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.

General question before I do something radical. As today is the first day of August, I had planned to do some work updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board as a "monthly update". Specifically I was going to remove all "Completed Merges" and "Completed Discussions" sections. Yes, yes, editors should be bold, but this is the main project page and I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers unduly. -Markeer 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe leave decisions from the past week, but sure, do what you think is necessary. Thank you for working on this project. --Chris Griswold 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of a disagreement at Iron Fist (comics) over whether a gallery of comics covers is appropriate. (See this version for the now-removed gallery.) I think the gallery fails WP:FUC #3 and #8, as well as WP:NOT an image gallery, and I'm fairly sure that this subject was previously discussed and that the consensus was to disallow such image galleries.

I would appreciate some outside input, however, either here or at Talk:Iron Fist (comics). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT's statement that Wikipedia is not an image gallery pretty well covers this, plus I think Wikipedia's rather strict fair use rules would probably make it difficult to justify a gallery. 23skidoo 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Did not see any references to galleries in WP:NOT. Did I miss something? It does talk about NOT being a repository of images which is NOT the intent of this galleryFrankWilliams 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Man in Black. Each image in the gallery has a fair use rationale. The gallery dipicts KEY covers in the Iron Fist run. This gallery is especially pertinent in identify such issues to people interested. The policy that Man in Black uses are WP:FUC #3 and #8. #3 says: "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". The word adequately is left to interpetation and I interpret more than one image as being adequate, especially in regards to showing multiple Key Comicbook covers. #8 says: "The material must contribute significantly to the article". Showing multiple KEY comicbook covers certainly contributes to the articles as those unfamiliar with the series run can see some of the artwork and identify key issues that they may be interested in purchasing. Main in Black has also attempted at justifying his position by stating the galleries take up too much space. The gallery contains small images and does not take up that much space. Furthermore the gallery is at the end of the article and doesn't constrict any of the article verbiage.FrankWilliams 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use does not allow a gallery of comics covers (or indeed anything) unless of course they are under a free lisence.Geni 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Fair Use bylaws that says this??FrankWilliams 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

not bylaws (copyright tends to be done at a federal level). Fair use is generaly goverened by court president. In this it is simply that there is no realistic way to create a gallerly that is indeed fair use.Geni 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is, at least if the images are small enough, and the gallery is sufficiently annotated. There was a recent Second Circuit case involving small images of Grateful Dead posters in a book that were used to illustrate a timeline. The court held that fair use applied because the informative context of the timeline with captions for the posters was sufficiently transformative, the images (while clearly recognizeable for what they were) were reduced enough in size to pose no commercial threat to the original, and the images were an "inconsequential" portion of the book (i.e., were not a reason for purchasing it). The court believed that the purpose of the use "was to emphasize the images' historical rather than creative value."[1],[2] Postdlf 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, copyright is only federal in the U.S.; it's not just a tendency. Postdlf 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if such a gallery qualifies as fair use by law, Wiki's guidelines don't allow it because we're trying to build a free encylopedia here... --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see your point. Postdlf 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What specific guidelines don't allow this? If your refering to WP:FUC #3 and #8 these rules use vague words and are open to interpetation. The interpetation of the rules in the past have seemed rather strict and narrow and given certain individuals the power to mold articles in their own image, which is contrary to the whole Wiki Project. FrankWilliams 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So it seem to me that there is a legal presidence for having a Fair Use gallery if there is an intention to establish something. The gallery in question is certainly establishing what key issues of the run look like. So it seem logical that it should be allowed.FrankWilliams 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The example of the Marvel Boy gallery may be helpful, since it depicts the many, many various persons and costumes associated with that character name. I can't really see a more efficient way of clarifying all those potentially confusing characters/looks. -- Tenebrae 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Galleries may be nice, however they clutter the page and in most case are just totally unnecessary. (See an old version of the Kingdom Come page). The Iron Fist gallery is an interesting concept, but belongs more on a fansite than Wikipedia. (Not even considering the legal issues)--Toffile 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I really, really don't want to look at an old version of the Kingdom Come article. --Chris Griswold 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree if done badly they could be cluttery; hoever the Iron Fist gallery was:

A. Small (8 covers) B. Done in a table (Very organized) C. Put at the end of the article as to NOT interphere with the rest of the article. FrankWilliams 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I see the "image gallery" rule making sense when the pictures are just being used as decoration (Kingdom Come's old version being over the limit), which falls in line with the rest of the policy. However, if the images are providing some kind of critical commentary or historical value, it seems fine to me (such as the Marvel Boy gallery above), or the ports section in Pac-Man (to show the variety of different versions, and how none of them look alike or similar to the arcade version). Also, that court decision above regarding the Grateful Dead was pretty clear in its strength of fair use using the rules similar to Wikipedia's, it's okay to use 1)low resolution thumbnails (ala Google), 2) insignificant part of the work (to impede sales), and 3)captioning the images made them "less expressive" (commentary). I'm glad to see Fair Use being strengthened in the courts, for once. Most of the Team-Up covers were probably unnecessary, though. --SevereTireDamage 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that the gallery was NOT intended for "Decorative" reasons; I wanted to establsh a sequence of KEY comicbook covers to those unfamiliar with the series and the user below correctly relates "Iron Fist" is NOT wideley known. So this would be an exception to the rule rather than starting a whole new presidence. The wiki policies are open to interpetation for exactly these reasons when exceptions are needed, as it is in this case. 138.162.0.37 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Something else to consider. The creation of a cover gallery for Iron Fist (which, no offense, is not a particularly well-known title compared to others out there) would set a precedent that would almost compel the creation of cover galleries for, say, Action Comics. And you can imagine how huge a project that would be -- and the whole "image repository" and "fair use" arguments would apply even more. 23skidoo 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I shudder to think what the X-Men cover gallery would look like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's possible it could be excessive if done badly, but note there are already seven cover images (eight if you count the Storm head crop) on the page. (And they skipped the '80s entirely!) --SevereTireDamage 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we already have a situation where an article has multiple images. That fact that they are not centralized in a "Gallery" or otherwise seems to nullify most of the arguments against a gallery.FrankWilliams 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please also look at the Marvel Zombies cover gallery. I really liked seeing it because it was interesting to see all of the covers together, and it kind of gave a sense of the tone of the series. I don't know one way or the other if it is right for Wikipedia, though. --Chris Griswold 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gallery Proposal Rules

I suggest the follow ruleset for allowing galleries sections. Galleries should be:

• 1. Images should be small and out of the way (IE. towards end of articles)
• 2. Images as with all images should have a good fair use rationale.
• 3. Images should be the smallest number possible where they are suppoted verbally the the article.
• 4. Images should be well organized (IE. Within a table)
• 5. Images should be supported by verbiage within the article so that the wording and images convey a complimentary statement.
• 6. Galleries {in general-(Usually but NOT always the case)} should be kept to a minimal and should be the exception to the rule.

Number 6 amounts to "Whenever an editor feels like it." Don't use galleries; use the images inline where appropriate. If there's nowhere appropriate for an image, it doesn't belong in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Things are NOT always that black + white. We ran into a similar problem in Shang-Chi. Images were all over the place and it created a format nightmare. Putting them in a table format simplified things as editors did NOT have to continuously shift things around for asthetic purposes. All I am suggesting is that galleries/tables have their place and should not be discarded "period". FrankWilliams 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Half of those images should have been removed. If images are ramming into each other, then you've DEFINITELY got too many fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AMIB about point 6. I don't agree with galleries (we're not a fansite), and I really feel that a glut of images is not truly needed. Images should help illustrate an article. A gallery of covers does not do that. I can see the Marvel Boy gallery work, as it does illustrate the differences between the different characters. --Toffile 13:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields in question. --Chris Griswold 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd point out the relatively new "Getting Involved" page I've just finished working on. Please help improve this page; it's designed to slide new editors right into editing and put within arm's reach all they need to be good editor. --Chris Griswold 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We should probabaly add a link to some of the templates we've used. Also, I haven't checked, but do you think we should add this to our Talk Page greeting?

I'm not sure I understand. The page links to the templates page twice, once in terms of editing and once in terms of the available resources. A link to the page is one of couple of changes I want to make in ((comicsproj)). It is locked to editors right now, though. Hopefully, I can get the template changed tonight. --Chris Griswold 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about listing some of the image tags in the image use section. (We hve some of the tags available for free images, but none of our fair use tags are mentioned.) As for the other comment, it was for ((comicsproj)) (which hopefully can get changed tonight, as you said.)--Toffile 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I look around, a number of the major comic book character (your Wolverines and Magnetos) and team biographies appear far too in-depth (read: filled with minutiae), in-universe, and in dire need of condensing. While Chris Griswold tends to do the bulk of the drastic edits to the pages of comic book character articles I frequent, I've done a very small share of them and have noticed some WP:COMIC editors tend to see them as harassment, often reverting the edits. While I think the WP:COMIC editorial guidelines might be sufficient, is there any way we can get a better instruction as to how much, or what exactly of the character's fictional history should be included in the character's article or would any more be instruction creep? --Newt ΨΦ 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While I hate to generalize, my suspicion is that many (possibly most) of the editors that seem to continually expand and extend articles on popular comics characters are not the people who are reading editorial guidelines -- or this talk page. However, for those editors who do read here, I agree with Newt that the most common problem with comics character bios is a tendency to approach the article as a comprehensive guide to all details about the character throughout time.

In my opinion, character bios should tend to be broken down into three sections: 1) origin/first appearance, 2) 1-2 paragraphs detailing the most significant alterations of the character since creation (e.g. Gwen Stacy dies, yes, but the Clone Saga has not had a lasting effect; or -- Superman marries Lois Lane, yes, but the 'Death of Superman' does not change the current character so deserves at most one sentence or sentence fragment) and 3) 1-3 sentences regarding recent events (which can be as simple as "<insert character> currently continues to fight for justice in his/her ongoing comic book").

Anything beyond that seems to lead inevitably to fans of the character regularly increasing the details of their personal favorite storyline, then the next editor does the same to another storyline, etc. Just my 2 cents. -Markeer 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly in agreement with Markeer, and have tried to properly condense and organize the articles I've been working on (such as Checkmate (comics) and Suicide Squad), but I'm also in disagreement on one bit, namely on the position of stories such as the Clone Saga and Death of Superman. Although they have not had long lasting effects on the characters as they are now, they did significantly alter the status quo for some time, and had quite an effect on readership. It is perhaps most important with these sections to keep an out-of-universe perspective, noting mostly the effects of the stories on the public, rather than the character. --Kusonaga 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again Im in complete agreement with Kusonaga. There is no reason that Wikipedia cannot be a complete guide to these characters, provided we keep a real world focus and leave out unimportant details and fancruft. Im sorry but the Death of Superman/Clone Saga are both major events in the history of both their respective characters/concepts that deserve extended discussion so they are both bad examples of what should be minimised. I also think its important to point out that Wikipedia can provide all the information that Who's Who etc. provide (outside of their original material) and actually be far superior to them by adding the extra level of context allowed by the real- world focus, with info such as issue numbers, dates, creators and other behind the scenes information which those in-universe guides usually disallow. However I also agree with Newt that the situation at the moment is terrible with many (probably most) character profiles written from an in-universe perspective and none of that information. Hueysheridan 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Markeer's right that most editors that add all the in-universe information do not frequent this talk page nor read editorial guidelines. Moreover, often the bad articles are used for justification of continually making bad articles, as I've seen in my recent discussion on Talk:Magneto (comics) and the AfD and merge discussions for the various story arc summary "articles," like Ultimate X-Men (story arcs).

Further, continuing the semi-related point of these story arc pages (entirely in-universe plot summaries), these are obvious breaches of Wikipedia policy, however, their existence is often justified (and thus they're not merged or deleted) due to lack of consensus to merge found in straw polls with very little educated (in policy) discussion behind them. The fear is that they will either come back, or whatever is merged will continue to expand anyway. The rationale for their creation and continued existence is that other articles exist like them. --Newt ΨΦ 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why comic book characters shouldn't be treated any different than articles on film, TV, and book characters as long as WP:FICT applies. The more major the character, generally the more information. Superman one would expect would have a lot more information written about him than Brother Power the Geek, for example. 23skidoo 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that the more major characters should have equal length articles to very minor ones; that is bound to happen. However, characters should not have everything that has ever been written about them in their articles either, especially in-universe. --Newt ΨΦ 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fair, but a concensus has to be reached regarding what type of info to include. It shouldn't just be "first appearance, abilities, last appearance". There is room for more detail, but I agree every single action they undertake doesn't have to be listed. I think, however, there should be a bit more leeway given to currently active characters since there's bound to be greater interest in detail, especially by anyone using Wikipedia to help them get their heads around, for example, Infinite Crisis and 52. I know I've relied on some of the articles here to help me make sense of it, and without some of that detail I might have been lost. But using my Brother Power example above, there's no need to list every single event that happens to him in issue 3 or whatever - I'm in full agreement there. OTOH we do often see this type of minutae regarding literary and TV characters (random example, see the characters from Doctor Who and Alias that have their own articles). I guess a balance has to be found. 23skidoo 17:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The only type of minimisation that I think needs doing is condensing on a Zongoman article "Zongoman fought Bot in issue #52, and Bot got crushed under a pile of rocks. Zongoman fought Bot in issue #74, and Bot got crushed under a pile of teenagers." etc. to "Zongoman fights Bot many times, ending the battles by crushing his opponent." --Jamdav86 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Batman and Superman are both Featured Articles and good examples. It is our goal to have comprehensive coverage of a character's history, with real-life major changes take priority over in-universe changes. Is there a page that keep tracks of Featured and Good Articles for WPC, like CVG has? --SevereTireDamage 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant my examples above (Death of Superman and the Clone Saga) were poor since both certainly had a lasting effect on the industry as a whole. My point (which I believe most understood) was simply that an "epic battle" or similar storyline may have been essential to a character in the year it was published, but over the course of a 40 to 80 year history of a character such stories tend to fade in importance. Each battle between Batman and the Joker is less essential to an article than a description of the strange relationship between them as antagonists. The latter description would be more appropriate for the article to be understandable to a broader audience.

Jamda's example above is great. We don't need to know each issue Zongoman fights Bot, just that Zongoman and Bot are enemies that have fought each other repeatedly over the course of Zongoman's (undoubtedly distingished) superhero career. Well, and a sentence about his vulnerability to Bot's Zongonite heart... -Markeer 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are Superman and Clark Kent two separate articles? --Dr Archeville 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is a dispute over renaming the article. The article was discussed briefly over a merge from Original English-language manga, and then the article was moved to Manga-influenced comics. Since then it has been reverted back to Amerimanga. A third opinion would be appreciated. --SevereTireDamage 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am cleaning up disambiguation links and found the article for Mike Richardson. This article was originally about a football player and was turned into a two-subject page for both the athlete and the comic book publisher. I would like to turn this into a proper disambiguation page and create 2 new pages, one for Mike Richardson (football) and one for Mike Richardson (publisher) or perhaps Mike Richardson (comic publisher) or Mike Richardson (comics). Naturally, I would clean up all the links for the pages to the 2 new subject articles so they would point to the correct place instead of the dab page. Before I took action, I wanted to check in here and 1) ensure that there were no objections and 2) see if there was any consensus about the article name. Also, I figured that if I did do this, you would want to know the new article name so that you can start to use it when linking in the future. Please comment here and, after consensus is reached (or no one responds for a few days), I'll take care of everything. Thanks --Brian G 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'd say go ahead. -Markeer 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is done. The new Mike Richardson (publisher) article is created and it is a pretty short stub. I would suggest that it be expanded, including history in movie production as well as comic books, birth info/location, etc. Also any help you can please provide to encourage folks to link to the new article instead of the dab page would be appreciated. --Brian G 03:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ultimate Galactus trilogy
  • Ultimate Nightmare (first part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy)
  • Ultimate Secret (second part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy)
  • Ultimate Extinction (final part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy)

And

• Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra
  • Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra (first part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)
  • Ultimate Elektra (second part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)
  • Ultimate Daredevil (final part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)

Why not Mage three article's into one of it is a trilogy?--Brown Shoes22 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think they should be merged. Ultimates are a popular line of comics, but a page for a single issue really isn't needed. The series can easily be described on one page, not several. RobJ1981 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Brown Shoes on one thing: the Ultimate Galactus trilogy could be merged into a single article. --Pc13 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The real Question how ?--Brown Shoes22 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• It think a new page (Ultimate Galactus Trilogy) should be made, and then merge the other three into it with a section about each one. In the case of Ultimate Extinction, it needs cut down dramatically. If it ends up happening, I'll help. --Silver lode 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly are the annual pages just a description of the story arcs? An annual is a comic that comes out 1 time a year, it's not story arcs. Ultimate Spider-Man Annual, Ultimate X-Men Annual, Ultimate Fantastic Four are the three main examples I have seen.

Wouldn't it just be easier to rename them? It's a bit misleading on the Ultimate Marvel page, when it talks about annuals... then you click it, and it leads to descriptions of story arcs from the comic. RobJ1981 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone care to comment? I think it's pretty dumb an article that should be for annuals, lists story arcs. It's misleading, and shouldn't be there (yet... the annual pages are STILL updated with story arc information). RobJ1981 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The articles are redirects to the story arcs page. The annual is listed in its chronological position on that page. --Jamdav86 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the redirect should be removed. Just because annual is listed on the story arcs page, doesn't mean annual should be redirected to story arcs. If annuals don't have enough information, just remove the redirect. Why not something like Ultimate annuals, listing JUST the annuals for Ultimate Spider-Man and the rest? Then redirect the Spider-Man annual (and so on) to Ultimate annuals. I think that would be much better and alot less misleading. RobJ1981 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there should be a dedicated page for the story arcs, and definitely no dedicated pages for the annuals. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7. --Newt ΨΦ 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's your opinion. I think story arcs are great sources of information. Look at regular book articles, alot of them describe the book in great details. Comic books shouldn't be any different. RobJ1981 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not my opinion, it is wikipedia policy. They infringe copyright, are too detailed to be encyclopedic, and offer no secondary analysis. "Regular book" articles offer secondary analysis, and plot to add understanding as well as themes and critical reaction. All these articles offer is a summary of the plot, which is against wikipedia policy as I linked above. --Newt ΨΦ 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I know Newt and I usually disagree, but he's absolutely right on this one. Story arc articles are what we call in the New World "a bit infringe-y".--Chris Griswold 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok then, delete all the story arcs pages. Good luck on finding them all. RobJ1981 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not out to delete them all, some arc pages could be turned into reasonably good articles treating the arc as a literary work. However, any help you could provide would be appreciated in tracking arc pages down. --Newt ΨΦ 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Here is one I found: Sensational Spider-Man (vol. 2). It's not story arcs (but close enough), it's issue by issue recaps. Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man is the same way: issue by issue recaps. RobJ1981 04:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When I mean retconned members, I mean characters like Astra (comics), Sentry (Robert Reynolds), and Triumph (comics) characters who were retconned to be pre-existing characters (Astra was a founding member of the Brotherhood, Triumph a founding member of the JLA, and Sentry a hero of the Marvel Universe). Jessica Jones might also apply.

Does anyone know any other characters like this? --DrBat 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomad /Jack Monroe and The Grand Director kind of qualify. Hueysheridan 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a category for these type of characters, and if so what should it be called? --DrBat 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it merits its own category, as they would be a unique set of characters. I also think the Darwin and Vulcan fit in as well. As for a name, I don't know, but 'retconned characters' is too ambiguous. --Silver lode 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Characters originating in retcon"? --Chris Griswold 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting this correctly... it seems unmaintainable and huge to the point of uselessness. "Previously-unknown character emerges from the past, changing everything you thought you knew and loved!" is a well-worn staple of the business. --SevereTireDamage 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If there were some existing term for this type of thing already, I could see an article to explain the neologism, but to create such a category seems clear OR to me. -Markeer 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this should pretty well be covered by those adorable twins Retcon and List of retcons. --Chris Griswold 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure it falls under OR, there are categories like fictional characters from Illinois, and Marvel Comics martial artists. And even then I am sure that there are sources (i.e. interviews) that would back up the retcon origin status. I think its an interesting aspect, and do agree with Markeer's idea about a page of characters origins that come from retcons, but maybe just make a section on the retcon page. --Silver lode 01:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the term "vast" necessary to describe characters with superhuman strength? It doesn't seem to modify the adjective "superhuman" -- somewhat of an abstract idea -- all that much. This appears regularly in SHBs, and an argument I just read for the inclusion is that it is to differentiate between characters such as Superman and Spider-Man. If such a distinction is to be made, wouldn't it be more effective to actually state something like that within the article? --Chris Griswold 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out how to word this as well. "Vast" is the best qualifier I've seen to differentiate the two. I think it could be worth keeping that around. Most of the content of the "Powers and abilities" sections of these articles can usually be gleaned elsewhere in the article, but I would think the purpose of the section would be to either explain powers further, or act as a quick reference to those who don't necessarily want to read the whole article to get a good idea of the character's powers. --Newt ΨΦ 04:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In Superhero Boxes (which I think is where Chris is concerned), I don't think any adjectives are needed, just the category of superpower yes? The idea of those boxes is to give a snapshot of the character. If one wants more information on the comparative degree of a power, I agree with Newt that it would be fine in the Powers and Abilities section. -Markeer 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Yeah, I misread. I don't think it's needed in SHB either. --Newt ΨΦ 14:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note This section has been refactored per Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Hiding Talk 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Section begins here.

Comments are appreciated on the following matters:

• Joshua Clay has been redirected to Tempest (comics), this was reverted back.
• Galleries on the Iron Fist (comics) page have been removed.
• The text Other DCU Criminal Organizations and its link to List of criminal organizations in comics from the 100 (DC Comics) page has been removed, although a similar page the List of supervillain teams and groups is being created.
• Black Panther (comics) and African characters in comics are subject to possible vandalism. --Basique 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What I did was just fine in my opinion. RobJ1981 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Go look at the Iron Fist talk page and higher up on this very page. A number of people have been deleting that image gallery for grounds based on Wikipedia policy and copyright law. When in doubt about a legal issue, you err on the side of caution. Doczilla 09:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I read some reasoning why we don't put lists of issue titles on a comic book page somewhere in a talk page, but I can't seem to find a policy in WP:NOT or in the project's editorial guidelines. Is there a consensus on this, or am I just going crazy? Personally, I find them obtrusive and rather trivial, but I don't want to change a page just because fo my point of view (i.e. X-Men vol. 2). --Silver lode 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Shift them onto their own page like List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics and add one-line plot descriptions. --Jamdav86 16:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ran across this article while on newpage patrol... it seems to be a copy-paste merge of at least 2 articles, and currently seems to contradict itself (see article's talk). Anyone willing to have a look? -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (BTW, I'm not watching this project, but I am watching the article).

I think it was just created today, I was gonna look at it later this weekend if no one gets there before. Theres a discussion above about why it was created. --Silver lode 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

((The Batman)) and ((Superman)) are disruptively huge (look at the bottom of Superman/Batman, for example) and full of whitespace; I'm not sure what's going on with them, but they need to shrunk badly.

They've got other problems, like an overemphasis on recent series (Superman/Batman, but no World's Finest? No pre-Crisis storylines whatsoever?), but that's as much a reflection of Wikipedia content as a problem with the navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a World's Finest page and it could use a serious sprucing up, are you volunteering? --Basique 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about it to contribute significantly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a stab at condensing ((The Batman)), at least the film section. And I really don't think the link box needs footnotes about which continuity each film is under so removed that section -Markeer 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

...which has immediately been reverted. Well, in the interest of coming to a consensus, I suggest editors look at options (or continue to discuss the necessity) for simplifying those boxes as they obviously appear on a number of pages. For my part, I prefer compact boxes for such things with a minumum of formatting, although I realize others do not agree with that. -Markeer 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I now have to come over here to defend my editing and creation of the template, so I'm here. There are talk pages for these templates at their pages, I highly recommend people discuss the templates on THEIR pages, instead of hiding on a third party page then invading and claiming consensus. As for the size of the boxes, there's already work going on, ON THOSE PAGES, to work on this, and vandalism is NOT a solution. I reverted your 'helpful edit', because removing all the work done on the template is NOT helping, it's vandalism, and damn close to a flat out blanking. Talk about it on the Template:The Batman page, I won't be comign back herre, I'll discussit on ITS' page.ThuranX 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tone down your confrontational tone and stop describing good-faith edits as vandalism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That template definately neeeds to be trimmed, the People, Miscellania, Comics, Comic Storylines, TV and Film sections need to be completely removed, as does the storyline section. You need two separate templates one for comics with just (Characters, supporting characters & enemies) and one for everything else. --Basique 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its time ChrisGriswold, Kusonaga, UltimatePyro and the other active project leaders designed a set of rules for these templates and their inclusion in articles. These templates need to be regulated in the same way that the S-Boxes are. And I think examples are needed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/templates. --Basique 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'm considered a project leader...

Either way, I can be game for a little discussion on Navbox guidelines. Count me in. --Kusonaga 22:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure, let's do it. And don't forget Psyphics/NewtΨ. --Chris Griswold 00:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Awwww... I'll fit my $.02 where I can. --Newt ΨΦ 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'M BEING BOLD and starting the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes --Chris Griswold 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys I'm happy you looked in, we needed leadership on the issue and you were the first ones I thought of. Heh heh bold. --Basique 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking through the Wikipedia template categories, and I found Category:Redirect templates. Did anyone know they existed?

They're templates you leave on a redirect page to explain what they are and to give an editor pause before re-creating the article. Something like this might be helpful with the recent Ultimate merges. Oh, and there's ((R from secret identity)), which only a handful of WP:CMC pages use. Take a look.--Chris Griswold 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request an impartial oversight and review of the Monarch (comics) article, if anyone has the time to look it over. --Basique 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd add the bit about Didio into the Nathanial Adam section. Beyond that however, the most glaring thing I notice is the incorrect tense use. Writing about fiction requires a present tense rather than a past one. Kusonaga 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool its there, and now bolded for emphasis. Will look over tense use. --Basique 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed this isn't really getting used much lately? It used to be great when it was in ((comicsproj)); the content on it changed pretty frequently. We really ought to come up with a new way to get this information to editors; right now, it's only on five active pages. Any suggestions? --Chris Griswold 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think it needs to be brought back into the ((comicsproj)) template. I didn't see a problem with it. Kusonaga 09:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was using a lot of bandwidth. It was on a lot of articles and was being changed constantly. --Chris Griswold 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wouldn't know how else to bring it to the people. Kusonaga 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I add it to every new article I create, and to any article missing a discussion page, it's pretty useful. --Basique 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, adding it to every article would be rather counter-productive, since then we might as well add it to the comicsproj template. Kusonaga 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way we can figure out which comics articles are the most popular and add it only to them? That way, it's not on every page, only ones where someone is more likely to actually click on it. --Chris Griswold 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, a vandal blanked the "Visual Arts" section of the "Requested Pages", which included the section for requests for new comics-related pages to which the Task Template is linked. With a lot of effort, I managed to fix this without reverting every change that occurred in the week that elapsed before I caught the vandalism. --GentlemanGhost 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The comicsproj template, not the task template that is. --Basique 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

With her being more known as the Joker's Daughter and not Harlequin, and her joining the new Titans East team, does anyone think she should get her own article outside the Harlequin (comics) one? --DrBat 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as long as a lot of work is put into it, and it doesn't just become another stub. --Jamdav86 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering I think the bit about Duela in the article itself is far from stub material, I say, go for it. She deserves her own article. Kusonaga 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)