiki-reader does not find what he's looking for. I don't mind going through the tedious process of fixing the categories but a consensus from the project members on what to do would be needed first. Pascal.Tesson 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind doing the donkey work myself, although I'm currently cleaning out Category:Comics of un-needed articles, and then the creator cats were my next port of call. I had already dropped a line to the creator of Category:Graphic novelists, since it's a potential speedy, being a recreation of a prior deleted category. The rest of the categories aren't actually overly muddied, although it will probably be an idea to split cartoonists into editorial cartoonists and comic strip cartoonists at some point. The problem is the number of terms available through differences in language and format make it hard to work out what's the best way through. For instance a comic strip creator means something entirely different in Europe as it does in the US, since Europe has no tradition of the comic book, only comic strips published in comic magazines, which were anthologies. Any thoughts on how to solve these issues would be appreciated. I'm not sure, however, that it's our place to enforce one term over another. Also, we've yet to nail whether editors are creators or not, some editors, especially at Marvel in the eighties, had more input on a book than the writer. Initial thoughts on categories that wouldn't be confusing are:

• Category:Comics creators the top level category.
• Category:Editorial cartoonists self explanatory.

Beyond that you start to introduce a favouring of terms. To be honest, the category implementation is something that bugs the life out of me, it's inane that we can't simply use a more dynamic tagging process, through which we could just tag these people with all the tags that apply and let the user cross reference as they would. But that's a whole other issue. Hiding Talk 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/June#.7B.7BComics-writer-stub.7D.7D .26 .7B.7BComics-artist-stub.7D.7D - SoM 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that some Jewish fictional characters are classed as supervillains rather than superheroes, notably Magneto of the X-Men series, and are therefore not categorized here.

Hasn't Magneto been portrayed as a superhero in the past? Even though he may no longer be one (though he has yet to be portrayed villainously since Excalibur), the category should still apply to him.

Not to mention that the Jewish supervillain category, with Mags and Harley Quinn being the only entries, should probably be deleted unless someone can think of other Jewish supervillains.--DrBat 01:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename it "Jewish comic book characters" so it applies to both and merge them. CovenantD 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --DrBat 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What should we follow when concerning characters as Flash, Ray, Atom, Question, Joker, Spectre, Batman and so on? Are we supposed to use articles ("The") before their names? —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article titles: No.

In text: yes (except Batman. He's not been "The Bat-Man" since the 40s). - SoM 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And concerning SHB's character name fields? —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should; it is how they are referred to by other characters. "Hey, look! The Flash is stealing my car!" "Did you see the Joker kissing that guy?" "Why did the Question just grope me?" These are all sentences that I have used in the past. --Chris Griswold 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand I've never seen any character saying things like: "The Flash, we need to talk." or "Come over here, the Ray!" or even "Why did you kill that guy, the Joker?" —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 02:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

True. But I think these are almost like titles, wherein you might refer to someone as "the principal" or "the general" but address him as "principal" or "general". This certainly has been the usage in the comics. Wally West never says, "I'm Flash!" He says, "I'm the Flash," and then some other nonsense about walking rather quickly. Question: "Who killed all those people with poisonous silly putty?" Answer: "The Joker!" --Chris Griswold 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is two-thirds of the Chuck Austen weasel words about his run on Ultimate X-Men and New X-Men? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Throughout all of the articles I've seen, I keep seeing different styles for listing whoever drew a piece of art, where it's from and when it's from. Y'all need a style convention for these captions so that all of them list things the same way. These are hypothetical examples:

• Magneto manifests his powers in Magneto #0 (January 1993), art by Chris Bachalo.
• JLA #12 (Feb. 1997): Batman throws a batarang; artist, Howard Porter
• Beta Ray Bill, depowered, eats some hay. Pencils: Mike Allred.

Can we propose some sort of convention. For example...?

• Wolverine, from a cover of New Avengers #3 (Feb. 2005). Pencils by Oliver Coipel.

I leave it up to a consensus to decide what to use, but from my POV, I did like the more formal/specific designation of "pencils" being used as a credit rather than "art" or "artist" and think that should stay no matter what. I also think the "pencils" credit should always be a seperate sentence after the description of the picture, and not joined to the description by a comma. Anybody that can point to broad Wiki conventions to assist in this would be appreciated. I just see that a lot of work has been done to improve the art captions in WikiProject Comics, yet there's no convention in place. - Liontamer 02:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a fairly uniform de facto style in place. At its most basic, it seems to include:

For covers in a comics-company or comics-character article such as All-American Publications:

• All-American Comics #16 (July 1940), cover art by Sheldon Moldoff.

For covers in a comics artist article such as Sheldon Moldoff:

• All-American Comics #16 (July 1940), cover art by Moldoff.

For a cover representing a major character change or important event, such as in Al Hartley:

• The teen-humor heroine gets serious in Patsy Walker #116 (Aug. 1964). Cover art by Hartley

For a cover illustrating a style or historical element, such as in George Tuska:

• Tuska's cover of Iron Man #18 (Oct. 1969) displays a panoply of character faces, as well both old and new Iron Man armors.

And in what I think is established ComicsProject style for promotional art including covers without text treatment and trade dress, such as in Spider-Man:

• Promotional art for The Amazing Spider-Man #500 cover, featuring Spider-Man's wife, Mary Jane Watson-Parker, and many of his antagonists. Art by J. Scott Campbell.

...which, in similar entries without the descriptors, would be:

• Promotional art for The Amazing Spider-Man #500 cover, by J. Scott Campbell.

-- Tenebrae 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please address the usage of commas at Talk: Jason Todd. This shouldn't need mediation; consensus should be able to work out the problem. --Chris Griswold 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed some comic book titles synopses are very descriptive of the entire content of a comic book. In particular, Runaways (comics) (story arcs), Araña, List of Ultimates story arcs could stand to be trimmed a bit, and some of the Runaways arcs are as detailed as The Catcher in the Rye synopsis. My question is how much content should we write about before the synopses becomes a substitute for reading the comic? --Pc13 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed this as well. Do we need story arc entries? I think that sort of thing is infringing on fair use guidelines. --Chris Griswold 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As part of an encyclopedic-format Wiki, Wikipedia articles should be as down-to-the-facts as possible. Story arcs should only be included if they had a major impact on the character(s), with "major" being defined as leaving a legacy that lasts (for at least a few years). I know that can be hard to tell sometimes because comics publishers are always touting each arc as "The one that changes things forever!!" but that rarely is true in comics. Examples include the Death of Superman (for its impact on the DC Universe, not his "death") and Spider-Man's wedding. Wilfredo Martinez 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit that those rambunctious Runaways are affected by just about everything! It's all so grave! Please look at the Runaways entry in particular; I don't think I am experienced enough to know what should be done with that one, but it really is detailed. --Chris Griswold 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do these articles even exist? It seems like any information should be merged with/included in the team or character article, and that information could be very much trimmed. I can see a need for an origin story, and in the case of the Runaways, a possible need to show them overcoming the Pride and gaining or losing any members, however an arc by arc synopsis does not seem to be fair use. --Newt ΨΦ 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was recently split off from the main one and expanded. Is your mind blown?--Chris Griswold 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That tells how it came to exist, not exactly why (i.e. what rationale was used in generating the article), especially when this information is not entirely proper for Wikipedia. --Newt ΨΦ 12:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the rationale was that the summary was getting too big. Now is your mind blown? --Chris Griswold 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Partially, though I'm still wondering why this information is on Wikipedia in this format. --Newt ΨΦ 12:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're talking about it, shouldn't it be at Story arcs of Runaways? But I agree that it should be trimmed and reincluded into the main article anyway.--Fritz S. (Talk) 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I just did Superman/Batman, so I'm in the condensing zone. --Chris Griswold 12:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My favorite part of this entire Runaways summary is "Molly entered the room". It's the modern-day "Jesus wept". --Chris Griswold 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I cut it down to maybe 1/4 the size, but there's still more that could go; you might be cutting some story arcs, though. I'm tired now, and I am going to stop. It's at least at a point where it can work as part of the entry. --Chris Griswold 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

All of my work just got reverted, and I got two vandalism warnings and a snide comment. --Chris Griswold 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Saw that, rv'd to redirect and directed good sir JQF here and to WP:FU to see why. I expect a similar response. --Newt ΨΦ 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Runways - Again?! - SoM 13:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What the fudge is that about?--Chris Griswold 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this problem before with the Runaways article. --Pc13 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to start, Pc13 isn't exactly a comic lover (as seen with his comments here), Story arc/Plot synopsis are keep seperated from their related pages for several reasons, the top ones being that:

1. Even snippets of the arcs can cause the pages to be long (ex Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)) and that merging with the parent page causes them to be excessivly large.
2. Trimming them to fit the parent page causes lose of important details to understanding the comics
3. Keeping them seperate makes it easier for the info to be read.

Plus it keeps the fanboys happy, and they can be damn annoying. Think of it as a nessisary evil. I'm not saying some of those pages don't need to be trimmed a bit, but to get rid of them is excessive. JQF 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I listed it for deletion. Had I known it had been an issue before, I guess it could've been a speedy deletion. You can find the discussionhere. I am, by the way, a comic lover.

1. Story arc pages are difficult to argue fair use
2. The important details are all that is needed
3. If there wasn't so much unnecessary info it wouldn't need to be made easier to read
4. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage.

--Newt ΨΦ 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes you have to trim details or even storylines. If I were to cut another item from the Runaways summaries, it would be the Topher storyline. The plot is unrelated to the ongoing development of the characters, and that's really all we are looking for when discussing characters. Some plot details, sure, but the primary goal for the details is to forward our understanding of the characters.

We're not getting rid of the article; we are condensing it and merging it. As for fanboys, it's my personal opinion that while Wikipedia does appeal to fanboys in many ways, they are not Wikipedia's only audience. Sometimes, fanboy-related things are done to the exclusion of someone who might just be interested in the subject. There are fanboy-related Wikis on the Internt whose goals you might find to match yours much better. Please understand: I'm not telling you to go away; I am saying that if you would like to write a lengthy, blow-by-blow synopsis of a storyline that is close to 40 issues long, there is a place for it. I just don't know that that place is Wikipedia. But that's just my opinion. I hope to read others'. --Chris Griswold 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not out to step on any toes, but I'm very interested in keeping information used in articles fair use and encyclopedic, and from my understanding of it, arc by arc story lines with detailed synopses include too much information which breaks "2. The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair" (emphasis mine) from Wikipedia:Fair use. I apologize for the terseness of my response above, but I was in a hurry. --Newt ΨΦ 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in mind something that gets lost very often in fan enthusiasm: These are encyclopedia articles. They're for laymen — for people who know nothing or little about a charcter or creator, and need to look up the pertinent facts. Only fans need or want issue-by-issue descriptions of every story arc, and that's fine but not here. Some of the comics pages are being treated as free-bandwidth fan pages. That's really not what this encyclopedia is about. -- Tenebrae 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blow-by-blows are nice, but for the vast majority of articles, only the major events, especially what's relevant to the larger storyline, are neccisary. --InShaneee 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyway to be notified of AfD or merger disputes concerning articles in this WikiProject? If not, is there some way we could do this? I feel that sometimes votes come to nothing because editors don't realize they are happening, or they go a direcion they might not were there more editors involved. --Chris Griswold 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tread very, very lightly on that subject. If you create a centralized discussion, people may accuse you of vote-stacking.--Toffile 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. --Chris Griswold 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget that. Most wikiprojects do have some sort of centralized discussion to that effect. You might want to use Wikipedia:LGBT notice board as a template for getting started. The key thing to remember is that when a page is listed, we can't encourage people to vote one way or another (hence why it's usually safest to just provide a link). --InShaneee 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen vote stacking accusations; I just wasn't sure why a centralized discussion would constitute stacking.--Chris Griswold 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Griswold, a notification of some sort should be in place for editors whose articles may be deleted. Wilfredo Martinez 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject Comics Notice Board is a page for editors to list of deletion and merger votes, requests for peer evaluation, and dispute mediation, among other subjects of interest to editors in the Comics WikiProject. --Chris Griswold 04:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone come and check out the Batsuit article? Ghetteaux and I are having a *ahem* pissing match (yes I was bad too) about Batman's costume. I feel that his additions are not adding to the value of the article. He's accusing me of being biased (possibly). I mostly object to the underoos addition (which I don't feel contributes positivly to a well written article and the following addition, which I feel is overkill and bordering on a peculiar fascination with Batman's crotch.:

; both Superman and Batman are consistently depicted with skimpy, speedo-type groin coverings hugging, defining, and displaying the genital region, worn over skintight, sheer, opaque catsuits.

Any help is appreciated -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I need some help with the Eternals entry. Earlier today I deleted a large history section that was completely lifted from the Marvel Directory website [2] User:Dr Archeville has replaced the section with a new history section which is almost exactly the same as before, though a few words and phrases are changed or mixed around in each sentence. Now the two text are not identical, but each paragraph conveys the exact same information in much the same manner and many phrases are repeated from the Directory entry. Is this plagiarism\copyvio or has it been rewritten sufficiently to qualify as fair use? some help please Hueysheridan 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, no.

Esp since the Marvel Directory are OHOTMU copies in the first place... - SoM 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, just how much re-writing needs to be done? I mean, it seems to me -- and I readily admit I could be way off here -- that you can only change the text around so much before changes are made to the information therein, and that would seem to be the last thing that'd be wanted. And aren't most folks who're making entries for Marvel characters going to be inclined to use the info in the MArvelDirectory/OHttMU? Dr Archeville 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't use it as a basis at all - that makes it a derivative work, which is still a copyvio. You have to go back to the original comics.

And, no, the OHOTMU copyvios have been pretty much expunged over time. - SoM 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all? I apologize if I come across as rude/ignorant, but why the heck not? Since the OHttMU have already gathered info on the characters from the dozens/hundreds/thousands of comics out there (and some of those original comics can't be obtained, at least not easily), then wouldn't any Wikipedia article made using those same sources wind up looking, at least a tiny bit, like an OHttMU entry? I mean, there are only so many ways one can say "X was involved in a radiation accident and gained great power; X can lift Y tons, project beams of radiation, and fly," so it seems to me that there are always going to be some similarities. Dr Archeville 01:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't use OHOTMU because it wouldn't be fair use. We are a possible competing product, they have license to use the information, we don't. Using too much of the information, being a competing product with a very large readership, using the information for the same purpose OHOTMU uses it without any critical analysis, pretty much breaks every tenet of fair use. --Newt ΨΦ 14:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can se that, sure, but then wouldn't that mean every Marvel character entry on Wikipedia is in competition with the OHttMU (and DC entry with the Who's Who/Secret Files comics)? The same information that's used to make the OHttMU articles -- i.e., the comics -- are being used to make the Wikipedia articles, aren't they? Isn't Wikipedia going to be inc ompetition with OHttMU/Who's Who/Secret Files no matter what Wikipedia uses, due to the nature of what all those things are?? Dr Archeville 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I understand it, it doesn't matter if we're in competition, necessarily, as long as we are presenting information in a medium different from the source it was found in a manner that's not competitive with that source. OHOTMU is encyclopedic, thus using info only found in that source, as a general rule, is not fair use. --Newt ΨΦ 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I think the important part of Newt's comment is the phrase "using info that is only found in that source is not fair use". My understanding is that using the directory or the Handbook as a source is fine, so long as the information used originally comes from other comic books. So, for instance, you could read the handbook and discover that Falcon was once briefly Captain America, and add that information to the Falc or Cap entry (preferably with the relevant issue numbers, dates and creators involved). But if it said that Falcon dad was named Barney, and the source of that information is not obvious (the issue no. where that was revealed is not listed and it appears to be info created for the Handbook) then adding that info to the wiki article would not be fair use.

I think problems arise when the directory\handbook and similar fictional world encycylopedias are used as the only source for articles here. Not only does this give the wikipedia articles a distorted perspective and focus on fictional events but it can lead, as in the Eternals entry, to a more stealthy form of copyvio where copyright text is simply paraphrased. Hueysheridan 19:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense... though, wouldn't any entry on a fictional character be, by it's very nature, focusing on fictional events? And, getting back to the root topic (the Eternals), just what can be said about their History and Abilities/Powers, given that (it seems to me, at least) the only readily-available sources are the OHttMU entries, and sites that copy them like the MarvelDirectory? Dr Archeville 21:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hueysheridan is right in part, but the more precise problem with the Eternals history section was that it failed to transform the fiction it copied by providing real-world context (a natural result of copying the OHOTMU). Simply summarizing the fictional history of the Eternals from within the perspective of the Marvel Universe merely creates a derivative work of the original copyrighted fiction—an abridgement of the comic book stories. We have a fair use to reference the content of that fiction when we describe it in terms of how various writers and artists in various comic book titles and issues created the story; that context and academic analysis transforms the copied fiction. Always at a minimum reference the actual work of fiction where a particular element of a story was originally portrayed. Never include descriptions of stories without that real-world context or else it will absolutely fail fair use, by failing to transform the fiction it uses and by directly competing with OHOTMU, regardless of whether that was the original source.

BTW, there's a relevant copyright case involving a Seinfeld trivia book;[3] the book authors lost their fair use claim because they were simply making use of copyrighted story incidents and dialogue for fan infotainment purposes, without sufficiently adding to it. An important principle in the case, and most relevant here, is that an event that happens in a copyrighted work is not a "fact," but is instead copyrighted expression. Postdlf 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment again I did mention the whole real world thing. Your comment answers Archeville question well and explains the importance of context succintly though. I hate to be pedantic, but I still think the main problem with the Eternals history bit was the fact that it just paraphrased copyright text, which is why Ive wiped it again. If it was simply a matter of not citing issue numbers and creators then with some editing the text could have been salvaged. Hueysheridan 22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We have Earth-98, Earth-295 aka Age of Apocalypse, Earth-1121, Earth-120185, Earth-1610 aka Ultimate Marvel, Earth-2122, Earth-295, Earth-31916 aka Supremeverse, Earth-712, Earth-717, Earth-721 aka Earth-A, Earth-98125, Earth-691, and Earth-616. Instead of giving these separate articles, wouldn't we be better served with a List of Marvel dimensions rather than giving very obscure dimensions their own articles? I recognize that some of these are viable articles (like Earth-616 which explains why the designation of "616") Are these designations okay (read: fair use) to use on their own, since they're only reported in the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe: Alternate Worlds 2005. --Newt ΨΦ 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes to listify, no to fair use. Redirect the ones that have a proper equivalent - i.e., AoA, Ultimate, etc (except 616, as you note) and condense the rest. The only ones other than 616 to see regular use in any sense are Earth-717 (all the What If 2005 titles explicitly IDed themselves as appearing there) and Earth-S (the original Squadron Supreme... irritatingly the same term used for the pre-Crisis DC Marvel Family). Plus, listifying would allow the introduction of the ones from Counter X X-Man (including [Marvel-]Earth-1) - SoM 01:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So they should be listified, but they're (largely) not fair use. Does this mean that the list should not contain designations like Earth-717, Earth-98, etc which are only mentioned in the OHOTMU book? That leaves us with Earth-616, Earth-717, Supremeverse, Ultimate Universe, Earth-S, and AoA, with new addition [Marvel-]Earth-1, correct? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and thus to the etiquette of deleting, merging, and whitewashing to turn into redirects. Can I just do this or should I go through the merging/deletion process for these? --Newt ΨΦ 13:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the "fair use" worries are. There is no copyright protection for descriptive names such as "Earth-blah-blah-blah", so lists such as those given in Marvel Comics Multiverse are perfectly legitimate. As an asside, an article about a continuity such as Earth-295 is arguably different from an article talking about a storyline such as Age of Apocalypse that takes place within it, or an imprint like the Ultimate. I would tend to favour more "Earth-blah-blah-blah" articles, due to my interest in alternate continuities independant of the particular storylines, but I recognize that not everyone likes the "two line articles" that would be generated when taken to extreme. j-beda 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really better to discuss fictional places in the context of the fiction in which they appear. --Chris Griswold 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be very widely included (something like 3500 talk pages), and is rather frequently edited. I'm concerned that there could well be a server load issue. Indeed, many templates with similar numbers of inclusions (or indeed fewer) are actually protected for that reason. I'd like to suggest replacing this with a notice and link on talk pages generally, and only including the actually-updated task template on a small number of pages (wikiproject ones, most obviously). Alai 02:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it will help, but the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board may serve to alleviate some of the strains that the task template may be creating. --Chris Griswold 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Would anyone object to turning the majority of these inclusions into a pointer to the above page? Alai 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some confusion on my part caused by a confusing "edit" link; it's actually ((Comicsproj)) that's mass-included (which is fine), and that then re-includes the above template (which I think is problematic). What's more, this was removed several months ago, which was then reverted, which seems less than ideal: for the same reasons that editing the to-do list is a resource hit, so is editing the template that includes it, so ideally this would be settled and left alone as much as possible. For reference, this is easily widely-included enough to make it on to Wikipedia:List of permanently protected pages#High use templates. Alai 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this in line with the above; feel free to tweak it around some more, but equally by the same token, it would be nice for the poor servers if it could stablise within a hopefully smallish number of iterations, so prior discussion on the talk page might be a good plan, too. Alai 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at Alan Scott's talk page? —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 05:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there's no obvious place to move it to - the "Silver Age" disambig is both imprecise and inaccurate - pretty much all the sources I've seen have the Silver Age ending before 1974 (Kirby leaving Marvel - in part, to do THIS title; and Gwen Stacy's death seem to be the two most commonly quoted), so pushing this as Silver Age is POV at best even for its start date never mind the appearances in Infinity Inc and The Sandman (DC Comics/Vertigo).

Problem is, as I say, I don't see where to move it to. (comics) and (DC Comics) are out because of multiple characters/titles, he doesn't have a settled civilian ID (2 actual and one retconned-out) and Simon/Kirby had already reinvented the Dodds Sandman to the point of making him a different character in the 1940s.

Any suggestions? - SoM 09:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is to make that into Sandman (Garrett Sandford), and to remove the bits of Hector Hall from the article. Then we can just refer to Hector Hall on the disambig page as well. Kusonaga 13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the two share the same article? The characters are closely connnected, and most of the information is repeated in both of the articles. --DrBat 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. They may start to branch out and have different information, or even break up. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the issues of 52 be numbered like 52 #1 or 52 Week One?--DrBat 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Week One. --Chris Griswold 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As odd as it seems, the indica says "Week One", so I agree with Mr. Griswold. --GentlemanGhost 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Notice Board to see the stubs that Dr. Archeville is continuing to create as he works his way through marvunapp.com. --Chris Griswold 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and most all of these stubs are stubs, one- or two-sentence articles, not copies of what's on the site(s) mentioned (as I had erroneously done in the past). Dr Archeville 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When do you plan to expand these? --Chris Griswold 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know, since lately about all I've had time to do are make stubs. Plus, as was recently made clear during the Eternals fiasco, I seem to have had some massive misconceptions about Wikipedia articles, so I need to plan carefully. Others are of course more than welcome to expand any article they fancy; I'm not "claiming" any of them, just wanted to make it so the "List of Marvel Comics charactrs" and "List of Marvel Comics teams" didn't have so many red links, and give others who are better at these things than I a basic foundation to work from. Dr Archeville 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

People make stub articles in Wikipedia all the time. Nothing wrong with that, though of course longer articles would be preferable. But of course the whole point of a Wiki is that other people fill in what is missing. A better question would be: how do we tell which stubs deserve expansion? Many seemingly obscure characters often turn out to have a surprising relevance... The Legion of the Unliving, for example, is always composed of Marvel characters that were dead at some point (and it would be interesting to note that some of those characters later turned up alive, therefore they could NOT have really been in the LotU! Sloppy, Marvel!) I'm currently working on editing the Marvel and DC character lists to include only those that deserve an article, and replacing their redlinks with short descriptions for those that I feel do not. Plenty of work, though, will take me a long time. Help appreciated.- Wilfredo Martinez 02:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Supersupportingbox isn't showing relatives. I'm guessing it's from the errant comment marks in this section, but as I'm NOT any good with if statements on wikipedia, I'm sketchy -

((#if:(({supports|))}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Supporting Character of'''</td><td>(({supports))}</td></tr>))<!-- ((#if:(({relatives|))}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Notable relatives'''</td><td>(({relatives))}</td></tr>))<!-- -->((#if:(({powers|))}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Notable powers'''</td><td>(({powers))}</td></tr>))

Any one good at this can you take a look? I think that first <!-- needs to go away. If it's supposed to be commented out, we may want to mention that on the page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed this (through some experimentation). I had also fixed the "Supporting character of" section previously. This one just took me longer to figure out, particularly since I'm no template expert. You were almost correct with your solution. What actually needed to happen was for that first <!-- to be enclosed with a -->. --GentlemanGhost 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A large chunk of the text for Drax the Destroyer seems to have been copied from the unofficial Marvel Comics wiki http://www.marveldatabase.com. Assuming that the time stamps are accurate, their version predates ours by a few months. Like Wikipedia, they also use the GNU FDL to allow others to republish their work. However, if I read things correctly, there needs to be an indication that the information comes from the Marvel Database site (which there is not). While I suppose that we could use this information if we properly credit the source, it just seems wrong to me. It feels to me like we're "stealing", for lack of a better term, from a competing Wiki. However, it looks like the editor that copied this information, Rjpimp (talk • contribs), is also an editor on that site under the same username. Does that make it OK? What are your thoughts on this? --GentlemanGhost 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about this. It's actual copyrights that we need to watch out for. People who write stuff under GNU rules have to be aware that their stuff could be used by strangers at any time (I've certainly seen stuff from Wikipedia in several other Wikis.) Out of cortesy, we should contact Rjpimp and inform him of this, if that's possible. In any case, let's throw in a reference that Marvel Database was the original source to cover our hides. The article needs a few edits, anyway, so eventually it won't replicate the original exactly. Wilfredo Martinez 13:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All four of these articles contain summaries of each individual issue. Not only do I think the fair use for doing this is questionable, but it looks really sloppy and would benefit if someone condensed the summaries. --DrBat 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we add Liberators (Marvel Comics) to this list? --GentlemanGhost 21:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little exhausted with these, since an editor split Runaways (comics) (story arcs) off from its main article, it grew to describe individual panels (including the aforementioned "Molly entered the room"), and then the editors there defeated an AfD notice. We need to make this thing a policy if we expect other editors to agree about this. --Chris Griswold 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto regarding exhaustion with these. For weeks I stared at the links to Superman & Batman: Generations I, Superman & Batman: Generations II on the 'to do' list and just groaned. They were so bloated and detailed it was painful to think where to begin to reduce them. I'd be in favor of making a policy. Issue by issue breakdowns of plot kind of make a mockery of the concept of an encyclopedia rather than an [indiscriminate collection of information.] -Markeer 20:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing this issue further at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), noting also that the guideline Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles states:

• Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book reports; instead, the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one. A reader should be able to understand why this person/place/thing/event is relevant to the story.

and also that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) states

• It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.

• One possible course of action to consider, which has already been successfully employed for several works of fiction, is to make use of all of the projects combined: to have an encyclopaedia article about the work of fiction on Wikipedia giving a brief outline, a chapter-by-chapter annotation on Wikibooks, the full source text on Wikisource (if the work is in the public domain), and interwiki links joining them all together into a whole.

It's probably worth merging and expanding upon those directions at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Hiding Talk 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

I've made Superman & Batman: Generations I and Superman & Batman: Generations II redirects to Superman & Batman: Generations, and explained my reasoning on their talk pages, Talk:Superman & Batman: Generations I and Talk:Superman & Batman: Generations II. Comments on those redirections would be appreciated in order to build a consensus. Hiding Talk 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm all that happy with this course of action, because after all, I spent a lot of time on those summaries. I'l--Chris Griswold 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)l see if it can be better edited into the main article, but I would've preferred that you had waited with this, instead of looking for the consensus after the deed.Kusonaga 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that you took time on those summaries. But after seeing them, I created the task template's condense section to deal with such unnecessarily detailed summaries. It is preferrable to summarize rather than to abridge the source text; your "summaries" are detailed to the point that a reader can read the Wikipedia entry instead of the series. This infringes on fair use, and we are trying to prevent that.--Chris Griswold 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying, and that my words encourage that view, but currently the consensus is with current guidance, against which those articles were created. If you wish to alter that guidance, the onus is on you to gain the consensus. Hiding Talk 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I had to read that comment three times before I understood it, here's a short-words version. CG's style is backed up by the rules. If you want your version, you need to get the rules changed first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there was a consensus to sharply condense both of those articles among the wikiproject comics people, if only because they were pushed to the top of the condense requests on the to do list for over two months. Even those who didn't work on it would have glanced at it, and then chose to keep them on the condense action item list, a tacit approval. I mention this since I was the one who eventually removed them from that list, but not because I didn't think they were far too detailed (I did and do), but because no work was being done and I wanted to make room for other items near the top of the list. If you'd like to see a detailed "condense/keep as is poll", I'd suggest creating one on the articles' talk pages, and linking the conversation to the wikiproject comics notice board. Just my opinion. -Markeer 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my comments justify my actions. You are correct that the consensus lies in the guidelines, on which I based my actions and gave a full detailed outline of those guidelines and the relevant parts on the article talk pages. This notion of when the discussion should happen is a minor point. This is a wiki, anyone is free to edit. Kusonaga was bold and created articles. I was just as bold and redirected them. Now we are discussing those actions. I appreciate Kusonaga has spent a lot of time on those articles, but that work hasn't gone anywhere, it still exists. The point we should be discussing is, do we respect current guidance? Current guidance is:

• that plot details be kept as brief as possible
• that plot details shouldn't be the focus of an article
• that plot details should be reported on in the context of their importance to the work, interpretations of that work and their impact outside of the work
• and that plot details not infringe on the copyright of the work.

That's the current guidance. Hiding Talk 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If I wasn't clear in the above ramble, I believe you were correct to redirect -Markeer 13:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we vote to accept that as a guideline? Please? It would make these edits less daunting.--Chris Griswold 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Chris on this one, we need to make this a guideline. --Newt ΨΦ 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those pages I reference above are guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean. Hiding Talk 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where can I read the guidelines, then? --Chris Griswold 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up, I quoted all the relevant ones in this edit. Specifically, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF and WP:1SP. Is it worth summarising them on a WikiProject Comics subpage? Hiding Talk 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I have started a discussion on these points at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. Hiding Talk 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is this user:Thanos2099 that is violating NPOV with his edits. Several other editor and I have already reverted his edits, but he still won't listen. If I could get some help from the admins and the senior members it would be appricated. Something needs to be done about this user. T-1000 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whereas this issue does cry out for arbitration and I don't agree with Thanos2099's methods or assertions, it brings a question to my mind. Namely, how relevant and encyclopedic is it to discuss the similarities between comic book characters and speculation as to whether one character is a rif-off of another? While there are limited cases where I think it is essential to talk about it, generally it doesn't seem of great importance to me. There are only so many new ideas out there, and most comic book characters are derivitive in some way of what has come before. I only think it ought to be mentioned if a) the similarity between the characters has resulted in litigation (c.f., Captain Marvel/Miracleman) or b) the creator of the character has said that it was inspired by the other character. Otherwise, to ascribe motivations to the creators strikes me as speculation/original research. Even when cited in comics industry media, full paragraphs explaining why "this character is like that character" verges too close to fancruft for my taste. --GentlemanGhost 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons are good because we're dealing with the characters as fictional story elements rather than living, breathing, sexy babes. Unfortunately, many of these are OR, such as the one in the Sentry (Robert Reynolds) entry. If this were cited, it would be great. But with the way it's written, it's kind of embarrassing in an otherwise decent article. --Chris Griswold 07:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sentry is cited. See Here: [4] T-1000 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on Moon Knight's talk page, if a comparison of one character to another is understood in the comics community (and mentioned in more than one[5][6] interview with creators and current writers of the character) it would be remiss not to mention it. IMO, specifically comparing Moon Knight to Batman, with information cited from an interview with the current writer, is a great vehicle to outline Moon Knight's character. --Newt ΨΦ 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Moon Knight is a good example of what can and should be included, because of the sources. Namor, Black Adam, and Sentry are all examples of what should NOT be tolerated. Find a source, include it. Don't have a source, leave out the entire section. CovenantD 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Glad I'm not alone in that stance. --Chris Griswold 19:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the Moon Knight sources specifically because the creators are interviewed. I believe this is a case where it is appropriate to include that information in the article. If the creators thought it necessary to address the similarities between characters, then I agree that this is a notable comparison and should be included. What I don't want to see is articles that spout fan speculation as to a character's inspiration (or lack thereof). I don't even care if there is some website, blog, or message board that backs it up. Speculation is still speculation. --GentlemanGhost 21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok... anyone think this is a good idea? --DrBat 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd and contra an earlier CFD for Category:Deceased fictional characters. See reasons there. Postdlf 21:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Because my neutrality in regards to this article, and my attempts to maintain it have been questioned by other contributors to the page, i'd like to have it reviewed for neutrality and accuracy by a panel of at least three impartial members of Wikiproject Comics. --Basique 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. See the articles talk page for my comments. CovenantD 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on my way and adding this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board. --Chris Griswold 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys! --Basique 22:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created the ((issue)) template that functions as an in-line request for the specific citation of an issue of a comic book or magazine.

It looks like ^{[volume & issue needed]}.

Nice! --GentlemanGhost 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion has come up that perhaps Wikipedia might benefit from a Ethnic Stereotypes in Comic Books article. I was forwarded to this project and talk page by User:CovenantD. I'm not terribly experienced with Wikipedia, but I have done some research on Asian/Asian American stereotypes in comic books. I'm interested in working with some other interested parties in developing this article, especially with the hope that more heads working together can help maintain as objective a point of view as possible on this potentially contentious subject. I've put in some very small filler content at the moment. Anyone interested (especially people who know what they're doing with Wikipedia)? If so, please continue to the Ethnic Stereotypes in Comic Books talk page --Jfang86 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a comics-related subject that deserves to be mentioned here, it is of significant importance in the growth of the industry and its reflection of social changes. I recommend however that as many citations as possible discussing the subject be included, to avoid the article being accused of "original thought." - Wilfredo Martinez 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the amount of information that this article included in it's first draft. Now that's research! :-) CovenantD 14:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So, by WP:NC, which one is correct? Please, check talk page. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)