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.

When should we delete stubs?There's a lot of them. DC Comics has at least 637 stub articles, Marvel Comics has 820 or so and so on and so on. WE should depopulate the stub articles. Brian Boru is awesome 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to come up with hard and fast rules. There are stubs that should simply get merged/redirected to other articles, in which case you should just feel free to go ahead and redirect them if they've been stubs for a long time. Then there are those that are still worthy of fleshing out, but nobody's gotten around to it. You know, serious examination of the stubs sounds like a good group project. Doczilla 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot to be merged, rather than deleted. Tagging them for merging is the 2nd-to-next thing on my to-do list. For instance, team members that have only been on one team can be merged with the team (or their "List of ___ members" articles). Once merged, the stubs should be turned to redirects. Supporting characters from a particular series can likewise be merged with the series, or the character they support. Organizations can be merged with the characters associated with them (LexCorp could be merged with Lex Luthor -- that's a bad example since it's not a stub, but you know what I mean).

If they're clearly a sub-article of something else (Ape (comics) is a member of the Morlocks (comics) and nothing else) then it's pretty a clear merger. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And it seems when I delete a stub from the 200 category it still says 200 not 199 or something. Also is it just stub articles, or they should be at least like Captain America, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman articles for them to be considered not stubs anymore?Brian Boru is awesome 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A stub is thought to be anything of a paragraph or less. The category issue is a bit of a bug, if there are more than 200 it will display 200, 200 is the highest it can count to, from what I remember. Hiding Talk 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So five sentences is a stub?Brian Boru is awesome 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• What do you think? Hiding Talk 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that reads harsher than it was meant. Basically, share your thoughts on the issue. What article is it? How do you mean, delete a stub? Is five sentences a paragraph? It's a judgement call at the end of the day. Hiding Talk 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you guys please take a look at my recent edits in Nuklon and compare it with User:Netkinetic's? Then take a look at his recent edits regarding categories. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are basically disambiguation pages. I'm pretty sure they shouldn't have all the categories attached to them. Then again, I don't know for sure. I mostly stick to Marvel with its relative paucity of legacy heroes... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So I think we should discuss a direction to follow regarding this matter, go towards a standardization. We cannot have it both ways. It's one or another. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I think it follows standing procedure, at least based on other characters in a situation similar to AL Rothsein's. I left a slightly more detailed explanation of my reasoning for that on the discussion page of the entry in question since I wound up deleting a JSA member category tag that Netkinetic had added.

Nutshell is:

→Infinity Inc, yup... more for the new character than the old though.

→JLA, yup... I can see why, even if it is redundant.

→JSA, nope... the name Nuklon has never been used by a character while they were a member.

That being said... I think there may have to be a systematic go through of the team categories to make sure that a consistent schema is being followed. — J Greb 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents to the discussion. I do concede Nuklon was not a member of the JSA, but by the same token "Albert Rothstein" was never a member "by that name" for any of those teams. If we start using civilian names for members of superteam categories, then we need to include Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne as members of the JLA. If you all decide to standardize in that direction, although I do not concur with that usage I will abide by that decision. However, as has been said, you can't have it both ways. That is not how an encyclopedia is produced, with two sets of standards. There has to be conformity. NetK 04:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to look at what the article is about. Nuklon, because of its focus on two characters, is about the use of the title Nuklon. Albert Rothstein, on the other hand, covers the character as Al Rothstein, Nuklon, and Atom Smasher. The character is the member; the title is not. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I support Chris's comments. Perhaps it would be easier to think of the articles as "overviews" (Hiding's cool description : )

• Nuklon - an overview of all characters that have borne that name.
• Albert Rothstein - an overview of all that that character has done (in and out of costume).

Through the use of: [[Nuklon|this is some description/title/name/whatever]], the "name" shown as a member shouldn't matter.

And as for categorising, so far it would seem that as long as some character with that name, who is listed on that page/article was a member of the team, then the article is categorised. (As an aside, this does seem somewhat inaccurate, we may need to address this in the future?)

I know, long answer : ) I hope it helps. - jc37 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. For consistency sake, I've added Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Arthur Curry, Billy Batson etc to the JLA category for the same reason...more than one character with the same name. For instance, Cyborg Superman and Eradicator Superman were not JLA members though they went under the name Superman; Azrael wasn't a JLA member when he took the mantle of Batman; the golden age version of Aquaman wasn't a member of the JLA. So we remove Nuklon, an alias for Albert Rothstein, then we need to remove Superman/Batman/etal as well as technically they also are "categories". To have it one way in certain instances and another way in other instances is not what constitutes an accurate encyclopedia entry, which is what we're working on. NetK 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And I have promptly reverted them all. Never disrupt WP to prove a point. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Clark Kent should never be a member of the JLA category when we have an article on Superman. Let's not try and enforce a one size fits all approach please, we have ignore all rules for a reason. Work out what the article is, and then work out where it belongs. All our decisions should be based on what the article is, not on what some other article is. Consistency's sake is not a rule on Wikipedia. Look at the article's and work out where to go. Lesfer is right in the broadest sense. If we are discussing issues, continue that discussion rather than acting. That said, Be bold is a strong principle, so no harm done. Let's look at the issues. Clark Kent is not a JLA member, nor is Bruce Wayne. Your actions regarding them do not solve the issue with Albert Rothstein, and are not related to them. We need to work out where we go with Albert Rothstein, not Batman or Superman. What did we decide at the naming conventions, were we going with Albert Rothstein, or Nuklon (Albert Rothstein)? What's going to stop these problems ocurring again and again? We need some sort of guidance that consistency is not our goal, rather that the best presentation of the information at hand is. Hiding Talk 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, I respectfully disagree and here is why I'm standing by my previous action. If we are using a criteria (hence not a "rule" but definitely a general guideline) that disambiguous pages where multiple individuals have the same costumed persona, then what precisely "is" the difference between Albert Rothstein and Clark Kent? Both have aliases (Nuklon and Superman) which they shared with other individuals. Both are the prominent holders of said titles having appeared in most appearences under "Nuklon" and "Superman" respectfully. If the criteria for not having Nuklon listed as JLA member is because there is a new (at this point one-time appearing) character with the same name but who is not a JLA member, then I again echo the point above: Superman (aka Cyborg) and Superman (aka Eradicator) were NOT members of the JLA. I do not follow the premise of each article being decided upon independently...it leads to a category that is uneven. I need some further clarifying points on this matter. NetK 23:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but in a dispute you don't stand by your previous actions and revert. That's how an edit war. Instead we follow dispute resolution. We talk, we don't act. The difference between Clark Kent and Albert Rothstein is that firstly, Clark Kent is a sub-section of the Superman article, Clark Kent is not a separate entity from Superman and cannot be confused with any other character called Superman. Another point is that we don't apply hard rules on Wikipedia. We look at the situation and judge on a case by case basis. We don't say that because Albert Rothstein is in some category, we have to put Clark Kent there. We think to ourselves, what's the best way of doing all this? Now it would be easy if comic publishing companies could stop making new characters with the same name, but that doesn't happen, so we have to deal with that. And whilst I appreciate you coming here and discussing the issue, recategorising a lot of articles when there's no consensus to do so is not best practise, and does not in any way indicate you intend to assume good faith in the practise. If your approach is the right one, wait until that has been agreed, and you have lost nothing. If your approach is rejected, then you have to consider how your actions will look to other people. At the moment the consensus stands against you, to my eye. Each case has to be decided independently, that's the most basic principle of Wikipedia. That's why we have ignore all rules as a policy. Your points about Superman (aka Cyborg) and Superman (aka Eradicator) arenc't applicable here, they weren't known by the name Superman to the widest audience, and let's be honest, they weren't really known as Superman even to the readers of the Death of Superman storyline and it's follow-ups. Hiding Talk 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris hit the point, I agree with him. I'm cool with the way it looks right now. What could be done about it, though: Renaming articles. Instead of "Carter Hall (comics)" model, we could follow "Starman (Ted Knight)" model. Just an idea, I don't even know if I agree with it myself (lol). But I do know this won't work for characters like Albert Rothstein —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless we create redirects such as "Nuklon (Al Rothstein)", "Skyman (Sylvester Pemberton)", "Green Lantern (Alan Scott)", etc, in order to fit cats. That's another idea. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A few of observations here...

• Could someone calmly, and rationally explain to me why there are separate articles for Superman and Clark Kent? The rest of the character NetK referenced in the JLA blip are redirects from alter ego to hero, even Bruce Wayne. Why the special treatment here?
• I can understand two fairly good reasons why an article for a given "codename" would be split to give individual character that used it there own article:

1. 1. Length – even though it is a judgment call, there comes a point where a article covering multiple characters will get unwieldy.
   2. Name changes – Once the character changes the codename used, it becomes awkward to keep the character in that article, especially if either the new identity is as, or more, popular and/or someone else has taken up the old codename at the same time.

• There is a phenomenal amount of difference between a codename and the character. The character is the entity acting in the stories and may, and most likely does given the premises of superhero comics, go by many names. A codename is a name the character takes, or is give, and uses.
  In the example that kicked this off, Albert Rothstein is the character. That is the name he was, as far as we've been told, born with an it's the one he is using when, in his chronology, he first appears. "Nuklon" is a codename this character created to use in a failed attempt to join the JSA. He later used it as a member of both Infinity Inc and the JLA. He then changed his mind about the costume and codename he wanted to use. This led to him adopting the codename "Atom Smasher", which he used when he finally joined the JSA. Later still, another character was assigned the codename "Nuklon".
• It seem that it would be easier in cases like this for the article for the character to be titled either:

1. 1. as the character's name, the alter ego under the mask, in cases where the character has either had multiple codenames, or shares a codename with another character used by that publisher; or
   2. as the codename, if that is the only one the character has used, and the character is the only one to have used it.

It would appear to, at the very least, reduce the number of redirects needed for some of the articles.

• With regards to the pre-"insert-appropriate-reality-altering-event-here" versions of a character. At the moment the preference seems to be to address that/those version(s) of the character in the same article as the current version. As such it makes sense that all of the appropriate category linkages be attached to the article.

That's all I've got at the moment... apologies if it got a bit long-winded... — J Greb 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Clark Kent got his own article because the Superman article got too large and sections were split out per summary style guidance. A lot of the problems people are having here is that they aren't viewing articles as being parts of a chain of information, but as separate pieces of information. Where you have a situation like an article redirecting to another, there's absolutely no reason why it should be categorised. Your point about the number of redirects is actually going against guidance. If it's a common term, we redirect. Your point about how to title articles is one we've recently discussed, and to my mind, reading the discussion it's pretty clear what the consensus is: Categorise according to what the article is telling you to do. Hiding Talk 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Once majority has already reached a consensus, I'd like to know why all my work is being reverted. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding from the aforementioned that consensus was reached relating to Nuklon and Clark Kent. The articles in question however have not been considered. In addition, notice J Greb's comment relating to Nuklon possessing the category of JLA member: "JLA, yup... I can see why, even if it is redundant". Perhaps a concession would be to list both the alias and secret identity (in cases such as Barry Allen/Flash, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, etc) under the JLA category, for instance? Why I say this is that, page for page, there are some glaring inconsistencies on a page-by-page case. For instance, while the categories of JLA and JSA were removed from Atom, Suicide Squad (membership) was curiously not? Not every Atom was a member of the Suicide Squad. There are other instances of categorizing one such character in a title that doesn't apply to other characters, yet these are not also removed. NetK 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If people are going to edit war on this issue there are going to be an awful lot of protected pages about. I'm now thinking we delete these categories as well and listify. If we can't accept that the issues need to be dealt with case by case and through discussion and consensus, then perhaps it's better to represent the issues through a list. I might remind people that our categorisation guidance notes Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Now if we are here discussing an issue and people dispute that certain articles should be categorised in a certain manner, I'd say that constitutes a controversial categorisation and such a categorisation should not be implemented until the discussion is through. Hiding Talk 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• The point is: majority has always decided. So I don't see why this is a issue now. Once again majority has decided. If this is such a hard issue we can conduct a straw poll in order to determine consensus. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to to NetK's comment, my comment, and I stand by it, was the short form of the logic I posted on the Nuklon talk page. Looking at that, I agree that, if possible, it would be nice if the individual articles could be listed under the umbrella on, on the category page.

With regard to Atom page... I believe the reason the Suicide Squad tag survived is because there is not and "Adam Crey" article. But as with the above, I can see a justification for keeping JSA, JLA, and even Teen Titans cat tags on the umbrella article.

Lastly...given the length this has gone on, Hiding makes a good point. It may be a good idea to chuck the team categories in favor of team member/roster lists. — J Greb 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Lists seem a good idea to me, we can add stuff like the issue they joined, the issue they left and other pertinent information. And then we can make sure we get the link to the right article through piping. Hiding Talk 21:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this is a viable solution and will definitely offer a more clear-cut presentation then what is currently offered by the categories. Then we can rate criteria of membership not on each member's page but solely on the actual membership. Providing both costumed and civilian identification along with the publication they joined, as has been mentioned, will provide a more comprehensive entry. NetK 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh? What do you mean by "rate criteria of membership not on each member's page"? Hiding Talk 15:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I read that as "Argue in one place over why the heck character X is on the list tor team Y and have a record of it." As opposed to having that happen across multiple pages as it currently does. — J Greb 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Precisely. NetK 04:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggested a straw poll in order to determine consensus but I got no response about it. As I told before, majority decides. And this is exactly what is happening in cfd.
Anyway, if the deletion proposal fails I suggest we fit cats in redirects such as "Nuklon (Al Rothstein)", "Skyman (Sylvester Pemberton)" and "Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)" in order to solve the issue. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution... if we make sure there are <!--comments--> at the bottoms of the characters' main pages to explain why they're not categorized directly. We don't need well-meaning editors wasting time adding characters to categories they don't belong in. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, good point, Helen. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about User talk:CrystalB4. This user keeps reverting the SHB on the Hyperion page, as well as deleted info on superman's regeneration even when I provided a source. Please help me in resolving this matter. T-1000 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just spent the past half hour trying to read a Wizard magazine (#181), and the more I read, the less reliable I realize it is. After having a subscription for several years, I gave up on it about six years back, and I check in every once in a while to see if they have hired writers or editors yet. Wizard is mostly embellished press releases and speculation. When they do report on something, they get it wrong. They say the new Art Assylum has the "first-ever batch" of DC Mini-Mates figures coming out soon, despite the two series of DC Mini-Mates already released. Additionally, when they finally got around to mentioning Mad in the EC Comics article, they repeated the urban legend that the comic became a magazine because of the comics code. Any use of Wizard as a source really needs to be double-checked because there are times that Wizard presents subjects in a way that is unclear to the reader how true or factual the basis is. For instance, the Brothers in Arms feature, about a possible Brotherhood of Evil Mutants team that Wizard made up has no basis in anything, and they re-designed a couple costumes and re-named Jamie Madrox. Another feature takes two pages to evaluate which of nine X-Men are on which side of the Superhuman Registration Act debate (against, except for Bishop), but it's pure speculation with an assistant editor from Marvel who does not actually participate in the writing of the relevent series. Just be careful with this fan-zine. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've once had a subscription as well (what a dark past!). But let's be honest... Wizard sucks (lol)
Even the web is a more reliable source and we know we cannot trust the web ;) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression I'm slightly older than you lot, so I predate Wizard, and have never considered it reliable, even back in the day when I used to work in a shop and it launched. Interviews would be safe as source material, but beyond that I'd tread carefully. Where Wizard would make a good source is the speculator boom it fuelled in the early nineties. Hiding Talk 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

People in the comics "biz" tell me they prefer Comic Buyers Guide over Wizard for real information. Doczilla 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whom do you know in the "biz"? Let's drop names! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew there were major problems with Wizard when I was reading it in high school 12 years ago, but the layout and printing problems kind of overshadowed the lack of writers and editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are three big problems with Wizard.

• One, it's very biased. Wizard exists to build hype. The more they do so, the better the companies like them and the more news and interviews they get--not to mention advertising revenue. Notice that they almost never write a negative review of anything. It is virtually an advertising service. It's not a serious critical magazine and it has the companies' interests at heart, not the reader's.
• Two, and this is not really their fault, they announce many things well in advance, sometimes based on iffy sources. Or, the information changes as time goes on. Many books are solicited and never show up, or show up late. That has nothing to do with Wizard, it's just the way it is. Previews has the same problem.
• Sometimes Wizard speculates, again to build hype, when they don't know the whole truth behind a story (and likely, writers plant red herrings).

On the other hand, like Hiding says, it's a valuable resource for interviews and "behind the scenes" information. We can and should use it in that capacity, but we need to take it with a grain of salt, and be extra careful that the information is fact and not fiction about fiction. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but we forgot my favorite complaint about Wizard: participating in the promotional hoax surrounding the Sentry limited series. No credible news source does that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here, here: The Sentry stuff was inexcuseable. It does amaze me how the publisher's created a mini media empire. Verbatim quotes from interviews do seem usable, but otherwise? And good periodical sources are hard to find. Comic Book Artist and Alter Ego are very solid, but virtually never cover new comics. The Comics Journal is a highly reputable source, but rarely covers mainstream comics. Hmmmm ... are we thinking it's time for Wikipedia-brand speciality magazines? I'm kidding ... about 90%. --Tenebrae 22:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that Chris' initials also stand for "Comics Guide"? -- Tenebrae 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Heroes used to be good. The Journal does cover mainstream from time to time, I have a good back issue selection but not exhaustive. Comics International is not too bad but I don't have any issues at all anymore. Not sure where they'd get filed either, maybe the British Library. I'll look into that one. I think new stuff we have to look at what online news sources we consider reliable. I'm happy using The Comics Reporter and newsarama, anyone got any other thoughts? Hiding Talk 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comic book resources, comics continuum, and comic bloc. with Geoff Johns forum there at comic bloc. Well Wizarduniverse.com is doing pretty good with 52, though it's like the wikipedia article. Brian Boru is awesome 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also look up www.spider-bob.com they have, under news resources various comic book news and other stuff as well. Brian Boru is awesome 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wizard absolutely blows as an objective news source; I don't think anyone disagrees with that. However, it's essential for its interviews and sales charts. Just use your best judgement on what to cite, and of course, if you find a more reliable source, go with that instead. WesleyDodds 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do any of you remember an ad in Wizard a few years ago for a G. I. Joe movie with a cast that included Michael Clarke Duncan? Dave Dorman did the art for the ad. That was another Wizard hoax, a.k.a. "joke." Doczilla 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And definitely never trust the April issue... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but have you ever gone to a Wizard Convention?Brian Boru is awesome 15:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody want to write up a guideline for this? CovenantD 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The category is not a comics category but it is too big now. Would it be a good idea to subcategorise it by Category:DC Comics characters with telekinesis and Category:Marvel Comics characters with telekinesis? It would take a large load off the page and wouldn't damage the purpose of the category to keep the Jean Greys away from the Prue Halliwells. And if anyone agrees with me, would someone care to help in moving characters over? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be better just to delete the category? Hiding Talk 15:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why not delete all of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power? Above all others, telekinesis, telepathy and precognition should stay. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What's so special about TKE and precog? >Radiant< 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a good idea to make such cross-section subcats. There are simply different power levels in the field of telekinesis. >Radiant< 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So what would you suggest? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest not making such cross-section subcats. If you want you can create a List of fictional telekinetics and use it as a comparison of power levels. This may be borderline OR, but you can e.g. list the strongest feat accomplished for all of them if you have a source for that. >Radiant< 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• How is Jean Grey that different from Prue Halliwell again? And I'm good with Hiding's idea, what with the deleting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is a confusion between a simple power to move an object with your mind, and the fact that that power has been expanded so that you can potentially manipulate/move any particulate matter, and possibly even energy. Nearly every power on List of comic book superpowers can now be duplicated telekinetically. It's become a category that will be hard to define, and may be hard to maintain, even if we restrict it to those who can simply move visible objects (rather than matter and energy). I hesitate to delete, since simple TK is a definable power, but it's a power that nearly every comic book character may now claim to have in one way or other (and through the nuveau tactile telekinesis, even Superman is a telekinetic). Perhaps as an umbrella category, but I think it will end up duplicating category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. - jc37 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke about their boobs. Nevermind. Serious answer below. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced we shouldn't delete category:Fictional characters by superhuman power, if I'm completely honest. Over-categorisation is guided against, and I'm looking at Superman and I'm thinking, um. Fictional vegetarians? Film protagonists? How long before we get category:DC Characters who can shoot red beams out their eyes or Category:DC characters with a red cape? Some things shouldn't be categorised, and super-powers seems to me to be one of them. There may well be a wonderful list style article we could build out of some concept relating to characters by superhuman power, but the category structure is straining to deal with the implications. Hiding Talk 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional characters by power is a fannish, lame way of categorizing things, though, and ultimately runs into problems with the fluid, inconsistent, often nonsensical way that superpowers are described. The fact that Fictional characters by telekinesis is running into problems is a symptom of this systemic problem, and I think the only cure is to scrap the lot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a generic show of support for the "scrap the lot" solution right here. Postdlf 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Magnetic powers, for example. I think that this could be useful for research (character analysis, comparisons, and the like), and since there is no need to citations (such as one would need with categorising by personal belief), I think categories are the way to go. Listification is for when you need to "explain" entries. In TK's case (and probably magic as well), that's true, but most of the others are self-explanatory, in my opinion. In any case, I strongly suggest that if listify is chosen, that the listification is done before someone noms them for CfD. - jc37 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to explanation, listification is also a good way to prevent category tags from flooding articles. Postdlf 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I get so tired of overcategorization, I can see the usefulness for some power-based categories, like Jc37's magnetic power example. Just do not keep breaking them down. As for breaking them down into DC characters with telekinesis and Marvel characters with telekinesis: No, no, and hell, no. One way or another, they are already categorized as DC or Marvel characters. A couple of us have said this before and I'll say it again: Do the math. When you overcategorize, the number of possible categories can easily outnumber the total count for all other Wikipedia articles. A list, however, would be fine. Have a list of telekinetic characters. In the list article, break it down into subsections by whatever organizational method you like. Doczilla 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jc and Doc on this one. I think superpower cats are good for research purposes, but some limitations should be placed on them. I understand it may be "fannish," but not solely, and merely being "fannish" I don't see as a cause for deletion. Inability to maintain is a good reason, though. --Newt_ΨΦ 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, for research purposes a list is far better, since it allows annotation. A category is a brutal tool to aid research. Beyond that, I'm always at a loss to counter the straw man that is the lone researcher arriving at Wikipedia as his sole point of reference. As to categories not needing citations and thus being suited to listing characters by power type, I'm a little baffled. Do we not have disputes about what powers a character exhibits fairly frequently? Looking through the awkwardly named Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields two names jump out at me: Meggan and Livewire. I'd need citations on them. Hiding Talk 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly didn't understand what you were trying to convey in the first part of your comment, please clarify? As for the two examples, perhaps I'm missing something, but both would seem to be rather straight-forward? - jc37 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Meggan and Livewire do not, on the face of it, to me, appear to be characters who control magnetic fiedls, so I would require annotation on why they were so listed. I used to read the old Captain Britain comic so I know a bit about Meggan in particular and never would have pegged her as a character who controls magnetic fields. My first sentence means that you place an article in a category, and nobody has any idea why just looking at that category. You place a person on a list and you can annotate why, cite relevant issues and describe the nature of the power. You can build a small justification for the inclusion in a list that you can't do so in a category. To work all that out in a category you have to reference every single character's article. In a list, you reference one. Hiding Talk 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Livewire, but as for Meggan in the 90s in Excalibur, Meggan was established as an elemental with power over several types of elements, including electro-magnetics. For references: http://uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=1445 and http://uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=1090. I would not have put her under the specific magnetic manipulators though, but under the general elemental manipulators (is magnetic a sub-cat, or do they only count the classical elementsin fictional elementals?). Dizzy D 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See, you kind of make my point for me. We seem to agree she's badly categorised. I for one am not quite clear how having control of the elements equates to control of a magnetic field, and I'm also not sure if an electro-magnetic field equates to a magnetic field. Like I say, this stuff is too confusing to be done through the category structure. Let's listify. Hiding Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My issue, I guess, as someone possibly not as schooled in Wikido, is how one might find this list? I guess doing research, one would start with the power itself (in this case telekinesis) look up the article here and there'd be a list in the "See also"? What about weather manipulators, whose power I don't imagine has its own article? With the categories, I can imagine looking up the article of a character with said power and then they'd more than likely be in a category with other ones. I'm just having difficulty wrapping my head around how someone would find these lists, or rather how we could place them where they would be easily found. --Newt_ΨΦ 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• The list would be placed in the appropriate categories, and can be linked to from appropriate articles in the text or the see also. Wherever you think the link is relevant, place it. If we ever hash out what we want nav boxes to do, that might be an area we could look at using. Hiding Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The other powers aside for a moment, do we have a concensus to listify characters with telekinesis powers? And I'd like to ask that we do the same with characters with magical powers, as well. - jc37 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We can definitely make such lists. Even those who want categories also shouldn't object to it. And looking at the name of the magnetic-power category in Hiding's paragraph definitely makes me reconsider allowing any categories for specific powers. We can always have one excessively broad category for superpowered characters, then put a list of the lists on the category's page. Make the lists, then shut down those categories. Doczilla 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Overly large categories would only serve nothing. The categories could be incredibly large (maybe larger than Category:Fictional Americans without subcategories), it would have to be at least partially broken down. For instance, I like the category and the breakdown on Category:Fictional magicians. Keep telekinesis, precognition and telepathy as they are. I don't like shapeshifters one bit, becasue to be Ditto is a shapeshifter and someone like Hulk (comics) is not. Innyway... ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, How do you differentiate between magic-user, witch, and wizard? : ) - jc37 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In and of itself, a very large category might be useless because it contains too many members. An umbrella category that simply links the lists, however, could be very useful. Doczilla 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, agreed. Jc37: "You're a wizard, Harry" and "We're witches, Piper!" are two quotes that spring to mind when identifying characters. Juggernaut is neither of these, but he DOES use magic in some way. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But yet, Hermione is a witch, while having essentially the same powers as Harry and the rest of the "wizarding community". Now smile, the question was rhetorical. I was pointing out that semantically, the terms for "magic-user" or "spell-caster" are starting to slide together with just semantic differences, or worse, author whim. (If you have a few days, check out the discussion at Wizard (fantasy); though most of the discussion is from before it picked up the "fantasy" dab.) At this point, I think the telekinesis category needs to be listified. But as I mentioned below, I'm going to be busy for a bit. (not to mention my "normal" things I do on WIkipedia : ) - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought this might be a good place to point it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/711_%28Quality_Comics%29

Good news is that most of the votes are for keep, but others may have something to add. Curiousbadger 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The more categories an article belongs to, the less meaningful any of them become. I just looked at Magneto and saw it belongs to thirty categories (for reference, even George W. Bush has fewer than that). I think this is a good moment to start thinking about listifying several of them. For instance, "members of <group>" would be better off as a list, because many characters have changed groups over the time of a story arc. Categories: Articles to be expanded | Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear | Articles with unsourced statements | Acolytes members | Brotherhood of Mutants members | Depowered mutants | Excalibur members | Fictional characters who are opposed to humanity | Fictional megalomaniacs | Fictional geniuses | Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields | Fictional orphans | Fictional scientists | Fictional terrorists | Fictional widows and widowers | Computer and video game bosses | Hellfire Club members | Jewish comic book characters | Marvel Comics mutants | Marvel Comics titles | Marvel Legends | Marvel vs. Series characters | Marvel Comics characters who can fly | New Mutants and X-Force members | Polish superheroes | Spider-Man villains | Ultimate Marvel | X-Men members | X-Men villains | 1963 introductions

>Radiant< 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think overcategorizing happens too much on Wikipedia. This happens due to the fact, that people think there must be a category for almost anything. Categorizing is helpful to a point, but when there is tons of them on articles, it's simply just clutter. Categories are meant as navigation tools, but when there is too many... it's a mess and there's a problem. Anyway, I think all members categories should go (but probably never will, since people think categories for just about each and every team is needed). Lists would work better and a little "see also" section on pages, so people can easily go to the list. RobJ1981 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The hair's-breadth parsing is far more cluttersome than useful.

Suggestion: Since the same deleted categories sometimes show up independently, months apart (e.g. something like "Blond superheroines", CfD'd and unknowingly returned by someone different as "Superheroines who are blond"), would it be helpful to have a list, someone in the Comics Project, of categories that were proposed/used but ultimately deleted, so that editors introducing a "new" category can look there first? --Tenebrae 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• We set up a template that sort of blocks deleted categories from being re-used.
• I think categorisation guidance is in need of an overhaul. No-one ever made it clear what the point of it was, really. Hiding Talk 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanations: Wikipedia:Categories; Wikipedia:Lists; and especially: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh I know all about them, but thanks. My point was that they have barely evolved to address what we want from them since the category system was introduced. I think the last major upheavel in category policy was the naming conventions, and I helped write those, that's how long that's been. Hiding Talk 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As for teams, I think that the discussion about team navboxes (unfortunately) applies to categories too (sigh). As stated above, the teams need citations (when, and underwhat circumstances was a member, a member?). I'd offer to tag them, but I still haven't heard of any offers help to help merge the Elemental category yet, which means I'm going to have to spend a fair amount of time slogging through it myself : ( - jc37 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Eh? Hiding Talk 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Specify? - jc37 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Another article with too many categories:Sabretooth (comics). Currently he has 23 categories. Something really should be done about this problem, too many categories is just clutter and doesn't help the article a whole lot. RobJ1981 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This category is currently a dumping ground for every article on a Marvel Comics character who has ever appeared in an Ultimates comic, as opposed to articles that are specifically about Ultimate fictional subjects. Should this continue? I say nay, let us pruneth this insolent category to focus only on articles that are specifically on topic, like Ultimate Spider-Man or Ultimates. There is already a List of Ultimate Marvel characters. Postdlf 18:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I will help remove the category from the pages that aren't solely Ultimate articles. RobJ1981 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Ultimate Marvel, what should be done with N-Zone? It's the Ultimate version of the Negative Zone. I haven't read all the Ultimate comics, so I don't know if it's worthy of an article on it's own or not. RobJ1981 19:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done alot of cleaning, but the category still needs more work. RobJ1981 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not worthy of its own article, merging it was the right thing to do. --Newt_ΨΦ 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I used it to help track down the Ultimate character articles to merge back into their parent main continuity articles, but I don't see much need for it outside of that. --Newt_ΨΦ 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The category is completely clean now. Keep an eye on it, I noticed in the history of several of the pages (where I had to remove the cat), the same user had been adding the category. RobJ1981 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another category excess that just lumps in articles on every Marvel character who has an action figure in this toy line. Few, if any of these articles have sections on character merchandise, so the category tag "Marvel Legends" just appears at the bottom without context or explanation. Once again, the Marvel Legends article has a complete list already. I'd like to CFD this: any complaints? Postdlf 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Legends has GOT to get deleted. That is one ridiculous category. Yes, please proceed with CfD on it and most of the "see also" mentioned there. It's just plain wrong, wrongheaded, and verging on advertising to categorize every such product line like that while lumping every character's separate article in these categories. Doczilla 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD it. RobJ1981 20:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see CFD here for Category:Marvel Legends and the similar Category:Spider-Man Classics. Postdlf 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also this probably should be cleaned: Category:MC2. It seems to be a category for anyone that has appeared in that Marvel imprint. It should only be for characters/teams such as: A-Next, Fantastic Five, Spider-Girl and so on. RobJ1981 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Postdlf 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one we need to discuss rather than let random deletionists or inclusionists who don't know comics decide for us: Category: Comic Book Movie actors Doczilla 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

After seeing several of these kinds of things on CfD, I'm thinking that maybe all the "actors/models of <creative work>" should probably be deleted. - jc37 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far; the regular cast of long-running TV series or franchises (such as Law & Order or Star Trek) may be fine for categorizing because they will be strongly associated with those works. However, this category is exponentially more trivial (great, so Gene Hackman and Dolph Lundgren both starred in movies based on comic books; they must be BFF). Maybe there might be a use for this solely as a parent category for categories such as Category:Superman actors (if those are to be kept as well; I really don't care). Postdlf 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

They all should go. 1.) It over-populates the bottom of actor pages. 2.) It's much better handled as a part of a "List of characters", which contains the actors who portrayed them. 3.) The usefullness of this as a category for research is spurious at best (though I'm willing to listen to examples where they would be useful for research) 4.) As the similar model categories got the axe already, so too should these actor ones. 5.) The only criteria for admission is that you have an article. (I think 5 reasons should be enough for now.) - jc37 01:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of a Star Trek category? A list of Star Trek actors will name them. When the actor's role in Star Trek was noteworthy, the actor's article will already say so. The categorization becomes pointless and just crowds the list of categories at the bottom of the actor's article to the point that no one will read even any categorization. Doczilla 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

..needs work. I have nominated it for the next month's collab. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collab/Peanuts -  Mike | trick or treat  22:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it actually discusses canon birthdates for the characters. Peanuts canon?! Postdlf 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nod. And important information too : ) - jc37 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on it recently, but it certainly needs more refs and some complete section re-writes. I really hope it passes for next month's collab, because such an influential comic strip really should be an FA. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just found Weapon Brown. Good grief. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Those dreadful photos of the 3-D plastic Peanuts characters at Universal Studios Japan should be removed. We don't gain anything by using them, because a fair use claim is still needed for the copyrighted works depicted in the photographs. We should just use comics panels or screenshots where needed. Postdlf 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Those images were created by a Wikipedian. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those photographs are derivatives of the copyrighted sculptures (and copyrighted Peanuts characters) they depict. The photographer has a copyright in that photograph, but because his work built off of another (that of the sculptor who made the 3D representations, and that of the cartoonist, Schultz), he can only license it to the extent that he has rights to that underlying work. We therefore need a fair use rationale to make use of those photographs. Postdlf 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. AS USUAL. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't know, there's a CfD up for DC Comics group members. [1]. No matter which way you'd vote, I think it's important that this gets decided by WikiProjects Comics members and not by whoever just happens to go through the CfD lists for the fun of it. (Now, if you'll excuse, I'm about to go through the CfD lists for the fun of it.) Wryspy 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just added an image requests section to the task template above. Lemme have 'em. I like searching for this stuff, and I am sure other people do as well. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a concensus here about not using the term "Golden Age"? Now there's Category:Golden Age superheroes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Formerly called World War II superheroes, name changed months ago. CovenantD 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't really consensus, no. I broght it up on Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms to see what people outside the project though, and the one person who responded said, no, it probably wasn't one, since it's a term widely used in comics criticism, and doesn't mean "The Best" so much as "The Second Oldest." The only other real issue was the start and end dates-- which wasn't really an issue with superheroes, because they faded into obscurity by the end of the Golden Age, and their resurgence defined the Silver Age. So it's possibly an issue for Martian Manhunter? Maybe? I think we'll live. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, just in case, how should I call golden age heroes? Is golden age not ok? How else can they be called?--201 04:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there was not a consensus. People argued both sides. I don't recall anyone backing down on the use of the term Golden Age. Books like the Overstreet Guide use the term for classification purposes. The closest we came to a compromise came through efforts to define Golden Age and Silver Age better.

And no, 201, Golden Age heroes would not be okay. There are other kinds of Golden Ages. There were heroes in the Golden Age of mythology. Doczilla 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

201, it's best just to call characters by their version names. So, if 201 (talk · contribs) is the Modern Age version of yourself, we might call your Golden Age version something like "T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk · contribs)", and your Silver Age version could be something like "The Judge (talk · contribs)". I can picture this "T-man" character I've envisioned fighting the Joker and getting caught in a giant prop checkuser. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Heroes from the Golden Age of comics"?--Jamdav86 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Concise is better. The longer the category name gets, the more those categories crowd the bottom of the page to the point that no one reads any of them. Plus, Golden Age superheroes were not limited to comics. They might include radio or pulp fiction heroes. Doczilla 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just put up a bunch of "So-and-so" television series categories up for deletion, including Wonder Woman, Flash, Teen Titans, Justice League, Aquaman, and Green Lantern. I don't think that any of them are large enough or distinct enough from the parent, Category:Television programs based on DC Comics, to justify their own subcat. Let your opinions be known at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. CovenantD 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this category really needed? There certainly is no category for superheroes with costumes (for good reason: it would be too long, and it's just obvious they wear costumes). Heroes without costumes isn't a common thing, but I don't think this category is notable. I'm going to put CFD on it pretty soon, if no one objects. RobJ1981 04:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, no! And frankly, using the term "costume" invokes POV. If somebody wears the same coat all the time, doesn't that become his or her costume? Did Jubilee wear a costume or not? The costumed heroes sometimes do heroics without wearing costumes, and those who don't normally wear costumes have sometimes worn disguises or even costumes. In one of his earliest appearances, Dr. Occult wore a costume before Superman ever did. Doczilla 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD is on it now, I posted it on the comics notice board as well. RobJ1981 06:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out if we discussed this at all and now Netkinetic is moving them (I noticed Nightwing (Dick Grayson) first). IMO, a massive change like this has the potential for pretty huge ramifications, since we have a ton of pages like 'Hal Jordan' out there, for all the multiple heroes with one 'code name'. So even though this isn't my idea, I'm putting it out here for everyone to discuss, since I do agree that we need some kind of standard, no matter what it is. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• We only just came up with a different way of doing this. I'm at a loss for words right now. Didn't we all agree to avoid roman numerals in names? I'm struggling to work out what the plan is, and it'd be nice if we could all be on the same page with this one. Let's try and agree on one thing first: Wikipedia doesn't have a one size fits all approach. That's implicit in all policies. Sometimes, any proposed standard will have to be ignored. Wikipedia is built article by article. Issues are handled case by case. Hiding Talk 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am a little confused myself. And yes, I will agree that we function on a case-by-case basis. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The premise for creating separate articles in each instance was: 1.) DC Comics publication references, specifically Who's Who which had separate articles for separate characters; 2.) The article Kal-L, which has existed for months without dispute. Each of the characters in question (Batman, Green Arrow, Robin, Aquaman etal) fall under the exact same criteria. I see that a double standard has been premitted and a project is suppose to rectify such a dilemma, IMHO. NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree there, I was thinking less a 'one size fits all' and more a 'general idea to follow, and exceptions are what they are.' My major itch was that I see no attempt at a discussion about moving Dick from Dick Grayson back to Nightwing (Dick Grayson) (and I'm ignoring Robin (Dick Grayson I) because ... Earth-2 is weird and I need to think about that some more before coming up with something sensible). IMO, what was done with the Flash and Green Lantern pages puts it best. A page for the 'code name' and spin-offs for the 'Alter Egos', since a lot of them have this annoying tendency to switch up code names, graduate, move on, what have you, and while code-names are oft shared between heroes, not so much 'real' names. With the exception of the aforementioned Dick Grayson, and I think a Dick Grayson (Earth-2) article would be a little more descriptive. Provided we know what Earth-2 is ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please notice a pattern on articles moved by me. Characters with the same "hero name" were moved. Characters with multiple identities had redirects created. I have not moved Dick Grayson or Hal Jordan for instance. Nor characters better known by his alter egos as Guy Gardner and John Stewart. As it was told before I think this is a matter of checking article by article. What is good for Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes) might not be (and I think it is not) for Nightwing (Dick Grayson).
And to be honest I don't understand why moving or splitting Superman, Batman, Green Arrow and Aquaman. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't at all understand the splits by "Age" of major characters. It's mildly upsetting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like we're coming down to 'which aspect of the character is more notable'? Dickie-bird exists outside of Nightwing and Robin as his own, clearly defined character, where as Jaime is pretty much entirely wrapped up and encompassed by the Blue Beetle. In the case of Clark Kent and Superman, BOTH aspects are equally notable, and treated as different, while Batman and Bruce Wayne are less so.

As for the splits by age, my guess is that it was with an eye towards article size, and trying not to have all that weirdo and sometimes contradictory information on the page? I want to say that it's actually more confusing as a split, since a lot of those characters and their 'age' histories are intertwined in the 'modern' history. Damn those reboots... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note: the splits are not due to age but due to separate characters (not from my personal opinion, from publication references) and the fact that a precedent, i.e. Kal-L, has been set without dispute for several months. However, trimming down the main articles as a result can be beneficial and is in conformity with the streamlining that occurs in other non-comicbook related articles at Wikipedia.NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense but the way the article looks like now is weird.Too much articles!!! Brian Boru is awesome 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Robin (Dick Grayson I) should be moved to Robin (Earth-2) (only one Earth-2 Robin, right?), and the character should be treated only as a fork in the publication history of the character, including only what has been explicitly attributed to the Earth-2 history of that character (i.e., stories after the invention of Earth-2) should be included there, with a reference to Robin (comics) and Dick Grayson for their shared character history. Within the Earth-2 character article, it is not clear that it's a parallel version of the character, and it's all a muddled mess because it's organized from an in-universe perspective. I couldn't even find a reference within Dick Grayson to the Earth-2 version, even though it's a subtopic. Postdlf 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In published appearences especially in the 70's and early 80's, the E-2 Robin was referred to as "Richard" instead of "Dick", no doubt to distinguish the two. I've changed the E-2 article to follow this standard and removed the roman numeral per naming guidelines.NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Postdlf. Honestly... this is all a mess. And regarding Dick Grayson... Wow! What a huge mess! Now we have double redirects, article history is lost in Dick Grayson (Nightwing). We have to fix it, guys. If we are moving it back, Nightwing (Dick Grayson) has to be properly moved to Dick Grayson in order to restore the history to its original article. A lot of fixing to work on. Trying to do it now. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the following process takes place, or at least used to:

1. Primary page name is the superhero code name (e.g. Superman).
2. Characters with more than one codename is filed under their civilian name (e.g. Kitty Pryde.
3. Characters who share codenames with other hero/es, when the other hero/es has more than one codename, is filed under civilian name for consistency (e.g. Tim Drake).
4. Characters who share codenames with other heroes, and that do not fall under the above criterias, are filed as Codename (Civilian Name) (e.g. Spider-Man (Jessica Drew).

Would I be right? --Jamdav86 16:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(Pssst: I think you mean Spider-Woman. Yep, I'm pretty sure about that. Doczilla 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

D'oh! --Jamdav86 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's how I understand it from comics naming convention. All based on reasonable terms.
Well, I tried to fix Dick Grayson's history issue but I can't. It's still lost in Nightwing (Dick Grayson), I can't move it back. I think this a job for an admin. Hiding? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that with characters with more than one alias, redirects to just the name without a costumed alias referred to in the article title seems reasonable. Unfortunate but the best solution at this time. NetK 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think I have it right? Hiding Talk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides the articles now look worse than they do before!!!Brian Boru is awesome 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think we should split WikiProject Comics into some others like DC Project and Marvel Project?To ease up on the articles to make it more accesscible to other users?There's wikiproject superman. Why not with the others?Just an idea.Brian Boru is awesome 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• There's a WikiProject Superman? Huh? Hiding Talk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[2] You didn't know that?Well there's the link.Thoughts?Brian Boru is awesome 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Don't split WikiProject Comics into DC Project and Marvel Project. For one thing, those aren't the only companies out there, you know. For another, most issues we debate for one also concern the other. The discussion above regarding Nightwing (Dick Grayson) and Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) crosses both of the big two. Very few issues we discuss on this talk page concern only one. Even a debate about an edit war over which image to use for one specific article can teach contributors how to avoid such problems in all other comic articles. Doczilla 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And if you'll check the history on WikiProject Superman, not much has happened on it since July. Splitting projects can certainly be useful in some cases, but you run the risk of orphaning a project or creating conflicts between projects. Doczilla 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the naming issues are endemic of a larger promblem: tendency of fans to split pages to emphasize all the incarnations of the characters. Sure, someone like Hal Jordan simply cannot be discussed in the confines of the Green Lantern article. But many of these successor characters are simply that: variations on the same core character/concept. Usually separate article become mere repositories for fictional biography, which can veer quickly into fancruft, and infoboxes that in many cases are longer than the prose itself. I myself would emphasize merging over splitting. Fictional biographies should be downplayed in deference to the character's real world notability. I'm sure anyone can fill a 15kb page about Jaime Reyes' recent stories, but from a real-world perspective, what else is there to say beyond "Jaime Reyes is the new incarnation of Blue Beetle introduced in the Infinite Crisis miniseries and now stars in the current Blue Beetle title"? And all that can go on the Blue Beetle page. WesleyDodds 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move discussion

To unify the discussions, I might suggest that we move the discussion(s) at User talk:Netkinetic to this page, since similar things are being discussed there, as well. - jc37 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just point him here then, if nobody has as yet. Hiding Talk 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All moved back in here

Really. I can't understand these splits:

• Superman (Kal-El)
• Batman (Bruce Wayne I)
• Batman (Bruce Wayne II)
• Aquaman (real name unknown)
• Aquaman (Arthur Curry)
• Green Arrow (Oliver Queen)
• Green Arrow (Ollie Queen)

Aren't these supposed to be simply within Superman, Batman, Aquaman and Green Arrow? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! These splits only add to confusion. "Ollie Queen" is not even accurate. Ollie is a nickname, for crying out loud. He is frequently called Oliver. Having both Aquamen in the same article, both Batmen in the same, and both Green Arrows in the same will explain the difference better for people who don't already know what the damn difference is. This kind of thing will confuse others. Doczilla 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the current debate over the confusion stemming from some "hero ID" pages splitting and referring to "Civilian ID" pages, NetK took it upon himself to o about splitting the rest. For some it looks like it was real easy since the code name got passed to characters with different names, existing groupings like "Flash", "Jay Garrick", "Barry Allen", and "Wally West" being the apparent prototype. Others... he got creative, and not in a nice way.

Looking at the list you've posted, the intent is to separate the "Golden Age" (1938-c1955) version from the "Modern Age" (c1958-present) of those characters. Of the four, the only one I think that has real precedent for the split is "Superman" since the article was already split up, ie a "Superman" article and "Clark Kent" article.

Personally, I don't think splits of these characters, or other similar characters, by era is a good idea. And even if it were, there has got to be a better way than either Roman numerals or bastardizing a name in a manner that will create confusion. — J Greb 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Roman numerals clearly violate the Wikipedia naming conventions for comics. Doczilla 00:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that I added to the confusion by moving Wally West (Flash) (one of NetK's moves) to Flash (Wally West) when it should have been moved back to Wally West, since he's had more than one code name. Can an admin take care of this? Thanks! CovenantD 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall, this is going to be a tricky mess to fix. Doczilla 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• What about Jay Garrick? Should it be moved back from Flash (Jay Garrick)--Kross^Talk 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles in question have been tagged for speedy delete by myself. I did not anticipate the reaction creating new character articles would receive, for had I then I would not have introduced these articles to begin with. My apologies for any concern this may have caused, and all I can state in my defense is I honestly felt each of these characters was separate and distinct, each deserving of their own article. I still do. That said, consensensus says otherwise, and I will abide. For those of you who addressed me in a cordial manner, I thank them and hope that they will see my long list of contributions on the whole as that of a balanced contributor. I was WP:BOLD although this was only due to my appreciation for this artform and my desire to represent it in the manner I felt reflected how the industry itself had in such reference works as Who's Who and the like. Thank you for your time. NetK 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No probs. --Jamdav86 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to hit three reverts of User:205.176.22.232's edits to Wonder Woman, prepending 'vast' to her superhuman strength. Can someone else lend a hand? I already asked 205.176.22.232 to please stop on their talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you and Ace. That person needs a temporary block as a slap on the wrist. Hey, Chris G.! Doczilla 00:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:205.176.22.232 continues monkeying with the description of Wonder Woman's powers. Looking at this person's edit history for September and October [3], it appears that this individual exists as a Wikipedian only to make us keep fixing his/her/its edits to Wonder Woman. Doczilla 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A note on the top of the cat says: Articles about teenagers and sometimes young adults who have starred in their own comic book series. The category is a little broad, so either a split should happen (into Teen comic characters, teen comic titles, etc) or just remove the category altogether. Is there an adult comic cat? If there isn't, I don't think this cat really needs to exist. Also, I don't think all of the articles listed have their own titles (like the category note suggests). Plus, if you take X-Men for example... that's not completely a teen book. Characters like Professor X and Wolverine certainly aren't teenagers or young adults. If a book contains adults and teens, I don't think it really qualifies to fall under a teen category. That's just misleading. RobJ1981 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should listify this one, and then put it up for deletion. "Teen" just requires too much management (as you've already noted). - jc37 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could listify some of the category (characters that have obviously been teens in comics: Spider-Man and so on). RobJ1981 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added CFD to it today, so if anyone cares to discuss.. they can. RobJ1981 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

201.239.238.20 (talk · contribs) is adding/re-adding categories like Marvel Comics characters with superhuman speed. What was decided about these categories? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They're pointless! Get rid of them. Doczilla 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Admittedly, my reflex is to object to almost anything an anonymous user is doing, but I think I've made it clear lately that I'm sick of overcategorization. (Incidentally, notice what the first three digits of that user's IP # are.) Doczilla 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, but I haven't seen enough to suspect anything. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this will be of interest to some people here... Category talk:Marvel Comics cosmic entities CovenantD 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An idea I've raised on Talk:Aquaman in regards to this whole renaming debacle is to create an "Earth-Two" article, which would serve as a great way to cover this area of DC lore instead of making long separate character biographies. Right now the term simply redirects to an article about DC's multiple earths, but I feel the topic has enough notability and relevance ot be its own article. I do have concerns about such a page devolving into fancruft, which is why I ask that if such a page is started that it be an active collaboration between members of the Wikiproject.

My ideas for structure are as follows. The lead section identifies Earth-Two as an alternate reality that has appeared in DC Comics. It first appeared in Flash #123 in order to to team up two versions of the flash. Subseuquent team-ups between different versions of the same character occured, with variations of other heroes being created to fill out this world. DC eventually published a number of titles that dealt with Earth-Two exclusively (All-Star Squadron, Infinity Inc.), and its success also lead to other alternate earths to emerge. Earth-Two was eliminated by Crisis on Infinite Earths and the Earth-Two titles had to adjust to the changes. Earth-Two characters have appeared since then, either integrated into the main DC universe (JSA) or existing outside of it or as anomalies as plot points in stories (Power Girl, Psycho-Pirate in Animal Man, Kal-L). The articles would discuss the history of Earth-Two from a real-wold publication point of view; Gardner Fox's original idea and DC building on the idea would be the focal points to remember. We discuss the earth-two titles, Crisis, and Infinite Crisis, then a section about the variations created for characters who didn't disappear during the Golden Age (and not people like Alan Scott or Jay Garrick; that would be redundant with their articles since they are entirely different characters from Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, unlike the Earth 1 and 2 versions of Superman) and a section about new characters (Power Girl, Huntress, Infinity Inc.) Then maybe something characters who crossed over, like Ultra-Humanite, Spectre, and Solomon Grundy. Above all we should avoid constructing a history of Earth-2, otherwise the article becomes inward-looking and focuses on the fiction itself. We'd need listings of Earth-Two titles and miniseries, as well as references and citations from the creators about the topic (Gardner Fox and Roy Thomas would be particularly relevant).

Thoughts? WesleyDodds 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Although this completely makes sense, DC is about to reveal a new Earth-2 (or bring back the old or whatever). I'd hate to see people put a lot of work into this article only to have upcoming developments totally screw them up. Personally, I think waiting and putting effort into other things for now would make sense. Ah, on the other hand, your suggestion to focus on the real world history of Earth-Two may be compatible with whatever's coming up, as long as the article title and introduction make it clear that the article is not really about the fictional history; rather, it's about the history of the fiction. Doczilla 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A new Earth-two? First time I've heard of that (not considering Grant Morrison's JLA graphic novel) WesleyDodds 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Infinite Crisis article has a link to one of the reports about it in the little section about changes in the hardcover edition. It has something to do with why Earth-2 appeared empty even though all the other Earths emerged fully populated during IC. The hardcover differences aren't proof positive, so this is not a proven fact, but it is consistent with a glimpse into the new future in Justice League of America #0 in which Batman says the Flash found another Earth. None of these indicators (dialogue differences, a glimpse into the near future, or interview remarks) meet the standard for encyclopedic entry, of course, but they do suggest reasons to be cautious about an Earth-2 article.Doczilla 08:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering how Earth-Two was created 44 years ago, any use of that subject that DC makes in its comic books as of now would be a comparatively minor part of that article. You're absolutely right that writing from a real-world perspective makes it unnecessary to rewrite everything; just add on a new section at the end ("DC Comics reintroduced Earth-2 in 2006. In contrast to earlier depictions, it is now shown as..."), or even make the "new" Earth-2 a separate article if it's sufficiently different. Postdlf 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You know I think this is a great idea. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another discussion that might interest some of the members of this project... WT:NOT#Plot_summaries_part_3. CovenantD 08:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an additional discussion of interest, at Wikipedia is not...a fan page.

Here is my comment there, which I think applies here:

Strong agreement on addition of "Wikipedia is not a fan site." In the Comics Project, certainly, there is a tendency among some editors to treat their favorite characters' articles as their own personal fan sites, with overly detailed, issue-by-issue plot synopses, rumors, breaking news that may or may not be encyclopedic ("So-and-so appears on the cover of the next issue!" Seriously, that's a real one.), and lots of original research speculation/analysis/conclusion. While various of these can be deleted on things like WP:POV, etc., an overall "this is not a fan site" dictum would streamline and simplify matters, and save time and effort.

Thoughts? -- Tenebrae 15:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think plot summaries are way out of hand at some pages. Also I think the following should be removed: Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs), Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs), Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). All 3 are articles just explaining each story arc for the series. Imagine if we had a story arc for a title like Amazing Spider-Man, it would be huge. People really need to stop with plot summaries because they are their favorites. RobJ1981 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had those on my list to merge or delete for a long time. If you look at the Ultimate Fantastic Four article, I think all the summary needed is in it. As for the Amazing Spider-Man... there's always List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics, though it's not the same thing. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion like that always worry me. - Lex 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to probably put AFD on them later today. RobJ1981 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I support it, but similar articles have survived AfD before. --Newt_ΨΦ 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good things come to those who wait. Like support for AfDs. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• You could transwiki them to wikia:comics. Their guidance on stoylines is as follows:

• So that's a place where we could transfer information. Hiding Talk 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I mean, my thinking is, if the idea is that a plot summary is available to readers, I think the best thing to do is to link to this wikia. They've already got the information, they're set up for it, they have a compatible license, it seems silly to duplicate efforts elsewhere and Wikipedia isn't set up for a fan audience but a general audience. Hiding Talk 15:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a great idea. Any efficient way to transfer them across, or do we just cut-'n'-paste? --Jamdav86 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• My problem with moving them there is that it's strictly for comic book series. What about character articles? - Lex 19:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also [4] or [5] for the plot summaries. I like the plot summaries anyway. We should transfer it there. They need it more than we do.They need way more articles than we do.Look at main page. Brian Boru is awesome 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Concern

I agree with the idea of this current plot summary discussion. I also think that we need to seriously pair down the plot summaries I see in comics articles. I have several articles on my to-do list where that is my main goal. So in that, I agree. But my concern is that this will lead to a mass culling of comics-related articles. Instead of fixing the summaries, I'm worried that some editors will see this as an excuse to delete a huge number of articles. I'd rather not see that happen. My hope is that editors will first work at fixing existing articles before deleting them. - Lex 19:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with Lex. Quite a few of the newer project editors have yet to contribute a single meaningful page, or even volunteer to build one of the request pages. Instead you find them volunteering to cull or slash existing pages, especially articles that they don't like. You need to think about this a bit more, and get a full consensus from all project members, something you still fail to do with these group agendas that affect everyone. --Basique 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article contributions are not necessary to engage in discussion about the need for deletion or condensing of an article. Merely not "liking" an article is not enough to merit its deletion and no one will delete based on that. If an article is up for deletion, merging, condensing, the arguments for and against it must be backed up by policy and guidance to hold any water. Policy trumps consensus, and, where guidance exists, consensus is more needed in the exceptions to it than in the general use or execution of it. --Newt_ΨΦ 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All 3 Ultimate story arcs are in AFD now. Let's have them just go. This isn't a fan's guide to comics, it's Wikipedia. We don't need constantly growing pages on story arcs here. RobJ1981 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This category is in sad shape. There appears to be a lot of vandalism from User:198.189.198.2 dating back to Dec 15, 2005. Betty White? Tallulah Bankhead? Please...

Also, many of the actors who portrayed specific roles, e.g. Danny DeVito as the Penguin, have suffered because subcats were deleted instead of merged. I haven't looked yet, but I suspect that the Superman-related actors have also been unceremoniously dumped as well. CovenantD 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Tallulah Bankhead played a character called the Black Widow in the Adam West TV series. Betty White appeared as one of the various celebrities who poked their heads out of windows to talk to Batman and Robin while they climbed a wall. (Nevertheless, I do not believe an actor should get any additional category for every single role or cameo on his or her resume.) Doczilla 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so there is some validity to them. I checked the articles and a couple other sources and there was no mention of them. Hmmm, you seem to know a lot about the guest stars. Maybe we could work together to get the info into the articles (where appropriate, of course). CovenantD 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Where appropriate" is absolutely right. This is definitely an example of when lists have an advantage over categories. For anyone like Betty White, there's no reason for her article to mention a cameo like that. For someone like Tallulah Bankhead, it probably is notable that she played a Batman villain at that point in her career. Batman had so many guest stars and cameos that a list of them might be useful to some readers. I know where to find the information, plus a friend just recorded a lot of Batman episodes onto DVD for me, knowing what a Bat-nut I am, so I'm not just relying on my memories from forty years ago. First, I need to make sure such a list doesn't already exist somewhere in Wikipedia. Doczilla 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I got a list started at Batman (TV): Guest appearances and episodes. We should kill the Batman actors category because it is not a nice neat list. Too many readers will look at those categories and think, "WTF?" I know Bankhead and Vallee are hard for some people to believe. Actors' articles should not have to add new categories for every single role they ever play. One category like Category:Batman cast lists could serve as an umbrella to link Batman actor lists such as the one I just put together plus the movie/serial/cartoon/commercial cast lists. Doczilla 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I got the TV guest stars article started. A lot of work is still needed to get all this organized, including annotating the new article and tracking down all the movie cast lists. After all that gets organized, we need to CfD the Batman actors category. Here's an example of how dumb these categories are: Adam West was categorized as a Bewitched actor for a guest appearance but not as a Batman actor! Doczilla 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because a recent CfD eliminated all of the subcats, which broke it down by character. So all the Batmans, all the Catwomans, all the Penguins, etc, were decategorized. That's how I first noticed this. CovenantD 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Val Kilmer is in Category:Actors who portrayed Batman, but Adam West isn't. Oy. Doczilla 04:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that one was only partially cleared out. CovenantD 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I created Batman (TV): Guest appearances and episodes earlier. The Batman (TV series) article was too long and needed that split off anyway. Simple enough. I've now played around with some different approaches to how to categorize or list Batman actors in order to avoid a puzzling mess like Category:Batman actors. I've created the bare bones for some possible alternatives:

Category:Batman cast lists

Batman casts

Batman cast lists (This one has the most detail.)

Before I put any more time into fleshing these out, I'd like some feedback as to which way to go. There needs to be only one list -- or maybe an umbrella category that links the lists, but that actually has some problems. I'm not committed to any or all of these. The work I put into any can easily be translated into something. I'm not worried about what to title the list at the moment, just how people would like to see it formatted. It won't hurt my feelings for anybody to say they all suck, but what will work? What's preferred? Doczilla 07:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Batman cast lists is the best one to keep - probably make Batman casts a redirect to it. I don't know that the category is necessary. Category:Batman actors in now up for deletion. CovenantD 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would an admin please rename this to Citadel (comics) in keeping with naming conventions? The creator moved it around so much that I, a mere editor, can't correct it. CovenantD 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Hiding Talk 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the articles for the characters from VfV have more information on the movie version than the book version (Peter Creedy, Gordon Deitrich, Roger Dascombe, Anthony James Lilliman). Would anyone mind cleaning it up, and if both versions of the character are similiar, merging them together? --DrBat 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Add ((Reqimagecomics)) to an article's talk page to request an image for the article. Add a piped argument to specify the type of image needed: ((Reqimagecomics|Magneto punching a face)). The template puts the talk page in Category:Wikipedia requested images-comics. Editors should patrol this category to see what images are needed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Great move! —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea great move !--Brown Shoes22 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Good work! Thanks! --InShaneee 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just re-worked the resources section on the project page. Please take a look and see what needs to be changed. We should also start taking a look at our project subpages and see how we can update them. Finally, any suggestions for promoting the Comics Cleanup subproject or the notice board? Thanks,Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• ((Flight Program))
• ((Avengers))

It's rather disappointing that these were created without any discussion after all of the debate about the last versions. CovenantD 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides the hideously ugly colors, these are a bit more useful. They link a series of related articles, instead of listing every single member ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Avengers one was at least originally created by HKMarks during the discussion as a sort of compromise/demonstration of what navboxes could/should be used for. --Newt_ΨΦ 14:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these were based on the discussion going on at the time of the deletion of the others. And yeah, the colours are ugly as sin. I was kind of at a loss over what colour to make the Avengers one. Luckily, the Canadian Government was kind enough to say what colour the other one should be. Tweaked. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Avengers color hurts my eyes. Doczilla 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can't count on your support for "Neon Tangerine Man" as the WikiProject mascot then, huh? Postdlf 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)\

My eyes! My eyes! Doczilla 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Superman & Batman infoboxes

I'd like to work to reduce the footprints of ((Superman)) and ((Batman)). They are both much larger than they need to be. Who's with me? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I split the "other media" appearances of superman to Template:Superman in other media. This should allow us to "pick and choose" which articles need which infobox. If this works for everyone, we can do the same to the Batman one as well. - jc37 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So when would each be applied? Would the Superman template get left off all movie/TV/newspaper/etc. articles which would have just the Superman in other media template? Doczilla 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Should the template actually say "Superman in other media"? People who see the movie article might think, "Other than what?" Reading a movie article, they might think it should link to media other than movies. How about something meaning Superman in media other than comic books? Doczilla 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Several of us have been working on the Batman template for other reasons. I think we should hold off on splitting it, though, until people have played around with the two Superman templates. Once there's a sense that it works for everyone, we can then split Batman's template in a way that is consistent. Doczilla 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to write a short piece about Dolman (another of the Dredd clones), we have not seen enough of him for an article of his own but it would be nice to be complete when discussing the Bloodline - where can I stick a couple of paragraphs on this character? --Charlesknight 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we cite the Marvel Handbooks or DC Who's Who info that is not statistics? Thoughts? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they would be citable in regards to the character biogrpahy, which they pretty much summarize for us in the first place. Acrtually, handbook info might be a good comparision for detail; if a character's bio on Wikipedia is longer than the handbook entry, it could stand to be shorter and more concise. WesleyDodds 22:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Character biography should just be explained here in reference to how it was established by the regular comics stories, with those comic book issues cited. As has been explained in past discussions in this project, we can't just paraphrase Who's Who in the manner we could a newspaper article, because such fan references are just in-universe abridged fiction rather than factual accounts. Also, any biographical details given in such fan sources, if they were never actually depicted in or made reference to in subsequent comic book titles, can't really be considered more than trivia. We should really stay away from any reliance or use of OHTMU or Who's Who, unless those sources became significant in their own right, for example by introducing something that was later made use of in a comic book story. It's nothing personal against fan references; I've always enjoyed them, and my reading of them as a child perhaps contributed a great deal to whatever it is that drives me to contribute here. They're just not very useful to writing out-of-universe articles, and cause more trouble than they're worth. Postdlf 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so just to clarify: No citing Civil War Files or Superman:Secret Files and Origins 2005. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And while Marvel and DC tend to stick with things they say in Who's Who, etc., they have changed their minds about a lot of things. I remember many times when Marvel backtracked on stats they made up for their handbook because the information didn't add up. Until a detail appears in a story, why mention it? Doczilla 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed articleas about characters and series; can we now find the concensus on how to handle articles about crossovers?

I think that one-shots and mini-series that are derived from, and wholly dependent upon crossovers should be a part of the article covering the main crossover, barring the normal conditions for splitting articles given on WP:CMC/EG. For instance, Civil War (comics) should contain the information in Civil War Files and Civil War: Choosing Sides. Please give your opinion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One-shots shouldn't have articles on Wikipedia, period. Choosing Sides and Civil War Files should be merged into the Civil War article. RobJ1981 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, such blatantly derivative one-shots shouldn't anyway. Doczilla 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, keep it all in one article until it really needs to be broken out. Hiding Talk 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added Rodolphe Topffer, William Hogarth and A Harlot's Progress to the Wikiproject, but I'm not sure if these count as comics. (Surely as sequential art?) And what about Lynd Ward, Frans Masereel and Max Ernst's A Week of Kindness? Brutannica 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thank you so very much for doing this. I don't know if anyone currently involved with the project would have thought to create those, and their inclu only make Wikipedia and the project better. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

They've been in my to-do list for ages, to be honest. I always get tied up elsewhere, sadly. Good catch. Hiding Talk 10:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Töppfer definitely belongs to the comics, the others are debatable (Masereel?), but it is better to have them inside the wikiproject, since they sometimes come up a early examples and so on. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Per our naming conventions, shouldn't this be at Stature (comics)? After all, Stinger was only an MC2 codename. CovenantD 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tricky, but I don't think it should be changed. She was called Cassandra Lang for 20+ years before she took the name Stature. Stinger debuted years before as well. IMO. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone (Chris? Psy?) should go comment on this thread on ANI. It's a mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What else is there to say about it? A user did many copyvios and got caught. Obviously the user can't get away with it, since the site emailed Wiki about it, so let's move on. The last comment in that thread wasn't needed, but certainly isn't very truthful in my opinion. Let's repair the articles with different information (that isn't a copyvio) and leave it at that. There is plenty of comics sites out there, and other images as well I would imagine. RobJ1981 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really feel comfortable commenting on that as I'm still confused as to our fair-use image policy. I don't know exactly what we mean by "low-resolution" and even so, is it really copyvio against an unlicensed user of an image to take licensed images from them? I'll post something to Postdlf, as he seems to have a good head about copyright. --Newt_ΨΦ 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue isn't actually about images but about text. It's alleged a user copied across a lot of text from the site in question, and although he tweaked it the paragraph structures are felt to be similar and it's possible the text hasn't been changed enough to avoid violating copyright. Low resolution means you couldn't print it out and have an exact copy. Image resolution might help explain it? Basically, when you scan an image you should reduce the information scanned to a level where the image looks fine on the screen but won't physically print to the quality of the original. This is to prevent people using a print-out of the image as opposed to buying the original to get the image. This prevents people printing the image for piracy purposes. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the list appeared to just be problems with fair use of images, I'll look at it again when I get the chance. As for the resolution question, I understand what resolution means, but exactly how low of a resolution should we be pushing is the question. I guess that's hard to pin down because of the different shapes of pictures, but it seems like we could pin down a max resolution. --Newt_ΨΦ 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked about it at the noticeboard and have been told that it's not the images but the text that is the issue, but like you, I thought it was an image problem, so I'm not sure if there are wires getting crossed somewhere. On the resolution issue, I think at some point the figure of 72dpi was bandied about, but I don't do much scanning at the moment, so my memory may be faulty. Does that sound a likely figure to allow reproduction on the screen but not the printed page? Hiding Talk 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a difficult time understanding the complaint. I looked at some of the text and did not see the resemblance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I get some help patrolling Tarantula (Marvel Comics)? I'm in a revert war with some unregistered users who keep adding speculation/independent analysis as to the identity of Ultimate Tarantula. I have cited the policy backing up my removal of this information in most edit summaries (of the original edit and the reverts), posted something to one unregistered talk pages, and the article's talk page but still I'm in this revert war. Anything other than policing/patrolling that can be done, or can anyone help me do that? At what point, if any, would this repetitive reverting become vandalism. My hands are near tied because of the Three-revert rule. --Newt_ΨΦ 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone point me toward information on the designing of the characters in the Wildstorm Comics series Wildsiderz on the actors in the film Airborne? I read about it a few years ago when the comic was in its early stages, but I can't fins a reference to it now. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I just added a request for List of comic book swimsuit specials to the template. I am working through my Worldstorm grief by working on Wildstorm articles. Yes, I like much of Wildstorm. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ridding your closet of skeletons after making admin, I see. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics superhero teams

There are only two subcats there now. Was it really neccessary to commit category genocide like that? I found them useful.--Kross^Talk 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the subcats were, but they were deleted with good reason I bet. Remember: this is Wikipedia: an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to comics. RobJ1981 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The subcats included Category:Justice League members and whatnot.

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9#DC_Comics_group_members. CovenantD 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've said on the Marvel team CfD discussion and I'll say it again here: I'm quite annoyed that those categories were deleted without consensus. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 05:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we must recreate them. For Great Justice!--Kross^Talk 06:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was about 50/50. No, not a consensus. As the Category/Article for Deletion guidelines stress, it's not a vote. It's about making a case. Doczilla 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? Link, please. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For which part? About it not being a vote? One source (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette) flatly states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Doczilla 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also WP:NOT "...a Democracy." But it's more bothersome that they were deleted before reaching an agreement than they were deleted at all. (I'd also be less annoyed if this discussion hadn't been closed--by the same admin, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up--with a decision to rename per nom, in spite of four different people saying the original nom was inappropriate name, and only one supporting it.)

I'm not totally sure that they were completely listified prior to deletion, and now there's no way to check. I'm also a bit worried about what this means for the supporting character and villain categories. I dread having to listify that stuff--while lists may be a better way to present the information, they take time to do.

And again, I still don't support the deletion. Per WP:CLS, lists and categories work best together, for ease of navigation. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the deletion is I don't believe that a merge with Category:DC Comics superheroes was performed. Many of the affected articles were only included in the team subcats rather than in their own right, and so may only be in one of the silly "Americans in DC Comics" categories or whatnot rather than the superhero category. Postdlf 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. Beast Boy for instance is not in any such category. They were deleted when at very least they should have been merged. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll go through the pages that Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs) removed the cats from with AWB later and make sure they're appropriately categorized. Please note any other editors who removed cats here, so I can check their contrib lists.--HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 15:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please let us know here if anyone takes the CFD to Wikipedia:Deletion review; just don't repost them without going through that process first. Postdlf 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I asked the closing admin to review the decision[6], but they haven't bothered to respond yet. CovenantD 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern Corps

This is somewhat related, in that it was just deleted when the super-teams were deleted.

I think it is an entirely different sort of team, than the Outsiders, or the Teen Titans, and it should be re-created. (I suggested the same about the Darkstars in the CfD, but, I think that ithat would be too small to concern ourselves with atm.)

I think the category name should be: Category:Green Lantern Corps members; which would then be a sub-cat of Category:Green Lantern.

Interested in everyone's opinions. - jc37 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had to re-add the cleanup tag to it several times. The page is almost all lists: only the small history section isn't a bulleted list. Either split the article into several articles, or clean the article and remove most or all of the lists. People that have removed the tag, either don't give a reason or their reasoning is wrong. RobJ1981 00:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watch list and take a look at it -- I like Gary Carlson's work. Icarus 23 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could people please have a look at this:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/055675.html

and keep in mind it's comments and look out for stuff ripped from www.marvunapp.com .Geni 11:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• See the discussion above. A few people have looked through some of the pages and don't think there's any substance to the claims, to be honest. I looked at one and couldn't see an issue. Judging by the complainants comment at WP:ANI#Ongoing_copyvios_from_www.marvunapp.com I think the issue is more about the images that were taken from the site. I think that's an issue for a wider discussion on our guidance on sourcing images. Can someone who posts a collection of copyrighted images on the internet have any claims on that collection? Tricky one. I can see the point that it might be fair play to look at the image usage in the articles listed. That might help resolve the issue. Hiding Talk 11:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone who makes or distributes fair use copies of a copyrighted work (such as by posting comic book scans on the internet) has no claim over someone else's subsequent use of those copies, because copyright doesn't protect labor or effort. See Feist v. Rural. We may wish to recommend, just to be nice, that people credit such sources, but there's absolutely no legal necessity. Postdlf 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That was my take. But it is part of our upload policy that we state where we sourced the image from, so the website should have been credited if it were the source. Do we just add the credit or should we remove them, I guess is the next question. It might be time to start culling images with no physical source again. Hiding Talk 15:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Just add the credit. I think it would just be a complete waste of resources and content to remove images just because we don't know who scanned it. Postdlf 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. Hiding Talk 09:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a little dispute at Talk:Avengers Disassembled over the mention of parodies of the event. Please lend your voice to the discussion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The parodies/references section of many other articles (e.g., Batman in popular media) have concerned me for some of the reasons voiced in that discussion. Without citing (WP:CITE) sources identifying them as deliberate parodies, don't those sections constitute original research (WP:NOR)? Doczilla 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Depowered mutants, which I see as being just as ephemeral as the dead character categories; also Category:Marvel vs. Series characters, which just plops in every character that has been included in one of those video games like X-Men vs. Street Fighter, no more significant than their merchandising in a particular toy line. I think we should CFD both. Postdlf 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, both should be deleted. RobJ1981 05:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Off with their heads! For the next couple of years, "Depowered mutants" is likely to be even more transitory than comic book death. Furthermore, the category's name makes no sense. It doesn't specify that it's talking about fictional mutants. Doczilla 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Both have now been listed on CFD. Postdlf 14:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Talk page for his wife, Maggie Thompson on whether Don merits an entry by noteability guidelines. Rather than repeeat it here, I refer folks interested to that Talk page.

I also added Don to the Don Thompson disambiguation page, and created a redirect to maggie's page. I would also suggest we change it from Don Thompson (Comics Buyer's Guide) to Don Thompson (writer).

I am trying to enter the biographical information on the writers who contributed to The Comic-Book Book into here. So far I haven't got past Don and Dick Lupoff.