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.

The article Rook (comics) is written like an essay and includes sentences in the first person. Would someone more knowledgeable in Warren magazines care to take a look at it? --Pc13 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done! I just went to check it out and was confused.Luminum (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Our esteemed colleague, J Greb has recently removed the character navoboxes from The Avengers film project under the rationale that the film is not centered on any individual character. While this is true I am of the opinion that this film is important to the understanding of these characters (atleast the big four) in other media. These boxes provide ease of navigation for readers reseachering a specific character and if one were navigating between Captain America or Thor films leaving out The Avengers seems inappropiate, especially since they are within the same fictional universe. I have not challegend J Greb's good faith edits but other editors have leading to some minor disputes, so I am asking to build concensus here either in support or against the inclusion of these navboxes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that the navboxes are supposed to cover a relatively tight topic. For character specific 'boxes that topic is the character as the primary focus. That would include the creator(s) of the character, characters specifically and primarily associated with the character as supporting character, foes specifically and primarily associated with the character, etc. The idea being that there is a reasonable jump between any two articles within the navbox.

Plunking ensamble appearances - like the forth coming Avengers film or like titled TV shows - bucks that premise. Essentially it's adding articles where the focucs character happens to "appear in" a show or film along with others. Considering the bulk of licensed products that come out featuring - in this example - the "Avengers", the "appears in" material can wind up creating a navigation hazard in the 'boxs for the "big name" Avengers.

There is also a navagation hazard with including 10 navboxes, even with the maximum collapse ((Navboxes)) allows. At some point the glut of 'boxes become intimidating or confusing to try and find a relavent related article. (note: This why teans and full team rosters are not included in the 'boxes.)

Last thing, at least with the Avengers example, of the 6 "characters" (SHIELD seems to fit under that term here), 4 are cross linked in ((Avengers)). Navigating between those through the film article already exists. It also exists through ((Marvel comics films)) for all but SHIELD. The only benefit having the other 6 templates gives is to be able to navigate from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Diamondback to "Demon in a Bottle" to Larry Lieber to The Incredible Hulk (roller coaster) to Cross Technological Enterprises to H.A.T.E. - or the like.

- J Greb (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the following mergers:

• Earth Lord, Skyhawk (comics), Wind Warrior be merged into Earth Force (Marvel Comics)

• Talk:Earth Force (Marvel Comics)#Merger proposal

• Aliyah Bishop be merged into X-Men: The End

• Talk:X-Men: The End#Merger proposal

• Ghost Girl (Marvel Comics) be merged into Crusaders (Marvel Comics)

• Talk:Crusaders (Marvel Comics)#Merger proposal

• Sangre, Perro, Serafina, Aguja, Fuego, Cadena be merged into Children of the Vault

• Talk:Children of the Vault#Merger proposal

I hope to have some opinions. Bye --Crazy runner (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweet Me Harder. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article One-Above-All is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MBelgrano (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion about the manual of style that impacts all of the comic book articles we edit. Please post your opinion there. Spidey104 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on [1] we may want to keep an eye on Fantastic Four, Mister Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Thing (comics), and Spider-Man for "new" infobox images.

- J Greb (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we? The infobox should have the most canonical design of the character, and the blue suits have been used in comics for nearly 50 years, not to mention all other media. The new designs may be worth mentioning... at their respective section. MBelgrano (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what J Greb means. Greb's saying that we should keep aware of users changing the infobox images to the new costumes when the current images should be maintained instead.Luminum (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The announcement of the new Spider-Man film's title The Amazing Spider-Man led me to review the topics that share this title. As a result, I've requested a move that can either affect the comic book series article or the disambiguation page. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional eyes and input could be used at Talk:Ultimate Comics: Captain America.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dwayne was arguably the greatest, finest, most decent, and largely unsung, current voice in western animation. I was greatly saddened to hear that he had passed away. Is there anything we can do here to bring attention to and celebrate his legacy? Dave (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but this is still an encyclopedia, and all we can do is make sure the article is the best it can be. Friginator (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the information within these articles is redundantly repeated in the other articles. I understand that Aqualad and Tempest (DC Comics) work as a hybrid disambiguation/article, but their current state are violations of WP:Content forking and WP:CRUFT. For example, if I were to search for Garth/Tempest without knowing his location, I'd write Tempest, be directed to Tempest (disambiguation) where I'd have to read and choose to go to Tempest (comics). Then, I'd have to go to Tempest (DC Comics) just to find out that I should've gone to Garth (comics) instead.

As for the contents of Tempest (DC Comics), it just includes a very short copped out summary of the Joshua Clay and Garth articles which is terribly unneeded because Tempest (comics) already lists both articles in the disambiguation page. Basically, what I propose is that Tempest (DC Comics) be redirected to Tempest (comics) while Aqualad be redirected to Garth (comics). Because only two characters have owned the "Aqualad" moniker, per WP:HATNOTE/WP:SIMILAR, a hatnote at the top of Garth that directs you to Jackson Hyde is sufficient.

• Note that this case is quite different from cases like Robin (comics) where about 9 people have held the moniker and therefore it is unencyclopedic to redirect towards one of their articles while hatnoting the other 8. This is the case of 2 articles redundantly appearing in 4 different ones. Feedback ^☎ 23:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a bit of a rub considering this also involves 5th article, Joshua Clay, and an existing dab, Tempest (comics).

I've mentioned elsewhere that Joshua Clay should likely be following the "Codename (Alter ego)" titling format from WP:NCC. And looking at that and the articles Feedback points to, I agree that there is something seriously wrong here. but I don't agree with the specific cited or the remedy.

• The article Garth (comics) is titled the way it is mainly to avoid continual or recurring arguments over which name/codename to use. Same reason for Wally West, Dick Grayson, Hal Jordan, etc. I don't think we're going to get around that issue. And it really limit the ability to use the article as the spine for either Aqualad or Tempest (DC Comics).
• The articles Aqualad (Jackson Hyde) and Joshua Clay both suffer from being primarily plot dumps for minor characters. Joshua Clay was, at best, lightly used being restricted to mostly appearing in Doom Patrol stories before he was killed off. and the new Aqualad is just that - a new character. In all honest, neither of these should have been split off of their respective core articles.
• Aqualad, Tempest (DC Comics), and Tempest (comics) each are set up to fill a particular role at the moment. Tempest (comics) is doing its job as a dab close to perfectly at the moment - providing short, 1 line identification of the various uses "Tempest" has in comics as a character name or a story/book title. And I think only the Atari Force character is missing from the dab. The other two though... Both would be of more use if handled like Blue Beetle or Ray (comics). Keep the minor characters there until there really is enough to split them off or there is an urgent naming reason. That would leave the pointers to Garth (comics) as the only "See main article" case right now.

- J Greb (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are avoiding a few issues there. Per WP:SIMILAR, a disambiguation page shouldn't be used when there are only two articles that fit the disambiguation. Aqualad disambiguates for two articles. That is completely unnecessary. Aqualad can easily redirect to Garth with a hatnote leading to Jackson Hyde's article. You also avoided the fact that Tempest (DC Comics) is completely useless and should be deleted because Tempest (comics) is doing its job AND more. Feedback ^☎ 00:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read what I posted. - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I did read. You proposed uses to Tempest (DC Comics) and Aqualad that are not only unneeded, but are against WP:SIMILAR. Blue Beetle works because the page encompasses many different characters just like Robin (comics) and Flash (comics). But Aqualad only encompasses two people. And again, WP:HATNOTE says that two articles shouldn't be disambiguated in another page, a hatnote at the top of both their pages that leads to the other is suffice. You seem to be missing the "point" with your long comment up there. This isn't about fixing the articles, it's about doing away with the unnecessary ones. Feedback ^☎ 05:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion at the Village Pump regarding categories that are mostly used for comic book characters was archived without reaching consensus. I've raised the issue again, and on the suggestion of another user am announcing it here in the hope of attracting more discussion. Feezo (Talk) 04:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fictional mutates is now being considered for deletion. Feezo (Talk) 06:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of DC Comics characters who can fly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DC Comics characters who can fly until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The new Age of X article is in need of a lot of help referencing the information included in it. I have tagged the article and made posts on registered contributors with frequent edits to the page, but it hasn't seemed to help. I am not reading this storyline, otherwise I would fix it myself. There have to be some editors out there who are reading this story and can provide the necessary references to this article (and possibly shorten it to be more concise). Spidey104 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is trying to say too much:

• 'In an October 25, 1940 interview titled "Don't Laugh at the Comics", conducted by former student Olive Byrne under the pseudonym "Olive Richard" and published in Family Circle, William Moulton Marston described what he saw as the great educational potential of comic books.'

I think this works better:

• "In an October 25, 1940 interview published in Family Circle titled "Don't Laugh at the Comics", William Moulton Marston described what he saw as the great educational potential of comic books."

Then add when Olive Byrne is next referenced:

• "Olive Byrne (a former student who conducted the Family Circle interview under the pseudonym "Olive Richard)"

Not perfect, I agree, but I think better than leading in with an information dump. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am taking it that this is a request to change the said information because of semi-protection. If so you might want to state what section these informations are in to find it quicker. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry, "Creation". 203.35.82.136 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok seems reasonable so it's been  Done. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a new comics-related Good Article: G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics).  :) BOZ (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Could those interested in comics-related articles voice their opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone grabbed an image from Deviantart and uploaded it on File:Psylocke-20050603013519041.jpg, on top of the image that was already there. I'm not sure how to restore it to the previous image - anyone know how to fix that? BOZ (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Theres a revert link in the file history section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

These are some really minor stuff, and I don't want to edit war, so could anyone take a look at this and/or this and give an opinion? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are both really, really stupid things to be fighting about. If I had to choose sides, I'd say 108.69.80.49 is in the right on this one (simply judging from the difs you gave), and that seems to be how things turned out. Still, they seem very minor and I'd encourage all editors to calm down. This is something that should be discussed on the talk page if it's this controversial. I wish a resolution had come sooner, seeing as how Psylocke is now fully protected. Not a good way to operate. Friginator (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From when I jumped in, things didn't seem heated at all, just contested. The situation was resolved when a legitimate source was provided that supported the proposed edit. ::shrug:: Case closed. As for the FF thing, that just seemed like an open and close case of WP:TRIVIA.Luminum (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Those are both really, really stupid things to be fighting about." Word. Somebody at FF needs to get a dictionary & look up the meaning of "cameo", too. *sigh* (This ain't it, either.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently a lot of people delete these sections from articles. While i find it understandable for appearance lists, i can't say the same for bibliographies or especially collected editions. There seemed to be discussions here already about this point, but no consensus was reached. Deleting appearance lists makes sense since they get too long too easily, although the same can be said for bibliographies. But i can see absolutely no reason why lists covering collected editions featuring the character should be deleted from the articles.IchiGhost (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly the "bibliogrphies" that have been creeping in are appearance lists just under the wrong name. So are "collected editions" on character articles. - J Greb (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you mean as a "too long" appearance list? postdlf (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion-derived consensus was that appearance lists duplicated, without context, information that should appear under "Publication history." Collected reprint editions — books — are acceptable in the same way that we may list an author's books but not every magazine or newspaper article he or she ever wrote. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_Squad&diff=416845930&oldid=416447198#Bibliography This would be a bibliography section that i consider too long, including every single appearance a character or team made no matter of importance.IchiGhost (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've recently expanded the Arthur Adams article, complete with multiple sources for all in the info therein, and images as well. The article was previously rated B class because two criteria: referencing/citation and coverage/accuracy, were not met. I'm reasonably certain that both of these would be seen as having been met now. Can someone reevaluate the article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any standard on listing of team affiliations? Alphabetical? Notability? Chronological?Luminum (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say put the leader or leaders first, then put the rest chronologically, and in cases where multiple members joined in the same issue (like in Giant-Size X-Men #1), list them alphabetically. I don't think there's an objective metric for comparative notability. Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In team page infoboxess, if stable and relatively short, I'd agree with breaking out the leader. But after that listing the remainder alphabetically possibly split between "current" and "former".

On the team roster list articles, by first published appearances as a member. That keeps things in a real world context.

In character infoboxes, alphabetically.

- J Greb (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant character infoboxes only. I should have been more clear. Oops! At least now I know about the others. Thanks for the advice!Luminum (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you meant in what order should the various teams a character has been a member of be listed on the character's page. That's what I want to know. Sometimes they're listed chronologically, sometimes reverse-chronologically so the current team is on top, and sometimes the order just seems to be random. Which way is correct, assuming there's a correct way? DeadpoolRP (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant. JGreb said alphabetically (above). I'm willing to go with it as a standard.Luminum (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently started a discussion about the template that members of the project may have an opinion about. Spidey104 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Detroit Steel (Comics) is now nominated for deletion. Please post comments for or against in the discussion. Thank you. Spidey104 18:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Fandraltastic has been posting sections on action figures on numerous character articles. They are unreferenced, so I'm not sure how much cleanup this needs, but I am posting here as a heads-up. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Over whether two seperate incarnations of the comic need a link to the "list of stories" page. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Although obviously I'm bias it seems the other party has ownership issues with the page. See his talkpage.203.35.135.133 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems settled now 203.35.135.133 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Front Line (comics) be merged into the Daily Bugle article. Please post your opinions. Spidey104 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

[2]

Also in the news: water is still wet.  ;) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at the talk page and gave my personal view. Feel free to hash it out there.Luminum (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Omega Gang has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for the article content or subject. A few blog and fan sites have the subject, no WP:RS found, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Rainbowcat is a sort-of new user, in the sense that while the account was registered a while ago, they were mostly inactive until last month. Most of their contributions since then have been to add superhero and supervillain categories to various character articles. Would anyone be willing to coach them in the proper way to go about this, to prevent all the reverting and edit warring that has been going on over this? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Rainbowcat looks like User:Creepy_Crawler, who for years has been a nuisance under countless user names. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no. :( That's not the person who keeps talking about women's feet, was it? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome keeps on removing infobox for the multiple teams in the Defenders (comics). I have tried talking to him on this matter before and I have left a message on his talk page. Can an administrator lock the page. Spshu (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That particular editor has been sort of a pain for some editors. If he keeps this up he should probably be blocked for a limited amount of time. It's very rare for him to explain edits even in edit wars. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What editors?Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with BBiA on this one - the idea of an infobox is a singular template to be placed on the top of the page, not 1 per incarnation as you scroll down.

At this point a discussion on the article's talk page should have started at the point of this edit instead of a flat revert here. And while BBiA hit the 3 revert mark in a 24hr period and apparently stopped, Spshu has 4 in the same span.

- J Greb (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't really been seeing what's going on. And I figured that he could have been right on whatever he is doing. It's just there has been many edit wars involving him in the past. I do prefer to assume good faith and solve the problem instead of blocking but I don't want this to be a recurring thing too. He needs to explain revertings in his edit summaries and discuss things on the talk page a lot more that what he's doing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hence "Unfortunately". I'm not a fan of BBiA's avoidance of the article's talk page or lacking edit summaries. But the apparent reason here behind the removals makes sense.

And looking at the entirety of the situation neither BBiA nor Spshu come to this clean. There is an apparent history of them rubbing each other wrong. The extension of the edit war to one of the two breaching the letter of 3RR. Neither using the article's talk page even though one complains of the other's unwillingness to talk. And this appears to be a fight that has been off and on for at least 2 years.

- J Greb (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can tell that these two editors (now that I had a good look at it) are both guilty of it this time around. I think User:Emperor's discussion in that talk page really helped the other editor out. So hopefully the problem's solved. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

J Greb, I point with a link where I try to discuss this mater with BBiA before in the first post in this section. So, your finding me to be at fault too is unwarrant. I came here to request a lock on the page so it would not get to 3RR, so perhaps then the administrators in this project is at fault then based on your logic. I have put forth a compromise on the Defenders talk page, but no takers on BBiA or any one else who want to enforce it. So I discuss a potential solutin not just complains about his lack of response. With the lack of action of administrator intervent with BBiA and with massive personal attack on me at the Talk:List of Avengers Members for being a POV editor for defending a NPOV position, I so I don't think that you get a pass either, J Greb (Yes, you visit that page).

Emperor's suggestion was back in 2008, Jhenderson777, and yes I incorporated that back then.

J Greb, BBiA give a "non"reason for his edits. "We don't need them" isn't a reason it is an opinion with no reason to back it up. With one infobox you get some sort of mash up as the box is edit with the various version information gets writen over other versions as I have seen take place on that article. Spshu (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Long and the short:

• You came here in lieu of opening a new discussion on the article's talk page. You didn't even try to talk to BBiA until after your 3rd revert.
• You have responded to BBiA's post on the article talk page. Kudos to both of you for finally deciding to use the proper venue to start hashing this out.
• I pointed to the long standing issue to make clear that neither of you is dealing with this well. And frankly, I'm not your councilor, a therapist, nor paid to dig through the full minutia of which one of you was less than civil to the other outside of this specific issue. And looking at what you brought here, I would have been within bounds of blocking both of you for edit warring on the article last night if the issue were pushed - you both know better.
• As for knowing better - the general procedure for contested edits is WP:BRD. Your edit was reverted - contested - you should have posted what you wanted to change and why to the talk page, not fought on with the reverts.

- J Greb (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You claim to not want to dig through the "full minutia" of what is going, but you not even paying attention to see completely what is going on in this issue. My previous attempts at discussion with him even when I link to the various attempts that you seem to dismiss or ignore so I won't repeat them for a third time. There was a pre-existing discussion on the article talk page where BBiA doesn't even show up to discuss any thing. So I am in the wrong because I could force him to come to the talk page to discuss it and I discuss the issue with others. Is it because I didn't start the discussion. So this finally stuff doesn't hold. I made a request to have the article locked which an adminstrator did before during the last edit war, so it seem like the thing to do this time and that did bring him to the talk page. He doesn't seem to stop reverting until forced to. No one has ever pointed to the WP:BRD page to me since I got here and the non-article "space" of Wikipedia has poor structure when I have tried to navigate around. A talk page discussion is a talk page discussion to me, so I don't see any reason that we have to be so uptight that the discussion has to accur on the articles talk page and the BRD doesn't specify what it means by "the talk page". Discussion can easily be move from one talk page to another. And it looks like the BRD is a newer page, a replacement page for others. Spshu (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the move of The Escapist (character) to The Escapist (comics)? It doesn't seem quite right to me, but I'm happy to have it explained. 139.168.161.27 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's been a long time the usual way to the name comic book character's if it's a ambiguous name. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading the page, it seems to me "comics" as dab is wrong, since he originated elsewhere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Similar to Harley Quinn, though Quinn has the benefit of not requiring a dab. I would move to have it put back to The Escapist (character).Luminum (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus of renaming needs to be made in the talk page. That's one of the things they are for after all. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, taken. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this seem alright, or was it better before that change was reverted? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I do recall hearing that he can still have his powers outside of being on the board and that the movie is the one that came up with the idea that the board is the weakness. But of course this is not reliable and is probably a fan interpretation of it. I do know that the Silver Surfer can recreate boards sometimes but still sources would be nice. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is also official that it's unknown how much potential the board has. That is up to the writers. But him being weaker from the board doesn't really seem to be a comic book thing and getting power from the board (See Power Cosmic) isn't either. He can't fly without it though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never been a big Surfer fan (nor FF either), but I'm unaware of him being weaker offboard than on. Unless there's pretty substantial separation between them...? (Which I've never seen happen.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does a family link with Jean Grey is enought for a character to have its own article ? For me, it is no. Is there a way to merge Brian Grey (paternal uncle), Roy Dennefer (uncle), Phyliss Dennefer (maternal aunt), Sara Grey (sister), Paul Bailey (comics) (brother-in-law), Joey Bailey (nephew), Gailyn Bailey (niece) into an article ? For example, Jean Grey's family members but I am open to other suggestions. I have serious doubts about the notability of these articles taken separately and the possibility to find significant coverage of the subject.--Crazy runner (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside their relationship to Jeannie, I'm unaware of independent notability of any of them except Rachel. Could they be merged into her own page under a subhead Family? That strikes me the most rational approach. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Either that or start List of minor Marvel Comics characters or List of minor X-Men characters with them. That might be better than a congesting "Family" section. - J Greb (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Crazy Runner. We sometimes allow a little too many fictional characters to have their own article when they have nothing to prove their notability and are minor characters at that. Those that you mentioned are just a few examples. What J Greb said could work but it can be easier said than done. If there is a List of minor Marvel characters we should probably use List of Marvel characters article just for those that have articles. It's kind of useless that all it is is a list of links (like a category) but then you can easily see why these minor characters get articles because where else does information go if not on a list. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, List of Marvel characters content wise could be limited to a link without text compilation of the characters from articles and a "See also" of sublists. Though... and this is a bit of a nagging problem... I'd rather have it as a "first stop" for people looking up Marvel characters (same thing goes for the DC character list). In that function, it would need to have the minor characters present even if it points to another list where the bare bones info is kept. - J Greb (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah definitely. Excuse me for saying article but I do mean redirections too. And it would help for navigation purposes for the redirection title to be the same title as if it is a article. And list of Marvel characters can also link the minor character list article as well. The List of Marvel characters can be useful on linking every character for it is the main reason why it's useful. That and it can make easier navigation. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Although consider that the only people who would even know about Jean's family members, or be interested in them, would probably be looking in her article already -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jake's right, most people interested would already be at Jean's page. I disagree with putting them on the main list; IMO, that should be limited to significant/major characters (who probably have their own pages already), & a "list of minor characters" page created to cover the rest. This solves the congestion issues. It also offers opportunities for fortuitous searches, which IMO we shouldn't ignore: how often have you looked at a page, or a list, & gotten curious about something you weren't looking for? Or stumbled on something you didn't know even existed? A "minors" list could do that a lot IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well.... at least there's a bold start to compacting them... - J Greb (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly if you go at what Jake said Jean Grey would be the proper place for the redirection (like Billy Connors and Martha Connors redirecting to Lizard (comics)) for right now. That would be conveniant for the time being. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Biggest problem I've got with that is you have to pick through the article to try and find the relevant information.- J Greb (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I said this without noticing the minor X-Men characters article being created. So no bother with that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey- I just got hold of a lovely picture for this article, but the photographer commented that it was a shame that the article was so short. I really don't know comics- is there a chance anyone could give the article a little TLC? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Frida (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published support for the article content or subject. No WP:RS found, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crazy runner (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I've posted up a Peer Review Request which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/archive1 and a Copy Edit Request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics). It passed GA assessment in early March, and I've been doing some work since then to prepare it for an FA nomination. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was just wondering what guideline you use for inclusion of separate comics? I just stumbled on The Isle of Mechanical Men and I think this does not meet the criteria outlined in wp:NBOOK, but I wanted to get some more input before starting an AFD and wasting everybodies time. Yoenit (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 19:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any independent sources discussing this character at all? Even briefly? This'd be greatly appreciated in the Cultural_references section in the Tasmanian_Devil article proper, where it's the one ^{[citation needed]} tag left to fill in (and it sounds like a cool character :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Recently, a few Category:Comics art by foo have been created by SingToMePlease (talk · contribs), for example: Category:Comics art by Dan Gormley. There does not seem to be any subcategory of Category:Comics designed to hold these so I'm guessing that this is actually something that was agreed on in some way by this WikiProject. Is that the case? Should these categories be sent for deletion or should something like Category:Comics art by artist be created? Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a "back end" tree: Category:Comics > Category:Comics images > Category:Comics images by artist for files. Basically giving a search/review option for images attributed to artists either with an article or noted on a number (I believe I was using 3 or 4 as a minimum) if images. They could also be listed under "See also" in artist articles.

That said, SingToMePlease seems to be miss-applying the category structure - the files should be tagged, if appropriate, not the articles.

- J Greb (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Indeed, these categories are intended to hold files but it's pretty clear that this is not the intended function of the categories introduced by SingToMePlease. Reading the preamble of Category:Comics by author there seems to be some sort of agreement that categories are maintained for authors but not for people who acted solely as writers or solely as illustrators. Pichpich (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is recently proposed merge that needs some additional opinions. Spidey104 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Front Line (comics) into Daily Bugle: Discussion
• Tito Bohusk and Tito Jerome Bohusk into Barnell Bohusk: Discussion

So, if the rule of thumb (as in Wiki's MoS) is that long works are italicized and short works are in quotation marks, e.g.

"Hell's Bells" is an episode of the American television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer

what does an arc count as? Surely the maxim is "if you can go out and buy it hardcover it's a long work"? I was thinking, moreover, on comic book arks. The opening to one article as stands currently reads:

"The Dark Phoenix Saga" is an extended X-Men storyline in the fictional Marvel Comics Universe, focusing on Jean Grey and the Phoenix Force, ending in Grey's apparent death. It was written by Chris Claremont with art by Dave Cockrum and John Byrne.

But surely by virtue of being such an extended storyline, and so recognisably a brand, it should be The Dark Phoenix Saga? With regards to the Buffy arcs, which I first had in mind, should the disctintion not be between arcs, e.g. The Long Way Home (issues 1-4) and "The Chain" (issue 5, standalone)? This is the approach taken, analogously, in television wikiprojects, with episodes and serials. Take for example, Doctor Who. Classic serials are rendered e.g. The Daleks, or Survival, whereas modern 40-minute episodes are presented as "Rose" or, in the case of two-parters whose issues are of separate identities, "Aliens of London"/World War Three". When the show or its spin-offs has two-parters that are presented as one title, it enters 'serial' territory, so we have The End of Time in Doctor Who, or Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane? (spin-off series two-parter), or Torchwood: Children of Earth (of which individual episodes are "Day One", "Day Three", etc.)

I suggest that the comic book Wikiproject should draw up a rationale behind its divisions of long and short works; we seem to know that limited series (e.g. House of M) are long works, but we do not seem to believe long works can be contained within longer works (e.g. "Elegy", which ran seven issues in Detective Comics).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

L&S:

• "Stories" cover almost everything published in comics. The term though, if we are creating an article for a story, is applied to a narrative that begins and ends in one issue.
• "Story arcs" are stories that begin in issue X and end in issue Y. Applying the term to articles is generally limited to story arcs that don't begin with the first issue of a title, end in the last, and only play out in that title.
• Most every thing else is treated as a publication.

Beyond that... Bluntly, I don't think porting in television sensibilities in general, or Doctor Who specifically, is proper or needed. Different media, different needs, different conventions.

The only "holes" are with company wide cross overs - should the title of an article be "Flashpoint" or Flashpoint, Secret Invasions or "Secret Invasion". And which format is used in the body of the text. And frankly that comes down to common sense:

• Article title - which is the article focusing on? The publication or the cross overs?
• In the text - is the title referring to the publication or story? Did the event mentioned happen in the publication or a cross over issue?

- J Greb (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose ital for story arcs not published separately. So, Phoenix Saga (or "Phoenix Saga", & IMO quotes not really needed) unless collected as a title or graphic novel, whence Phoenix Saga. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd avoid The Phoenix Saga all together unless it is in reference to the TPB getting to press, sales, or quoting of a critical review of it and not the arc. And for clarity: I agree quotes shouldn't be in the article title - but it's the only whay I can quickly point out the two differing methods of italics and "normal" font faces.

- J Greb (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I follow and agree with the above. But what, say, do we make of "Predators and Prey"? Is it "Predators and Prey", a 5-issue "short work"(?) arc featuring the issue "Swell" (emphatically short work), or is it Predators and Prey, a 5-issue arc of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight (categorically long work)? It's just a manner of standardization; TV was only an analogy, I wasn't saying to imitate that project.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK... lets look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight in total...

The series title itself would be italicized, that's simple enough. From there are three things:

• Titles for the stories in individual issues;
• Titles for story arcs; and
• Titles for trades, the collected editions.

With the individual comics, the title of the story - if there is one - would be in quotes. So, using ((cite comic)) to provide an example, issue 22 would be:

• "Swell" Buffy The Vampire Slayer Season Eight, no. 22 (February 2009).

"Swell" would, with in articles, always be presented in quotes. If (big if) it deserved a separate article, the only place it would not be in quotes is the article where it would be regular text.

Story arcs that are identified by title on the issues in some way would also be treated this way:

• "Twilight" Buffy The Vampire Slayer Season Eight, no. 32-35 (February - May 2010).
• "Them F#©%ing (Plus the True History of the Universe)" Buffy The Vampire Slayer Season Eight, no. 34 (April 2010).

In cases like this the arc title can either be part of the story title for the issue or identified on the cove of the individual issues. But again quotation marks are used within the article and the article title would be unquoted and not italicized.

The collected editions - when directly reference - would be italicized and should, in most cases, use the full title of the book.

Now, that does leave the articles on comics based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer with some problems:

• TV episode like lists should not be in place - Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight#Publication
• Story/Story arc articles should not be extended plot dumps - Retreat (Buffy comic) or A Beautiful Sunset
• Story arcs shouldn't be sectioned by individual issue/chapter titles. And even if there is a valid reason for it, the titles in the section header should be in quotes, not italics - Predators and Prey (though this also is an example of the next problem)
• Collections of 1 issue stories should not be treated as "story arcs". Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight: Predators and Prey collects 7 individual stories, not an arc and 2 extras. The current article needs to be reworked to either split it into 5 articles, one each for "Harmonic Divergence", "Swell", "Predators and Prey", "Safe", and "Living Doll" or to point out it's covering the 5th trade paperback collection of stories from the comic book series. The latter would be similar to Autumnal (Buffy comic) or Spike & Dru (Buffy comic).

- J Greb (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But in the case of Predators and Prey, it is an arc isn't it? The article is referring to the "continuous story of issues X-Z", a loose arc written by guest writers showing a new status quo and a number of reactions to it throughout the 'verse, setting up the Retreat arc, no? "Swell", "Safe" etc. as individual comics have litte notability in the same way as other one-shots (e.g. "The Chain" which had a unique conception history), as it was conceived as a "loose" or unusual arc experiment with a number of writers, to accomodate the writing scheduels of what are essentially TV writers. So it would have to be about the group of issues, but I'm not necessarily sure it necessarily has to be about all seven issues collected in the TPB Predators and Prey (though any TPB and what it includes should be discussed at any rate), as it is about a period of time / set of stories in a serialised medium. Hmm.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, I would rather the article be tweaked talk about the TPB rather than the assumption that it is an self contained story. - J Greb (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User Nteinkvnc has recently edited a lot of comic book articles (primarily DC) and his grammar is horrendous. I believe he may not be a native english speaker. His talk page has a comment by another editor offer help/advice, but that hasn't changed his editing. I have tried to keep track of his edits, but I am already busy without stalking a busy editor. Any advice? Anyone willing to help fix his edits? Not all of his edits are bad, but many are. Spidey104 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, some of those are hopeless. He does seem have the ability to get it right, as this shows; why he doesn't take the time... ESL? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten replies from Nteinkvnc. There appears to be a genuine desire to fix it, but it looks like his English is just too weak. AniMate posted a suggestion to practise on Simple WP, & I agree, that looks like the best option. Some of the edits aren't terrible (& the simple ones are OK), but anything complicated becomes a real hairball. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just set up an article on Pop Hollinger, could use some review and collaboration!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming we need a source for the voice actor on an amusement park attraction? If so, please see this and this. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And, reverted again on Doctor Octopus, Electro, and Hobgoblin. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

After the IP was blocked, they apparently registered an account as User:Bandrade88 and have continued to edit war. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a huge fan of Bill Willingham's Elemental's series of comics and wanted to participate in this project and add a substantial amount of information on the comic book and the various characters involved. The project home page suggests suggestions to participate should be made here? [It also says to add your name as a participant 'below' yet when you look there is nowhere to add it - help with that would be good too.] I am relatively new to this but I would like to have a good go and would welcome the go ahead and perhaps some pointers. I've read the suggested pages on style etc. Much obliged. Mutant Raccoon (talk) 0:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Nemesis (Ultraverse) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

If I interpret the exemplars correctly, it's okay to list all the collections of a comic in its article - has this changed? I'm asking because the Bibliography section of Lucky Luke keeps getting removed. The editor doesn't seem willing to discuss or at least explain his standpoint (before reverting him I started a section on the talk page), merely repeating that “we don't do appearances lists”. Can someone else please explain to me why that information keeps getting removed (it's not a list of appearances but a list of published books one could buy/order in a book store)? I looked for a discussion about this on the project's pages but didn't find anything - if this has been discussed before a link to that discussion will probably suffice. Thanks in advance, --Six words (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics MOS consensus is to not publish bibliographies of comics titles in a character's entry, since this data should be discussed contextually in the "Publication history" section. The Project does allow them in artist/writer articles, which have no PH, and book of collected editions are allowed under a subhead such as Iron Man#Collections of Spirit (comics)#Collected editions. I think if retitle the subhead, then editors will understand it's not a disallowed bibliography of comics titles, but a list of collected editions. Yes, "Bibliography" is the proper word for a list of books, but that term became corrupted, and until that changes, we used "Collected editions". --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just want to add that the article isn't about the character but about the comic series of the same name; renaming works for me, I'll do that. --Six words (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae states that the MOS is not to have bibliographies, but I can't really find that in there. Anyway, the MOS is written mainly from an American-style comic book point of view, while Lucky Luke is a European-style BD, a series of books, not a magazine. Note that most of these books are bluelinks, and that these books have on average sold 3 to 4 million copies each. It may be better to put the list in a separate article, but it should definitely not be removed, as it consitutes the full history of the series. They are not "collected editions", they are the primary publication mechanism (not the first, in many cases that was a comics magazine like Spirou (magazine) or Pilote) of stand-alone stories which are continuously in print. Fram (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fram is correct; I used the wrong word, though the point remains the same. Fixing now. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The long & short: Current consensus is that "appearance lists" are not to be added. So having a section on Mister Fantastic that lists each issue of each title the character appeared in is a no go. Even "selected" issues isn't good. When an article could, or should, include coverage of a comics title, then a "Collected editions" is OK. Lucky Luke, which has a lead beginning "Lucky Luke is a Franco-Belgian comics series created by...", is an article on the series and a "Collected editions" section is fine. (I'd quibble about how the current list is set up, but that seems beside the point.) And, again based on the article, the albums are collections of strips that were previous in comic magazines. There is no indication that the series had or has shifted from reprinting serials to original albums. - J Greb (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that having a list of every issus of the magazines where Lucky Luke stories first appeared in would be a bad idea... Fram (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Fred Jones (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability only one appearance in a comic book. [3]

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Crazy runner (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - character can be or may already be mentioned in Sgt. Fury article. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Dittomaster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability only one appearance in a comic book. [4] [5]

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crazy runner (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This brief article is complete fictography of no meaning or relevance to general public or anyone who is not a hardcore comics fan. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Irving (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability only one appearance in a comic book.[6]

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crazy runner (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This brief article is complete fictography of no meaning or relevance to general public or anyone who is not a hardcore X-Men fan. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Duane Wilson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability only one appearance in a comic book.[7]

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crazy runner (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - character can be or may already be mentioned in Sgt. Fury article. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Marvel Entertainment Group to Marvel Entertainment (discuss). I had original posted this on a new WPC page devoted to merges/moves, but it received little notice. Posting here in hopes more editors will comment. Thanks. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Top 100 Comic Book Heroes - IGN If any were bordering on notability, this might help give them a push in the right direction. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I really felt IGN was going to do that sometime. Since they did do a top 100 comic book villains quite a while ago. By the way almost of those comic book villains have articles. Except so far Herr Starr, Saint of killers, and The Governor from The Walking Dead. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, just a note, simply stating "They were voted as the 40th best Comic Book Hero" is not enough for reception in most cases. You have to also include some of the comments about why they thought it deserved that spot in the rankings. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That does make it better. That is if this list really does count on considering characters notable. IGN's top 100 video game villains have a lot of characters that do not have there own articles. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that "just being listed" counts for very little, but all of the characters listed have commentary, which does count for notability. Simply being listed in a list does not make a subject notable. But being covered in detail in multiple lists does count. That is why every single source is important. While 1-3 isn't enough, if you can get the sources to build up over time, 5-10 sources can make a very decent reception section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Still, you add these now if the characters have pages, and you add other things as they come up as well, eventually it becomes a good recepticon section. It's all a work in progress. Mathewignash (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you said the first time Blake. I guess your concern is because how the top 100 supervillains were treated. Anyways I have already done what you were recommending on some of the top 100 heroes. The IGN list is complete now so...anybody can complete it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yah, these lists have been helpful. I added stuff from the "Top 100 Pokemon" and a "Hyrule's most wanted". Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series was bordering on notability before I added the reception. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, guys. We're having a discussion on which photo would be a better Infobox portrait for the Larry Hama article here. Can anyone reading this join in? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, filling in an infobox on a fictional comic book character, and they have been around for a long time published by multiple companies and titles, do you fill in information based on their original status when created, their status as of how they were most well known, how they are NOW, or all through their career? For instance, on affiliation with a team, they were originally solo, then printed by another company with a team, then printed by another company solo. Do I list the team anyways, and just make clear in the body text that is was a temporary affiliation? Mathewignash (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested in working on this at en.ws if it is in fact in the public domain. It is listed at this site as PD, and appears at archive.org as well. The archive.org scan appears to be from the former site so I am hesitant if it only is there because of the claim from this self-published site; can anyone confirm if the work is public domain? Or any insight would be awesome. Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please post your opinion on the discussion page for whether or not this article should be deleted.

Note: This article was nominated for deletion before Crazy runner added numerous references to the article.

Kurt Parker (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Was my edit vandalism? [8] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, no. He did, however, deliver electric shocks on several occasions, so you're wrong, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well what do you know. :) I don't remember the electric shocks part, but so be it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to attempt to revise the Cerebus the Aardvark article (I think it badly needs it), and part of my revision was to spin the 9 storylines of the book into separate articles (only High Society has anything like substance to it yet):

• Cerebus (Cerebus storyline)
• High Society (Cerebus storyline)
• Church and State (Cerebus storyline)
• Jaka's Story (Cerebus storyline)
• Melmoth (Cerebus storyline)
• Mothers and Daughters (Cerebus storyline)
• Guys (Cerebus storyline)
• Rick's Story (Cerebus storyline)
• Going Home (Cerebus storyline)
• Latter Days (Cerebus storyline)

I started some of them, but at Talk:Cerebus the Aardvark, User:JasonAQuest objected to it, so I've stopped for the time being. I'd like to get some feedback from some other people on whether it's a good idea to have separate pages for the storylines (obviously I think it is), and reach a consensus on it before continuing. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Fence" - I don't see one, having 1 article each or not, out weighing the other. I would though check the titles. "(Cerebus storyline)" for be the last option for a dab. Maybe:

• Cerebus (comics) or Cerebus (storyline)
• High Society (comics)
• Church and State (comics)
• Jaka's Story (over the redirect)
• Melmoth (comics)
• Mothers and Daughters (comics) (hatnote needed)
• Guys (comics)
• Rick's Story (comics)
• Going Home (comics)
• Latter Days (comics) (hatnote needed)

And story arcs generally use quotes, not italics.

- J Greb (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, except that the story "arcs" in Cerebus are generally thought of as novels ---they're not story arcs in the sense of an extended Batman story. It's rare to refer to them as "story arcs". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You've chosen an ambitious project, so kudos. :-) My question is, do you have independent, secondary sources for those storylines that satisfy WP:SECONDARY? Nightscream (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cerebus is possibly one of the most heavily documented series in history, despite not being enormously popular. Sources are not in the least bit hard to come by. Please take a look at the High Society page I started. Despite still being pretty much a stub and not even having a plot summary yet, it's got 12 footnotes already. I've got a pile more ready to go, but I've promised JasonAQuest I won't go forward without consensus. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So...does all this constitute consensus, or indifference? I mean, should I go ahead (when I find the time)?CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should go ahead. It is a good project. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this may have gotten buried. Is there anyone else who thinks I should go ahead with this? I'd like to make sure there's no opposition, because it's an awful lot of work to do. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I support this very ambitious endeavor (good luck!), but I agree with J Greb that "High Society (comics)" should be used instead of High Society (Cerebus storyline) (and the same for the rest of the articles. Kurt Parker (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As they were all subsequently published at graphic novels, perhaps Cerebus (graphic novel), etc. would be a good naming convention? TJ Black (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that is that several of the storylines (Church & State, Mothers & Daughters, Going Home and Latter Days) were broken up into smaller collections (2 volumes for C&S, GH and LD; 4 volume for M&D). Critics generally refer to the broader storylines rather than the collections unless they have a reason.[9] Sim called them "novels", but I doubt anyone here will accept that.

One other problem is that the "Cerebus" volume isn't a graphic novel. It's a collection of one- to three-issue stories. Admittedly, "storyline" isn't appropriate there, either. Cerebus is a complex work with a notoriously complex publishing history, and some ugly compromise somewhere is likely the only solution. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what cover this comic is a homage to? I know I recognize it. http://www.comicvine.com/transformers-timelines-generation-2-redux/37-236736/ ? Mathewignash (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when did we start allowing people to cite the Handbook of the Marvel Universe? Aren't we supposed to avoid citing other encyclopedia sources? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References lists it as a great source. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and the DC's Who's Who are given as exemplars in the references.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC). Howerver concerning the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Statistics, "Consensus at the WikiProject is that the use of statistics sourced from in universe material and reference works, such as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Who's Who in the DC Universe or roleplaying game resources is discouraged."--Crazy runner (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that Who's Who in the DC Universe (WWDCU) and Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (OHOTMU) are skirted in citing things more often than not. Yes, there is some use for the material they contain - examples of how to summarize plot, broad stroke character outlines, and rough power lists are about it, and possibly in how the publishers (mis)handled spoilers and introductions. But they have serious failings as well.

• WWDCU hasn't really seen a new edition in 20 years even though DC has used the page layout style for sporadic "Profile pages", so most of the information is only of value to "fill in a blank" at this point.
• OHOTMU is heavy on technobable and fictional stats presented as "truth". This tends to translate into editors using it to support long, complex powers sections by just not using the "hard numbers".
• Both tend to get treated as tertiary sources instead of primary ones.
• And they are both chock full of trivia that isn't appropriate to articles here. The biggest examples of this are character birth places and "full" names. Birth places that are never or rarely used. And names that are in no way the "Common name(s)" for the characters.

And they aren't what Doc was pointing at. Those would be, I believe:

• The Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe (which appears to be trying to move to being a wiki...)
• The Great Book of Oa
• The Marvel Universe (while hosted at Marvel's official website, it's still a wiki)
• The Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe
• Marvel Guide
• Cerebro Files (which is an extension of a fansite)
• Cerebra's Files, which seems to be dead.

Frankly, the Appendix may be the closest of the lot to being a "reliable" source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And even then, the note on WP:CMC/REF implies it's best for "obscure" characters which can be read "minor characters use once or just a handful of times."

- J Greb (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what's driving me nuts: List_of_Amalgam_Comics_characters. Consensus was that we wouldn't list DC/Marvel merged characters or which characters merged into them unless characters appeared in the actual comics and the merges were explicitly depicted in the origin source. Now it's full of merges alleged by http://www.marvunapp.com - which does not look to me like an official extension of the DC/Marvel manuals but another editor cites Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References as if it is. I do not find Jeff Christiansen or his site listed anywhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. Am I missing something? Doczilla _STOMP! 09:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe, website 19 in the section Databases, indices, and other such websites on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References 130.120.37.11 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's listed there, but why? Its inclusion of unsourced Amalgam merges makes me question its usefulness. Who the heck is Jeff Christiansen for us to accept the guy as an appropriate source? In what way was it "credited as a source by Marvel in their Marvel Monsters volume"? If Marvel says it's official, then it's official, but what does Marvel Monsters specifically say about it? Doczilla _STOMP! 07:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know more about it, ask User:Emperor [10]. 85.171.169.3 (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, is being nominated for and/or winning an Eisner award grounds for notability? I would tend to assume that nomination = no, winning = yes, but the question's been raised as to whether the award itself is significant enough that winning it is considered notable. Thanks for the assist. Doniago (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good criterion. Even a nomination would be, IMO. Nightscream (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. That's almost exactly the opposite of what an editor's saying in the linked discussion. Doniago (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry this is so long)

For a little while I've been incubating an Autobio comics page in my sandbox. I haven't put a lot of work into it yet, as I've got other things on my plate (currently putting the most work into Chester Brown-related pages).

However, I got into a bit of a scuffle with TJ Black, who found out about the page I'm working on. He objects to my starting the page without project approval (actually, he wants me to leave wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there). So I'm proposing it here before continuing with it further.

There is an Autobiographical comics page, but in the Alternative comics community for a couple of decades now, the terms "autobiographical comics", "confessional autobio" and "autobio (comics)" have been used in a special way to talk about a subgenre of comics in which the author is particularly revealing about themselves. Works generally typifying the genre are Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary by Justin Green, the autobio of Robert Crumb, Harvey Pekar's American Splendor, Chester Brown's autobio comics, all of Joe Matt's works, Daddy's Girl by Debbie Drechsler, and a number of others (Art Spiegelman's Maus is often included as well).

Reasons for proposing an "autobio" page as separate from the "autobiographical" page:

• The subgenre is quite substantial, has spanned decades and is still alive now
• It has been at least dabbled in by many of the top alternative cartoonists, and has been explored extensively by names such as Robert Crumb, Harvey Pekar and Chester Brown
• "Autobiography" and "autobio" don't cleanly intersect. Not all "autobiography" partakes in the "conventions and tropes"[11] typical of the autobio subgenre, and not all works considered "autobio" are strictly autobiographical
  • Seth's It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken is widely considered to be part of the genre, despite being entirely fictional
  • Julie Doucet and Jim Woodring's dream comics are considered part of the subgenre
  • Justin Green's Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary, considered the first instance of the genre, is semi-autobiographical—the main character's name and a large number of the scenes are completely made up. Yet, it is considered one of the pinnacle's of the genre by Art Spiegelman, Robert Crumb, Aline Kominsky-Crumb, Jim Woodring and other important alternative and underground cartoonists.
  • Cartoonist and critic Frank Santoro says, "I believe that autobio comics are a genre with their own conventions and tropes".
  • In a review of Epileptic, Mike Everleth says "autobio comics are probably the most well-received genre by non-regular comic readers."

Reasons for choosing the title "Autobio comics":

• It seems to me to be more widely used than "Confessional autobio" or any other term I've come across
• It's widely used:
  • The Comics Journal recently ran a long article called The ABCs of Autobio Comix
  • A Google search for "autobio -autobiography comics" returns 153,000 hits---and this, of course, is ignoring all the articles that contain both the words "autobiographical" and "autobio"—which means any article that starts with something like "Autobio comics are comics of an autobiographical nature that......." This also means the Comics Journal article I linked to above got excluded.
  • Top Shelf Productions' artist page on Dennis Eichhorn opens by saying he "is one of the autobio genre's best-known luminaries."
  • On page 139 of From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and comic books Arie Kaplan asks, "Why were so many female cartoonists drawn to the 'autobio' genre?"
  • The Walrus calls John Porcellino "one of the longtime greats of the autobio genre".
  • ...etc...etc...etc...

I could bore you people with reference after reference to the use of the term. I'm sure there are people here who familiar with it. I honestly don't care what it gets called, but I do think it should be distinct from "Autobiographical comics".

Why not make it a subsection of "Autobiographical comics"?

• Such a subsection would, without doubt, dwarf the remainder of the article
• As I stated above, some of the more important works that are considered "autobio" are not strictly autobiographical
• The Autobiographical comics page is an unreferenced mess (basically a list of whatever could be reasonably thrown into a list of "autobiographical" works), and I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough of non-"autobio" autobiographical works to fix it
• Nobody else seems in the least bit interested in fixing the Autobiographical comics page (it's been tagged for lacking references since April 2008).

I hope to get some feedback on what other people think about starting the page. I had assumed the term had been so widespread for so long that it never crossed my mind that anyone would object to it until TJ Black said that, because he personally had never heard of the term, it basically doesn't exist.

To be honest, I don't care if I get "support" per se, as long as nobody else objects to having the page. I absolutely cannot fathom why anyone would so object to it, especially when there is someone both knowledgeable enough and motivated to do it—there are plently of people knowledgeable enough, but who can be bothered to actually do it? I can, so why on earth would anyone try to discourage it? I can't imagine pulling that on someone without a rock-solid reason—at least more solid than "I've never heard of it".

(having said all this, I actually have no intention of working on the page in the very near future, as I have a number of other things on my plate first).

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good project too. It is a subgenre, if you have enought coverage, you can create the article. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your continued attempts to make this some personal conflict reflect poorly on you. I merely suggested that you seek community consensus before making such a poorly thought-out change. If anyone bothers to read our previous discussion, they'll see that you're deliberately misrepresenting my points, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

My objection to this proposal, as I made clearly after you sent me the link to it, is that the division you're proposing is original research. Where are the independent sources that confirm that "Autobio comics" are a distinct and clearly defined genre separate from "Autobiographical comics"? What defines what works belong in one category or the other besides your subjective determination? If this is a clearly defined genre, than what's going to be left in the existing article once all information on "Autobio comics" is removed? I posed all these questions to you and more, but you still haven't addressed them in any satisfactory way. The various links you've posted do not confirm your claims at all, and in fact use the 2 terms interchangeably.

"Autobio" is simply a shorthand people use for "autobiographical". The article on Autobiographical comics already exists, and in fact the first line is "Autobiographical comics (often referred to in the comics field as simply autobio) are autobiography in the form of comic books or comic strips." I strongly support efforts to improve coverage of autobiographical comics on Wikipedia, but the proper way to do so is to improve the existing articles, not create unneeded forks. If is the case that "Autobio comics" is the preferred term (something you have not proved in any way, but is certainly open for discussion), then the proper step would be to move the article to that title, not fork it. TJ Black (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to elevate this conflict, so let's stick to the facts. Please note, before commenting further, that I've added quite a few links to the proposal above that I never posted to you. Please check them out before commenting.

The Frank Santoro quote in particular is telling (I quoted it to you before, but forgot to link it). I really, really doubt he's suggesting that "autobiography" has its "conventions and tropes".

The fact that the word "autobiographical" and "autobio" would be used in the same article should come as no surprise. In fact, it would be expected, as "autobio" comics are, by and large, autobiographical. The fact that "rock" and "music" are used in the same article to refer to the same thing doesn't make the terms interchangeable. It means that rock is a form of music, and it's perfectly acceptable to refer to rock merely as music during the course of an article. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, no conflict from my perspective, merely an attempt to discuss how content is presented on wikipedia.

I did check all the links. The full quote from Santoro is "I also liked the story because it seems to me that he is purposely playing around with public assumptions about himself and the genre of autobiographical comics. (Yes, indeed, I believe that autobio comics are a genre with their own conventions and tropes)." He's clearly using the terms interchangeably. It is not at all the similar to your rock/music analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be an article that uses both the terms "rock" and "rock & roll"; in that case no one would doubt that both terms refer to the same thing.

Please read all the links you posted. In none of them do they make any sort of statement that suggests that autobio and autobiographical are separate concepts or genres. That is independent research on your part. One is merely shorthand for the other. TJ Black (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous proposal. It's elevating a fanfic or trade term way past where it belongs. It makes as little sense as creating an "Oater" page as a subgenre of Western. Stop. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's the supposed "fanfic or trade term"(*) that you oppose, you'll notice that I've said it's not the term I'm insisting on, but the genre itself. If you have a problem with the proposed content, then please state why you do. "This is a ridiculous proposal" is hardly constructive feedback.

(*) I won't bother arguing with this, but I obviously strongly disagree with your bare assertion that it is. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"If it's the supposed 'fanfic or trade term' that you oppose" It's not. It's the proposition it qualifies as a separate genre. It doesn't, any more than "Oater" qualifies as separate from "Western". Claiming it does is ridiculous. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm afraid I have serious doubts about this idea. "Autobio" is not a word but a colloquial shorthand for "autobiography" or "autobiographical." Having "autobio," even with a parenthetical qualifier, as a subset of "autobiography" is semantically illogical and confusing. Whether some people who don't know better use it or not is irreleevant. Also, to call "confessional autobio" and "autobio (comics)" as a form "in which the author is particularly revealing" just begs the question of POV — where is the line between "revealing" and "particularly revealing"? That's a judgment call neither we nor even the authors can make. "Autobiographical comics" is a good idea. I would strongly argue against the rest. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which, I imagine, is why one chooses works and authors who have been referred to as "autobio" (or whatever) rather than just choosing whichever ones one wants. The Comics Journal, for instance, has run numerous articles over the years discussing the genre, the newest of which is the one I pointed to above. The genre was given the cover to the October 1993 issue(*) (using the word "autobiographical", but clearly making the distinction inside that it is a distinct genre). I would assume TCJ is a reliable source.

I feel like a broken record saying this, but I'm not pushing for the word "autobio". I'm happy to accept something else. I'd appreciate it if people would focus on whether the genre itself is valid rather than splitting hairs over a phrase I'm not strongly arguing for. I gave my arguments for why I chose that term over others, but my argument has never been that that is the term it must be.

I'm not going to argue for the wording "revealing" or "particularly revealing". It happened to be the words I used here, but I wouldn't put that on a public page without refs first.

(*) and here's a bit of a problem, because some people won't accept online resources as reliable, but if I quote a print source here, everyone just has to take my word that I'm not making it up CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're not pushing for the term "autobio" then what is the point of this discussion? No one has ever denied that autobiographical comics are a genre of comics. In fact, there already exists a wikipedia page for the genre of autobiographical comics. Please feel free to improve upon that page. That's all I've been saying all along. TJ Black (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing this page with the argument you and I were having. In our discussion, I was trying to show you that the term "autobio" actually exists and is widely used, versus your assertion that it is not because you had never heard of it. I think you'll agree now that it is, in fact, widely used, even if you disagree as to how it is used.

On this page I'm arguing that there is a distinct genre of comics in the alternative comics world. The alternative comics press has long been in agreement over this, but sometimes use different terms to refer to the genre. I chose "autobio" not because I was committed to it, but it seemed to me to be more common than the other terms used.

The Autobiographical comics page covers any comics in any language or from any culture and from any time in history that happen to be autobiographical in content. Robert Crumb calls Justin Green's Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary from 1972 "the FIRST, absolutely the FIRST EVER cartoonist to draw highly personal autobiographical comics"[12]—certainly not the first time anyone did autobiography in comics, so what was he the first at, then? I hope you're not going to call Robert Crumb, of all people, ignorant. About the same work, Art Spiegelman says, "It's no small thing to invent a genre."[13] Another cartoonist I doubt anyone's going to accuse of ignorance. There's an article here that says, "Kominsky Crumb acknowledges the influence and inspiration of Justin Green’s 'Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary," the first comic artist to work within the graphic memoir form." Without using either the terms "autobiographical" or "autobio", the author makes it clear that this was a new genre (or "form"). Here you can see a quote calling Binky Brown "the first and[...]still the best".

So we come to the conclusion that either a particular (sub)genre was born in 1972, or nobody had ever attempted autobiography in comics before then. Or that some of the foremost cartoonist and comics scholars are just plain wrong, and after nearly forty years nobody's bothered to correct them. But if there's "original research", it's clearly not on my part. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That is NOT what our previous discussion was about. It was about the exact same topic we're discussing here - whether or not autobio comics are a distinct genre from autobiographical comics. You have yet to produce a single source that supports your claim it is. At least two other editors agree with me that it is not. I've repeatedly said that the content you want to add is perfectly good, but the proper course of action is to add it to the existing article rather than creating a new article. I've repeatedly said that I don't care what the article is called as long as the title is descriptive and widely used, and consistent throughout wikipedia. I've said all of this to you REPEATEDLY. Get the point and drop this. TJ Black (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The conversation started off with me pointing out to you that the word "autobio" was, in fact, in widespread use. When the conversation changed to whether what I was talking about was a separate genre or not, I brought it here. HERE I've been advocating since the FIRST that it is, in fact, a separate genre that has been called by different names, and the one I chose was "autobio" but I'm open to accepting something else. It's right there in black and white in my first post. Could we please keep the conversation to what we've talked about HERE and quit trying to bash me over what was said in our discussion? If you want to continue that discussion, do it on our talk pages, because most of it is completely irrelevant to what's being said HERE.

I've said all of this to you REPEATEDLY. Please get the point and keep on topic. The topic: a genre of comics, which numerous high-profile alternative cartoonists and critics claim to exist (although somehow you think Art Spiegelman, Robert Crumb, Aline Kominsky-Crumb and Jim Woodring are "not a single source". What source would you accept as credible, then?). I'll repeatedly repeat it: The name is incidental. Please stop beating that dead horse.

Given that you've made your off-topic point "repeatedly", you may want to take a breather and let others have their say. Tenebrae has managed to show tact when disagreeing with me. It now stands at 3 against vs 2 for, with the disagreement overwhelmingly being over the word "autobio", which I've repeatedly repeated I'm not insisting on. Repeatedly. Let's get off this treadmill. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyond your assertion they're somehow separate, I'd like to see some actual evidence they're distinct forms. So far, all you've shown is it's a term of art in current use by professionals. Show me a recognized source, like CBJ or even Steranko describing the two things as separate & distinct items, rather than simply forms of the same thing. Just because pros call 'em stunt gaffers doesn't mean they ain't still stunt coreographers, but it does mean they ain't 2d unit directors. (Which isn't to say the 2d unit guy isn't also sometimes the fight gaffer, especially if he's Chuck's brother. ;p ) A 36pp book is still a 4-color. And setting it in Australia (or or Italy pretending to be Montana) doesn't make it any less a Western. If it's set in Japan, tho, it's not a Western anymore, is it? (Or is it? ;p) Walter Kovacs ^{to be, or not to be} 05:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what this comment is getting at, so I don't know how to respond. And I don't understand why you would want to change your sig for only one post. Do you often call yourself Walter Kovacs, and am I supposed to recognize that? I sure hope it's not an attempt to make it look like there are more people opposed than actually are. But I assume if you wanted to do that, you would create an actual sock puppet, rather than wear a false nose. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. I have an idea: Publishing recognizes "autobiography" and "memoir" as different forms. I'm frankly unsure of the difference, though I suspect a famous person after many accomplishments writes an autobiography, and anyone, even an unknown, with an interesting facet of his or her life writes a memoir.

Many this can serve as a springboard. I'm not sure that because a few small-circulation magazines make up a term that academia and mainstream publishing don't recognize that an encyclopedia should adopt it. And creators themselves are notoriously the worst people to categorize their works, since they lack the broader and disinterested perspective of an outsider. (Picaso, after all, did not coin term "Cubist.") But perhaps the distinction between autobiography and memoir can help sharpen our focus. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Now this I have to object strongly to: "a few small-circulation magazines"? Is there a threshold for circulation a publication must reach before it is allowed to be taken seriously? The publications themselves are numerous, their circulations happen to be small. It should come as no surprise that the publications about the comics themselves would have small press runs. Academic books on even famous subjects also tend to have small press runs. Does that disqualify them? Do you think a single scholar on the face of the earth would accept such an assertion? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(a side note: Picasso didn't coin the term "Cubist", but neither did he call himself one, and he was never a member of the Cubist movement—although he provided inspiration) CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Publishing recognizes 'autobiography' and 'memoir' as different forms." I missed that one. :( Nor have I ever quite understood the difference. Something to do with who actually wrote it? (Which is to say, a ghostwriter or not?) I've had a sense the amount of honesty (or the number of "dirty little secrets") plays a part, but that's purely subjective.

To stick more closely, is this a variation like the difference between underground & comix? If there is, in fact, a difference? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but Spiegelman wanted "comix" to mean underground/alternative comics. He wasn't trying to distinguish comix from underground/alternative comics. I assume it had something to do with the origin of the word "comic", which he wanted to get away from, since he was doing "serious" comics. So no, there was never supposed to be any difference between "comix" and "underground/alternative comics".

When he talks about Justin Green "invent[ing] a genre", he's clearly separating mere autobiography from whatever it was Green did. And given Spiegelman's status as a teacher and historian (besides being an artist) it's not quite the same as an artist labeling their own work. I don't recall Spiegelman himself calling Maus "autobio(graphy)"—after all, it (superficially) focuses on his father. It's not Justin Green who claims he invented a genre. It's Spiegelman, Crumb, Woodring, Carol Tyler says Green is "considered the Father of the Autobiographical comic" (how can you be the father of something that already exists? Also, notice the caps in "Autobiographical")...for critic critics, Charles Hatfield calls "Binky Brown" a part of the "roots of today's autobiographical comics". Richard von Busack also calls Green "the father of autobiographical comics", again raising the question: how can you father something that already exists?...

But then, I should probably stop wasting my time posting links. Nobody's bothered to tell me yet just how many links I must post before it stops being called "zero". And we don't seem to have moved beyond the discussion of what word to use, either (now discussing "memoir" vs "autobiography"). Is the distinction drawn by Spiegelman, Crumb, Kominsky-Crumb, Woodring, Tyler, Hatfield, Santoro, van Busack and the Comics Journal real? If so many artists, critics and historians claim it is, shouldn't the onus be on you guys to show it's not? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

STOP !!!

• First scenario, Curly Turkey is right, he write the article with sources to prove his statement. Wikipedia wins an article.
• Second scenario, Curly Turkey is wrong, he write the article with sources but can not prove his statement. The contents is merged in Autobiographical comics. Wikipedia wins some content with sources.
• Third scenario, the fighting discussion continues. Wikipedia wins disputes and could lost a contributor.

Curly Turkey should receive a warning that he has to be careful with OR, reliable sources, ... if he wants to write such an article. I think that the warning has already be given. Now let him do some work and at the end juge the article if he has enought sources or content if he decides to merge it due to lack of sources. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

♠So far, I've seen no evidence for the difference. I don't dispute, nor do I think anyone does, autobiographical works do exist. What's at issue is the difference between them & the notional "autobio" works. I frankly don't give a damn what word is used, except to demonstrate an actual difference. So: there's no actual difference between "fight gaffer" & "fight coreographer", whatever it's called (beyond, perhaps, one being more familiar to insiders). So: what actual difference exists between "autobiographical" & "autobio"? I see none.

♠Is this, therefore, a distinction without a difference? Is this a difference equivalent to that between "memoir" & "autobiography": namely, only a semantic one (or one depending solely upon what the author wants to call it)? In that event, there is no basis for separation: "memoir" & "autobiography" do not merit separate treatment; neither should this.

♠I notice, also, the link to TWC describes Green as "father of the autobiographical comic", not "father of the autobio comic", so "something that already exists" is a non-issue. (Moreover, since the work linked to isn't actually about him, it isn't actually autobiographical, either, which calls in question pedigree.)

♠Expressions of frustration might be mutual, since I see no evidence of actual difference: not existence, but actual difference. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

For about the 700th time I must repeat: we're not discussing the word "autobio", so the fact that TWC uses the word "autobiographical" is not only beyond the point, it's also exasperating. I'll ask again—can we get off this treadmill?

The fact that some of the leading names in alternative comics would consider Green the "father of the autobiographical comic" despite the fact that Binky Brown is not strictly autobiographical is significant, and something I brought up in my very first post here. Please read that again before posting, as it's an important point, and it strains credulity that you could have actually read that and then call Green's "pedigree" into account. The fact is that what I've been calling "autobio" does not strictly have to be autobiographical. And if you are going to try say that Binky Brown doesn't belong on a list of autobiographical comics then you are honestly not qualified to speak on the subject. Yes, Green's place in the cannon is that secure.

Further, whther you see the difference or not is not really relevant. If I were a Christian and you were and Atheist and I wrote an article on God, you would not have the right to stop the page just because you can't see how there could be a God (unless I just made up everything on the page). If I can get references for everything so that it clearly isn't OR, that's all that's necessary. I have a long list of important people in alternative comics who do believe there's a distinction. Similarly, I know plenty of people who can't for the life of them see the difference between a Conservative and a Libertarian (I know it took me a long time to figure it out).

The "memoir" vs "autobiography" thing (a treadmill which I've already asked us to got off of) is not even close to the mark. I'm not calling the "autobio" genre something different than "autobiography". In fact, I've stated (over and over and over and over and over) that it's a subgenre (although it includes a few works that are not strictly autobiographical). Similarly, as far as I know, nobody's ever argued that a "fight gaffer" is a subgenre(?) of "fight coreographer". You're barking up the wrong tree and not actually reading the words I've written.

tl;dr—the fact that you don't see the distinction is not relevant. Whether it can be backed up with reliable sources is all that matters. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to contribute to the Autobiographical comics page, because

• I'm not at all familiar with comics outside of what I've been calling the "autobio"(*) genre
• The page is a mess and requires severe reorganization. I can't do that without moving a lot of stuff around. I don't know what to do with the non-"autobio" material, and it would be wrong to remove it (or would it?)
• It doesn't appear that anyone is in the least bit interested in trying to get the page in shape—if there were, then I might consider writing a subsection on the "autobio" subgenre, but:
  • I think it would be excessively lengthy (another reason for it to have its own page).

Please try to understand that adding a subsection to the Autobiographical comics page is not what I object to per se, but that such a section cannot be cleanly added. The page is a massive list which gives little context (other than breaking things into decades, but not separating cultures). It also makes the bizarre claim that it's a Canadian, American and French thing, and then goes on to list a pile of Japanese comics. All unreferenced. If someone wants to clean things up to make room for me, that'd be nice. I, personally, have no idea where to start, aside from rewriting the thing from scratch (which would mean the loss of quite a bit of content, as I have no idea what to do with it). So who's gonna help clean things up? ..............dead silence.................. (*)please note that I'm using the term "autobio" here to avoid using a long phrase in its place. I really want to keep the lid on that can of worms. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, screw all this. People disguising themselves to seem like they're another voice; people arguing about the words I use when I explicitly stated I wasn't pushing for the word; going round and round on the treadmill over completely irrelevant BS; people claiming I have no (!!!) sources, and then saying my (Pulitzer Prize-winning) sources just simply aren't good enough; people questioning the "pedigree" of one of the most firmly established and highly-esteemed books in the history of alternative comics....

The User:Curly Turkey/Sandbox/Autobio comics page wasn't even high on my list of things to do (I'm more motivating getting Chester Brown and Jim Woodring-related pages up to snuff). I only started the page when I followed a link from some Chester Brown page and saw what an ugly, random, unfocused mess the Autobiographical comics page was. I'm blanking the page. Someone else (meaning, of course, no-one) can take the mess that's there and try to make something readable out of it. Or more likely not.

(I also wouldn't be surprised if User:Trekphiler was the other identity TJ Black says he has on his user page. The level of vehemence right from the first post is a bit hard to comprehend otherwise.)

I'm going to go wash my hands and hunt down some more Chester Brown refs. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that makes the distinction between the wider class of autobiographical comics, and the subclass of autobio comics? Are there any reliable sources giving examples of comics that are autobiographies, but not autobio? The objections so far are not that your sources aren't reliable, but that they don't support the distinction you are trying to make, and aren't sufficient as a justification for two separate pages. As far as I can see, reliable sources call the same books "autobio", "autobiographies", "autobiographical comics", ... without further distinction or explanation, as if they are synonyms. Fram (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"you would not have the right to stop the page" I don't. I do have the right to insist you demonstrate its separate significance from, say, Allah & Buddah. As here.

"we're not discussing the word 'autobio'" If you'd bothered to pay attention, you'd know, we weren't. You were, by refusing to address anything else.

"The fact that some of the leading names in alternative comics would consider Green the 'father of the autobiographical comic' despite the fact that Binky Brown is not strictly autobiographical is significant" No it's not. Not to this discussion. His importance to the broader field I won't dispute, beyond having some trouble with the idea of "fatherhood" of a genre with a work that isn't actually autobiographical at all. (I have never understood critics, so I expect that will have to go in the "Huh?!" file, along with "'No Country For Old Men' is a great film.")

"Can you provide a reliable source that makes the distinction between the wider class of autobiographical comics, and the subclass of autobio comics?" That has been the question all along, yet Curly Turkey has flat refused to even recognize it, quite aside answering it.

"The objections so far are not that your sources aren't reliable, but that they don't support the distinction you are trying to make" Exactly. And all the verbiage on the existence of a genre doesn't, either. AFAIK, that isn't in question.

"(I also wouldn't be surprised if User:Trekphiler was the other identity TJ Black says he has on his user page." I wouldn't go making accusations of sockpuppetry just because you lost, funny boy. That you don't get it isn't my fault. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"we're not discussing the word 'autobio'" If you'd bothered to pay attention, you'd know, we weren't. You were, by refusing to address anything else.

This is just exasperating. Please quote one instance on this entire page where I have insisted on the word "autobio". In virtually every post I've been trying to move the discussion AWAY from there, and all I get is people insisting that writers use the word "autobiographical" to mean the same thing. Which is exactly what I said in my first post. My legs are getting tired, can we get off this treadmill? I don't believe that at any point in this discussion you have ever even tried to make a contribution that was not, at the very least, condescending. It does seem to me that you showed up here to start a fight ("ridiculous" "funny boy" "sore loser"—what is the point of this vitriol? Who has been calling you names here?)CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've said this over and over (and over and over [and over and over {and over and over}]) again, but I'm not arguing over terminology. The fact that "autobio" and "autobiography" are used "as if they are synonyms" is something I've never at any point for even the tiniest fraction of a second disputed. I made this point in the very first post I put here, and the fact that people are still showing up arguing over terminology that I was never disputing in the first place just shows that people are more interested in arguing than in reading what I actually say. THERE IS NO SET IN STONE TERM FOR THE SUBGENRE, and I have never claimed so (I've only ever claimed that "autobio" is one of several terms used, and appears to me to be the most widely used alternatives to "autobiography". Another one I'd forgotten is "autobiographia". BUT that is IRRELEVANT as this is N*O*T A*B*O*U*T T*E*R*M*I*N*O*L*O*G*Y. Should I pick a bigger font to write that in?!? Because the point is being ignored no matter how many times I write it!).

Anyways, the claim was not whether or not my sources were reliable. I was told I provided zero sources, and then that the sources weren't good enough because they were artists themselves, and then the sources weren't good enough because their circulation wasn't high enough, and then the sources weren't good enough because people didn't agree with the distinction the sources were making, and then the sources weren't good enough because they used "autobio" and "autobiography" "as if they were synonyms", and then OH MY GOD WE'RE ON THE TREADMILL AGAIN ARGUING ABOUT SOME "CLAIM" I NEVER MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!

Please, I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. My sandbox page has already been blanked, so nobody has to waste any more bytes on this. There's no threat that I will so much as correct a typo on the Autobiographical comics page. Nobody has to agree or disagree with me anymore on this subject. Nobody actually reads what's written anyways, so let's hurry up and stop so this page can get archived out of our sights as soon as possible. This isn't fun, this isn't productive, too many responses are borderline vitriol out of all proportion, and I've no motivation to continue.

Why do people bother to write responses to things they can't be bothered to read? It's like talking about James Joyce when you've never read it before, except there's nobody in their right mind who would pretend to be impressed! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not arguing over terminology" You've done nothing else. OK, don't call it "autobio". Call it Rozencrantz, I don't give a damn. What is the difference between that & straight autobiographical work? Explain it. Source it. Show me the difference. Don't just tell me there is one, show it to me. That has been the problem: you can't see it's nothing but the same thing by another name. So excuse me for not being able to see a distinction without a difference. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I pointed you to a mountain of sources. You still don't see the distinction and have made an issue of it, going so far as to disguise yourself as Walter Kovacs to make it look like more people were on your side.

Okay, I gave up. I gave up a number of posts ago, and you keep on posting here. Not just that, but you insist on calling me names on top of it. Just what is it you want? Do you want me to abondon the proposal AGAIN???? FINE! I'll abondon it tomorrow, the next day, and every hour on the hour til the end of the month! I'll post to this page every day to let you know I'm abandoning it again, so nobody will every forget what a "sore loser" of a "ridiculous" "funny boy" I am! Look, I'll even change my sig to something to please you—after all, I can't prove to you my name is Curly Turkey! Sore Loser 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, stop it. No more namecalling, no more sockpuppet accusations (open a WP:SPI if you have evidence, otherwise drop it), no more replies to one another. It doesn't matter if "the other" has the last word, just let it be. Fram (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all pretty unfortunate. Curly Turkey's text is perfectly good and would be an improvement to the Autobiographical comics article, which, as he rightly points out, is severely deficient. But I can't understand why he refuses to acknowledge the point that myself and many others have been making from the very beginning: that the distinction he is advocating is not well defined or supported by any independent source. And then he exasperates the situation by (falsely) claiming that all the objections are about the term "autobio" specifically, in spite of being repeatedly told that is irrelevant and not germane to the discussion. I certainly hope he (and others) have learned from this and will, in future discussions, make additional efforts to carefully read and understand the points other editors are making and to respond to them directly. TJ Black (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

TJ, you replied to something that said "stop it." Stop it. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, and the multiple times I said "stop it" don't count at all. It is 100% clear that have been working in the best interests of wikipedia while dealing with an incredible immature editor bent on confrontation. Merely summing up the discussion with a clear statement that his contributions would be more than welcome is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. To criticize me for doing so is not justifiable by any standard any reasonable person could hold. TJ Black (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

TJ Black has decided that my unconditional surrender is not sufficient and is now continuing to browbeat me on my User_talk:Curly_Turkey#? talk page. Apparently I'm dirty for seven generations or something now for the horrible sins I've committed on this page. Could someone please direct me to the appropriate page of rites I can perform to atone for my abject horribleness? Unforgivable Sinner 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article List of minor Marvel Comics characters has been AFD'd. You may vote your opinion if it should stay or go here. Happy editing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at these pages here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Ghostbusters_(comics)

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters:_Legion

Wouldn't it be better to combine the two as Ghostbusters (Comics)? Then someone could add the other series based on the property. Not just the Now Comics, Marvel UK, and 88MPH series but the one that Tokyopop did and the one that IDW Publishing is currently doing. This will then gather up all the various series (from different publishers) that have (and are currently) based on the property in one place. It would be more convient for readers. Don't you think?Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The image for Steve Ditko is up for deletion.

- J Greb (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To those helping out by adding reception sections for character articles in the top superheroes list: An IP user added notes to several articles, but did not include a link to the IGN list, so if you are helping out with this, you might want to fill out what they added. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae has undone them for now. I was adding adding reception sections for the characters (in the order of that list in the time being) but I slowed down a little trying to help other articles out. I will hopefully complete it in the near future though. The edits are not that useful though when (1) they are on the lead but not on the body of the article (2) not cited and (3) don't describe a bit of why it was on the list. I regret the online Wizard magazine list not staying so I can remember the summarizing reasons why the certain characters were on the list and I don't have to use a forum as a external source link to help prove where the characters were. But that's Wizard magazine. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please post your opinion on the discussion page for whether or not this article should be deleted. Kurt Parker (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up wit User:Jhenderson777 a little while ago, but i want to bring these articles to everyone's attention:

• List of Dick Tracy villains - There could be a little more detail as to the descriptions of the villans.

• Captain Compass - I read the occasional comic of this detective and there are several claims on it that seem false. "He teams up with the Martian Manhunter to save Black Canary after Two-Face takes her hostage"? Sounds incredibly unrealistic. "He helps out the Justice League after Green Arrow departs"? Not true at all.

• Agent Cheesecake - More detail could be used in this article and some more references as to some of her adventures with She-Hulk and Glob.

• Hamilton Hill - The article has no references or sources.

• Doctor Manhattan - I've always felt maybe this character and maybe the other Watchmen who has no articles yet to receive seperate articles like Rorscach and Ozymandias (hope i spelt that right).

• Scarlet Skier - Also cites no sources or references. It's also been neglected since 2010.

Please leave your thoughts. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:40 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be honest with you, a lot of the characters that you have shown me that is a seperate article doesn't seem to warrant having an article. In fact since we have a minor characters lists now that's probably where they belong for right now. I do have confidence that Doctor Manhattan and other Watchmen characters maybe deserve their own article at one point. As for fixing the List of Dick Tracy villains that one sounds tough because I don't know much about them. I might need to check another site out to know anything about them. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you created the stubs on the minor characters page, i'll redirect them. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:19 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The bio section on Mystique is long enough already, but someone added this unusually long section which appears to document the events of a single comic book! Anyone with some time on their hands care to give it a big trim? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That does seem excessive. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have these on character pages? Mabye yes, maybe no, but these are unsourced: Doctor Strange and Namor. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If they were anything like maybe Batman's or Spider-Man's I would probably recommend it. But that is too much for a character article. I would probably recommend (if he wants the information to stay) to split that information into a list article like List of Iron Man enemies. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As much as the idea of a "List of Foo's foes" section or article is attractive, I'm really starting to have doubts that most of them are sustainable. ((Rogues Gallery)) right now collects a lot of these (and has at least one issue in and of itself since it is pointing to article sections) and except for a really small number they cannot be based on secondary sources. Yes, Bond, Batman, the FF and will have reliable secondary source for who are the notable foes. And a few - Ben 10, Danny Phantom, Doctor Who, etc - are mostly self limiting to atnagonist from a specific show/series. But the rest really verge on OR. - J Greb (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

They should be in Publication history. Writer X introduced character Y in story Z in the year 19enty-en. This can be accompanied by commentary. Though Merlyn was introduced as a one-time villain, one of many arrow-themed doppelgangers for Queen in this decade, his use by writers subsequent to X would establish him as the archnemesis of Green Arrow. I just made that up, however, and know nothing about Merlyn.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

~

And that would be torn apart unless you can produce cites for each supposition. - J Greb (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Don't write it without citations. Don't write it all if you don't know it for sure. Especially don't write the things that I just made up. I was just saying, it doesn't deserve a section unless you're Supes/Spidey/Bats; for most superheroes, it is important perhaps to note the advent of a major villain as part of their publication history, and not to do so anywhere else is satisfactory.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I in no way said it was a good idea to develop it as a seperate article. That's why I noted "if the user still wanted the information to stay" because that's where I would probably prefer it because I don't want that main article to act like a list when it isn't a list article. And I am thinking that navbox needs to avoid section pointed article. Maybe me in my youth of being in Wikipedia would have thought it ok but not anymore. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any help fixing it up would be appreciated!!!--SGCommand 15:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does the character Shelley link to Frankenstein? 203.35.82.133 (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that a major motion picture is likely to be a much bigger use of this title, this should probably be moved to X-Men: First Class (comics), and either the film moved from X-Men: First Class (film) to X-Men: First Class, or X-Men: First Class turned into a disambiguation page. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a very similar situation at The Amazing Spider-Man, the result was the comic book moved to the undisambiguated page, the disambiguation page moved to The Amazing Spider-Man (disambiguation) and the film remained at The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Only we're not talking about decades-long running, landmark comic book titles like The Amazing Spider-Man or The Uncanny X-Men. We're talking about a comic book title that is comparatively far more obscure and minor as a topic: two limited series and an "ongoing" series that lasted only 16 issues. So I think per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's clear that the comic book series should not be at the undisambiguated title, and the film probably should be. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the comic book series is the primary topic. It seems rather likely that the film is, being a Hollywood blockbuster. I think the best course of action is to go ahead and request a move, and we can add a hatnote to the comic book series article. No disambiguation page needed. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to perform the move, but I wanted to gauge opinion first. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I favor turning X-Men: first Class into a dab page, and adding dab parentheticals onto the titles of the film and comic book articles using page moves. Nightscream (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TWODABS, we would only create a disambiguation page if neither were considered the primary topic. Judging from the film's article traffic statistics, readers are far more likely to be looking for the film than the comic book series. I think that a disambiguation page places readers at a fork unnecessarily when we can put the large majority of them where they want to be, the film article, with a simple hatnote pointing to the comic book series article. While recentism is a possible reason to avoid declaring a primary topic, my experience is that Hollywood blockbusters like this one will persist in receiving traffic for quite some time. It may be worth starting a discussion per WP:RM at the film article, placing ((movenotice)) at the top of the article, and seeing what other editors think. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem is: Is it going to be sustained? I'm more inclined to go with dabbing both articles to save time and trouble. - J Greb (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely feel like jumping in here since I help start the film article even though I am mostly neutral on the way to handle it. The film is obviously going to be more notable than comic book series. Normally a feature film will trump a comic book series of being mostly searched at. Although I am not sure that means we should make the film the primary topic because of that. I personally think a disambiguation page might be a good idea. Whether it should be called (disambiguation) or it should be the primary name all together...well I will let you guys figure that out. Over all I mostly approve of the idea that the comic book having (comic) on the end of it (for the time being) until we can figure out which one is the primary topic. That does mean a disambiguation page though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL isn't completely on target, but in its spirit, I'd think that no matter how "obviously" the film is going to be more notable, we're not supposed to predict the future when making decisions like that. Make X-Men: First Class a disambiguation page. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a rather drastic interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. We should be discussing recentism in particular. For example, a new film titled Thomas Jefferson shouldn't replace the President's article because it is getting more hits. However, we're dealing with a set of relatively unimportant topics here, so we are not dealing with that kind of replacement. If in the future, both the comic book series and the film have the same amount of traffic, then we should probably have a disambiguation page listing both. However, right now, the film is much more popular, and I find it highly likely that it will continue to be the more popular topic in the next few years. The comic book series before the film was announced barely attracted any traffic, and any kind of increase would be because of the film itself. So per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should get readers to where the overwhelming majority want to get to straightaway. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not need a Crystal ball. The movie, a hollywood blockbuster, is already the main topic right now. But in any case, there shouldn't be a DAB of only 2 entries: one should keep the name, and link to the other in a hatnote Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another editor attempted to switch the primary and secondary topics, and an admin had to fix the moves. See WP:ANI#X-Men: First Class. The way I see it, we had two options in mind here, a disambiguation page listing both topics, or the film being primary with the comic book series being secondary. Since the setup follows the latter option now, we could request a move for the disambiguation page setup to see if the consensus is in favor of that. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

For The Smurfs vs. The Smurfs (film), I just added a hatnote for the film to the main article: the film currently gets more traffic than the main page, but in this case it shouldn't be switched (unless the film becomes a really big hit, it will be the other way around one or two years from now) in my opinion. However, The Smurfs are a franchise of 50+ years running, while X-Men: First Class is much less established, so the situation is not really comparable. Fram (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this category is being over-used. There are, in truth, very few articles that are about actual comic book titles. The Superman (vol 2) comic is one. However, any character who appeared in a self-titled comic seems to appear in the category. For example Aquaman. The Aquaman article is about the character, not the title, although the publication history of the character usually acts as a defacto story of eponymous and other titles. "And other titles" is important. As is the fact that it only covers the character's appearances. If Aquaman was replace in his own title for a year, those issues are covered in that character's article. If there are back-up stories featuring other characters (and important issue in a title's story) that isn't covered. A disambig page would refer to the character, not the title.
To sum up: A article about a character isn't an article about a comic book title and the category should be for articles about titles. Or am I wrong here? Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you are pointing at the structure under Category:Comics titles by company, yes and no. A number of articles that bias towards characters or teams with their own comics also include material related to just the comic book series and not the character. Those articles do warrant inclusion under the "titles by company" structure. Instances where there is no self titled comic or the comic has enough to generate a separate article, the character/team should not wind up in the titles cats. - J Greb (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. Aquaman includes other comics and a lot of Aquman comic stuff is that what you mean or more balanced? There are some small run things... a team or character that only appeared in their own book that tend to be about the book & the character(s), but most, I think are in the Aquaman category... Of course those cover too much of the comic for it to be seperated out, but they're still about the character. You couldn't put info about back up stories in the character article. Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have recently proposed moves of two comic book articles.

• I think the proposed merge of Araña to Anya Corazon should be fine and without debate (similar to Mac Gargan and Eddie Brock and others), but I wanted to list it here in case there is some dissent. Discuss
• Moving Heroes For Hire to Heroes for Hire might be debatable. Discuss

Spidey104 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please post your opinion on the discussion page for whether or not this article should be deleted. Spidey104 21:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please post your opinion on the discussion page for whether or not this article should be deleted.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Superhero fiction has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please comment I created categories for unfinished and upcoming comics, per Category:Unfinished creative works and Category:Upcoming products—these are two very different things than a comic which is merely unpublished (and belongs to Category:Unreleased works by medium.) A comic like (e.g.) Sonic Disruptors was published, it just wasn't completed, whereas Flashpoint has not been published yet, but is upcoming. Twilight of the Superheroes is clearly an unpublished comic—it was never begun as a comic (it was merely scripted) and it is not slated to be released. I implemented these changes and inserted these categories into ((Infobox future comic)) and List of comics that were never published, but User:J Greb removed them and wanted a discussion. I did this on our talk pages, but I guess that isn't sufficient. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding—are you saying you put something about unfinished comics into ((Infobox future comic))? If that's the case, then I don't see how that makes sense—a work like Big Numbers or Underwater is not going to be finished in the future, either. I think it would make sense to put it in ((Infobox comic book title)), though. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite Those two examples don't use ((Infobox future comic book title)), anyway. I just manually added the categories, with the exception of adding Category:Upcoming comics to that template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think I understand. You seemed to me to have said that you were adding Category:Unfinished comics to the ((Infobox future comic book title)). Big Numbers doesn't use that template, but it is on the List of comics that were never published (which seems strange to me—I've got the two issues that were published).

You give some example titles above, but it's not clear to me exactly which you intended to be called "unfinished". Was it Twilight of the Superheroes—neither finished nor published? If that's the case—that it's never going to be finished—is it really a "future comic"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OutdentPardon me I've not made myself clear. There are three types of comics I'm talking about here:

• Category:Unpublished comics (e.g. Twilight of the Superheroes): these were announced or work began on them, but they were never actually printed. This is a subcat of Category:Unreleased works by medium.
• Category:Unfinished comics (e.g. Big Numbers (comics)): these were started and never ended as intended. This would mostly apply to mini-series that are canceled mid-way through publication (e.g. Sonic Disruptors)—some material was published, but it was not entirely completed. This is a subcat. of Category:Unfinished creative works.
• Category:Upcoming comics (e.g. Flashpoint (comics) as of this writing): These are going to be released and have enough reliable material to pass WP:CRYSTAL. This is a subcat. of Category:Upcoming products.

I did not create the first category, but I did create the latter two. The distinction seems clear to me: comics that were never even made, versus periodicals that were started and abandoned, versus comics that will (presumably) be released at some point. ((Infobox future comics)) only applies to the latter of these and it was for this template that I replaced Category:Unpublished comics (which already existed) with Category:Upcoming comics (which I created) with the intention of separating these different kinds of publications. I have also never applied this template to any article, but it's clear to me that it only belongs on upcoming comics (not Sonic Disruptors—which will never be finisehd—nor Twilight of the Superheroes—which will never be begun as a publication at all.) Does that clarify? If I come across as pedantic here, please excuse me—I'm only trying to explain myself. Do these distinctions make sense and do you now see how they fit into a broader category scheme? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see how the last category would apply to ((Infobox future comics)), but adding the second would (to me) imply a certain level of confidence that the series would be finished—say, a series that was announced to be on hold. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure And that's exactly what happened with Sonic Disruptors—it was planned to be longer and got the axe due to sales in the middle of its print run. See also Big Numbers. Some comics clearly fit this bill. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"started and never ended as intended" could cover many ongoing series where the writer was replaced or moved on. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think he's referring to series that had a conceived ending but never got to that ending—as in a limited series that was canceled before it was finished (the examples given being Sonic Disruptors, which was cancelled with five issues to go due to poor sales;Big Numbers, which was canceled because one of the artists lost his head and destroyed the artwork; and Underwater, where the cartoonist lost interest and moved onto other projects).

What I don't see is why these cases would fall under ((Infobox future comics))—the issues that were published are now in the past, and the series has no future. Why not just stick "unfinished" under ((Infobox comic book title))? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 08:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that what's being refered to, too. However, intention fall by the wayside once things are implemented. You have be careful to make sure that the Green Lantern story cancelled for Kyle's first appearence isn't added to the list. Some wording needs to be considered. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(Outdented slightly since this touches on a number of comments)

• IIRC, "Unpublished comics" was used when ((Future comic)) was deleted because "Future" and "Upcoming" were deemed to be way too much of a crystal ball problem with comics. In a way "Upcoming" still has that problem - it's easier for a comic to not happen after a company starts promoting it or even solicits it than it is for a film to not happen after filming has started (the WP:FILM threshold for an article).
• "Unpublished comics" was used as a catch all in ((Infobox future comics)) and that infobox has been used as a catch all for comic books/series that only exists as potentials. This includes titles that have been long promised but never gotten past the hype stage and those that quickly progress to a physical product on comic shop shelves. The catch all being that these are comics that have yet to be published. Qualifiers were added to avoid having ongoing series or minis that had started added to the category.
• One of my main concerns was that the re-categorizing was done in such a way as to not look at the results or apparently not look at the articles being tagged. Articles that in no way were "Upcoming" were placed there, those that didn't mention unpublished or unfinished material were added, and so on.

As it stands, I think "Unpublished" is sufficient based on the amount of articles we are dealing with as well as the inherent "grayness" of comics publishing. "Unfinished" may be warranted, may be, but "Upcoming" isn't.

- J Greb (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess "unfinished" is were some issues are published but there is no conclusion... That could be applied to different things like the DC implosion or other cancelled titles. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at Jack Kirby and Biblography of... and I was wondering is it worth adding a section to writer/artists pages "List of characters created" (or a better section title (shouldn't be too hard)).

I understand there can be issues... determining who created what, whether the go by year or company, importances of characters, it being pointless on a lot of creator's pages, and a number of other things that I'm sure you guys will see imediately, but I'm interested to see what people think. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean something like this? - J Greb (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but something on his page (or linked to as it's a really long list) to point out how significant a creator he was. We have a cat. Cool. But a page or section is a slightly different animal and can do different things. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the http://www.toonopedia.com/ web site has not been updated since February? The "Today in Toons" page lists the date as Friday, February 12, 1911. I used to check this web site a couple of times a week, and there was always someting new. Did something happen to Dan Markstein? --Drvanthorp (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know, but I guess we'd better get the ball rolling to archive as many pages as we can of this valuable resource. And perhaps e-mail to site to offer Don our best wishes in case he's been ill or, hopefully not, worse. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted some unsourced statements from his page here recently[14] per WP:BLP. If true, this may explain this lack of updates of course. Fram (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a little problem with the consistancy in the articles:

• The New Adventures of Superman: The 2 Superman stories from The New Adventures of Superman (season 1), season 2: The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure, season 3: The Batman/Superman Hour and repeats shown again as The New Adventures of Superman. Episode List.
• The New Adventures of Superboy: The 1 Superboy story shown between the above Superman stories. Episode List.
• The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure: Season 2 of the above - mostly an article about Aquaman (and wider DC cartoons) and a link to TAoSuperman & TAoSuperboy (season 2) on the TAoS pages. Episode List for Aquaman/Other DC
• The Adventures of Batman: Animated series, one double episode and one single episode story. Episode List.
• The Batman/Superman Hour: Season 3 of Superman series above, Season 1 of Batman above.

I can see why choices were made, but it does make things a bit of a mess. Splitting off a Aquaman page may even things up, but would the other DC heroes stories go here or a lot of messy snubs? Plus, what would be left of the Superman/Aquaman page?

Another thing is each segment is called an episode, which makes sense from a naming point of view... but doesn't reflect the reality of the position (where half hour sets of 3 eps were always shown together). Any thoughts of fixes or tidying? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Exiles (Marvel Comics) → Exiles (Marvel Comics series)
• Exiles (Red Skull allies) → Exiles (Marvel Comics villains)

These two moves are related and the singular discussion for the move is here. Spidey104 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a question of scope for the new Spider-Man: Big Time article. Please post opinions to the article talk page for us to come to a consensus. Thank you. Spidey104 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Comics for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Harley Hudson proposed the deletion of all the articles about episodes from Spider-Man animated series [15]. I am agree that these articles have not enought notability and some of them are just a plot but a merging with a list of episodes by seasons will help keep informations and fix the problem. I have the feeling but I can be wrong that Harley Hudson prefers to delete articles instead of trying to fix them. There are no pages with a list of episodes and short summaries from seasons 1 and 5, valuable informations about episodes from seasons 2, 3, 4 can go into Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 2, Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 3 and Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 4. 85.171.170.161 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Does someone can explain me

• Why does Mutant Growth Hormone have been deleted without merging with the argument that mutant growth human exits ? The argument about the real thing is weak because in a text, someone will write [[mutant]] [[growth hormone]] instead of [[mutant growth hormone]]. Even without the notion of adjective that seems to have been forgotten by the ones who vote for deletion. The hits on Google have for primary topic the comic book drug. This deletion creates a loss of information and confusion, nobody explain the opposition to the merge and some comic book articles are now redirected to Growth Hormone.
• Why is there a problem with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Mutant growth hormone (comics) ? If the article can not exist and the redirection can not exist how is it possible to the readers to find the information ?

This editor mix good deletions with incredible ones. He is even proposing to delete Talk pages Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Effects of Hurricane Isabel in West Virginia of merged articles.

81.220.92.161 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We've kicked this around a few times and recently have been operating under an apparent consensus of not including appearance lists (AL) as sections unto themselves in a character article

Is this the still the current consensus? If so, we need to amend the MoS and exemplars pages to reflect it.

The reason I'm asking is that it's reared up again at Vext and since we didn't update things last time around, I'm leery to do it now without double checking.

FWIW, I can see a number of issues with inclusion:

• What constitutes an "appearance" can be subjective. Does it include a cameo? Out of panel voice? Visually depicted w/o dialogue? Only on the cover? Letters page? Adds? Does it have to follow a specific continuity?
• They tend to fall under original research. If a character isn't named, but an editor "recognizes" them, an appearance gets added. No secondary source provide just "Come on, you know it's Foo."
• Compared to number of comic issues existent, reliable secondary story annotations are almost non-existent. Those would be the sources needed to avoid the above.
• In some cases an AL is so short it just duplicates what should be in the text of the article. Vext is a case in point - Between the first appearance and "feature as the lead character in a self titled, 6 issue book" you've covered 100% of the character's appearances.
• In others the AL would be a monster and almost demand to be split off. Last I checked stand alone AL articles fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in general terms - loose collections of tenuously related data. The same holds true for AL sections.
• Indexing individual issues, as is being done with Vext is a worse idea and a bigger breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We aren't an index site and we routinely include direct links in the External links sections to at least 2.

- J Greb (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are their any comments on this? - J Greb (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that such "character appearances" should usually not be included, this shouldn't be used as a rule to remove bibliographies from articles like Lucky Luke. Perhaps a distinction has to be made between American comic books and European comics? Fram (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidestepping the issue of European comics released in volumes — which seems like it would fall under the same formatting as we have for hardcover collections of comics, and so isn't an issue — I have to agree with J Greb for all of his well-researched and very specific reasons. Indeed, I would add one more: That not every single appearance of a character is necessary for any but hardcore fans, and that information is best supplied in context. The Publication history can put each series or important appearance in perspective and give a reason for why it's significant or notable. And if it's not significant or notable, why mention it? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lucky Luke was an example at one point of an article covering a series and a character. If an article is covering a series that was published through multiple magazines and collected stories, it's reasonable to have some for of recognition of that library of work. If LL were to be split into an article on the character and an article on the series, an appearance list would not be appropriate on the character article. - J Greb (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I still agree that the "Bibliography" or "List of appearances" sections that list individual issues should be removed, but I don't think that should be applied to "Collected volumes" sections such as the one in Nocturne (comics) that list the important TPBs that the character is in. If an appearance is important enough to be included in their Wikipedia article it should be easy to incorporate into their "Publication history" section in sentence format rather than an indiscriminate list. Spidey104 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds like some of the same issues here as in the topic I bought up. Sounds like we have articles about titles, articles about characters and articles about the title and the character(s) and shades of gray between. In a perfect world we'd have characters and titled completely seperate but in most cases that would require duplication or snubs. I think we need to come up define which of the 3 types an article is and how to treat it. Of course shades of gray comes in with that. As it does with important appearances. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point. There's so much duplication between the Spider-Man character article and The Amazing Spider-Man comic-book series article ... I'm not sure these need to be separate articles. In fact, it might make sense to have one article for Spider-Man that character, that would contain, as it does now, the character's chronology with third-party, real-world commentary; and then a separate article for "Spider-Man" comics that could list each of the various titles (Amazing, Spectacular, etc.) with just a couple of paragraphs each giving basic information for someone looking up that title to see what it was: publication dates, prominent artist/writer teams etc., with no fictional bio information. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My take on it (as per what Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars says), This should be a complete list of all solo stories of the character which seems to me to mean that Bibliographies on character articles (not comic book articles), but should only list appearances where the character was the main character (and only main character). - SudoGhost™ 22:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm not opposed to that type of solution, we just have to be clear on when/where it's done. Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc make sense. Vext, Orion, Taskmanster, etc don't. And some - like Aquaman - are going to have quibbles along the way. In the long run that will help deal with the issue Duggy raised below on catgorizing arcticles for comic book titles.

But with regard to the original intent of this post. What I'm proposing is to:

1. Remove "Bibliography" from the "Comic book characters" section of the exemplars page; and
2. Adding a section like the following to WP:CMOS#LISTS under WP:CMOS#LSPLIT

Lists as article sections

Many elements related to an article topic may be suitable to be presented in a section in a list format. The most common material to be treated this way are creators, powers/abilities, characters, and issues or series. Care should be taken though to make sure the list is relevant and would not be better handled as prose or as a separate list article.

Listings of publications will generally fall into the following section types:

• "Bibliography" sections are reserved for articles on writers or artists. These sections will present a bulleted listing of the person's body of work. Such list can be structured alphabetically by title or chronologically. They can also be separated by publisher. Publications list should not be split up if a chronological sorting is used.
• "Collected editions" and/or "Related titles" are reserved for articles that focus in full or in part on a comic strip, series, or book. For comic books these lists present collected editions and/or spin-off titles. For strips or series these lists can include collected editions and/or the magazines or publications the series or strip has run through.
• "Included titles" or "Crossover titles" can be included in articles on "event" story lines that encompass two or more publications.

Articles that focus only on one or more characters or a fictional organization should not include a list section made up of publications titles. Such appearance lists or indexes fall under Wikipedia's concept of a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information.

Thoughts?

- J Greb (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@SudoGhost - even in that case, the index like for mating of something like Vext#Bibliography breaks with presented formatting of:

• DCU Heroes Secret Files and Origins #1
• Vext #1-6

Which is also a little excessive since the same can be stated in prose in the lead.

- J Greb (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I support J Greb's suggestion. Spidey104 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in wording or in spirit, the same way that this is not WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if the corresponding comic that the character is in has a "Collected editions" section, I think it would be redundant. - SudoGhost™ 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparing a complete list of works written by an author to a list of appearances of a fictional character does not work.

Looking at a definition of "bibliography" and comparing it to the comic book character appearance lists:

1. the history, identification, or description of writings or publications
2. a : a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author
   b : a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house
3. the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production

(Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition)

At best, these fit under point 1, but they are arbitrarily limited to create an index - a directory - of appearances.

They are not a list of writings that are descriptive or critical notes about the subject. This implies secondary not primary sources. (2a)

They are extremely selected and arbitrary list of works by author or publisher (2b) if that. Remember most appearance lists are going to cover material produced by multiple writers and artists. Also, the focus of the article is on the charcater, the element in the works of fiction, not the writer(s) or publisher(s).

As for point 3 - in a Wikipedia article that is the "Reference" section where the citations are listed.

- J Greb (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you feel it falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The issues listed at the top of the discussion could be fixed by tightening the rules for the appearances and renaming it to something more relevant (other than Bibliography). They are good reasons to clarify the entry, not to remove it altogether. As for the Vext article, it would be the same as an actor with a short filmography, the filmography might be redundant, but it is still included.

Perhaps I've overlooked something (and I wasn't able to find a previous discussion so I'm not able to weigh any arguments from before), but every argument given for the removal of the section would be equally valid to arguing for the cleaning up/tightening up/renaming of the Bibliography sections. - SudoGhost™ 01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, please stop equating things to people. When discussing a persons life and career, yes it is appropriate to list their accomplishments such as published works (writers) and roles preformed on stage, screen, and/or radio (actors). These are encyclopedic aspects of the person. A list of works of fiction in which a character has appeared is not.

By nature, appearance lists (ALs) are lists of loosely related topics or things. On character articles, the only thing the magazines or strips will have in common is that character Foo appears. That's it. It's a checklist without regard to notability, content of the publication, or use of the character. This also becomes and indiscriminate collection of information.

If we go for "tightening up" criteria to allow ALs there are issues. If we use the proposed "The only main character in the publication" Then:

• We would have to justify non-notable, or nearly so, characters like Vext having one while notable characters like the Invisible Woman or the Riddler don't.
• Anthologies won't be listed, ever. Nor will the stretches from publications that ran "back ups".
• It opens up the definition of "main character" - Are Batman and Robin as a team main characters or is Batman still the sole the main character? If Superman only appears on the last page to save Lois is he still the main character if the magazine is titled "Superman..."?
• Are protagonists and antagonists of equal weight in determining "only one main character"?
• Is cannon to be considered?
• How about retcons?

Those last 4 require Wikipedia editors to either engage in original research or find find reliable sources that clearly support "Foo is the only main character" for each and every issue.

- J Greb (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is one appropriate, and the other not? Is there some sort of policy that reflects this? "These are encyclopedic aspects of the person." is valid for a person, but the same exact criteria is not to be applied on a fictional person? I wasn't aware of a policy that says that.

"By nature, appearance lists (ALs) are lists of loosely related topics or things." Again, completely untrue. With an actor, a filmography is effectively an appearance list. This is valid and allowed on the article. Yet an appearance list on a fictional person is loosely related topics? What is the difference between the two? There is no policy or consensus that reflects this.

As to the questions you asked, those are good questions, and ones to be discussed about when and where they are appropriate, not removing it entirely simply because it's too hard, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - SudoGhost™ 05:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The last go around of trying to treat elements of fiction as real people was to apply WP:MOSBIO to them. That didn't go over well. This is the same thing. An appearance list is not a list of works that a real person crafted, created, or is reflected as a CV. Also, most bibliographies (writers body of work), filmographies, and discographies can be sourced to secondary sources. Most appearance lists can't and rely on the primary sources.

Right now those ALs are based on the arbitrary judgment of Wikipedia editors and are derived from those editors interpretation of the primary source. (And that is a policy.) And tends to create capricious lists based on inconsistent and indiscriminate inclusion criteria. (And back to the section under WP:NOT which is also policy.)

You have seen the problems with these list presented as well as "good questions" asked but provided very little in way of answers or suggestions to avoid the breaks with policy. Can you offer something other than leave it alone?

And for clarity, it's not that I dislike ALs - frankly I find the can be useful - but based on Wikipedia policy they cannot work here.

- J Greb (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as per this discussion, I agree with removing them, but I do have one request: that the exemplars and MOS/comics be updated before the lists are removed, and the edit summary gives a link to the updated exemplars and/or MOS, to avoid the confusion that happened at Vext (namely people not part of WikiProject:Comics such as myself not being aware of why the section was being removed). - SudoGhost™ 14:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. - J Greb (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the bibliography section on Mastermind (Jason Wyngarde), but it got reverted. I thought it was the consensus that we remove these sections? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Until the exemplars is changed one way or the other, I don't think that they should be removed. But I don't agree with the removal of the bibliography sections, but would agree that they should be renamed to something more appropriate when in character articles. However, it isn't a strong disagreement, I think tightening up the rules on those sections would be more appropriate than removing them altogether. - SudoGhost™ 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of this is a courtesy to see if consensus has change within the Project. The last time this was run through the exemplar should have been changed to remove the "Bibliography" section as per consensus at that point. Doing so when it was pointed out it was missed would have been impolite. - J Greb (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember that discussion, but don't remember how long ago that was - is there an easy way to locate that in the talk page archives? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Talk:Venom (comics)#Bibliography that I wanted to direct everyone's attention to, as it concerns the removal of the "Bibliography" section of the article, as well as Bibliography of Spider-Man titles. - SudoGhost™ 19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - the discussion here was in relation to miss-use of bibliography and appearance lists in character articles. Both are issues with the section in Venom (comics) and holding a list article as "hostage" as one editor did isn't a good way to go.

As for the list articles: List of Foo publications or titles for notable characters or character families make sense. But titling them "Bibliography" is awkward at the least.

- J Greb (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi wp:comics squad!

I was just doing an article on Justice League Dark, as part of my John Constantine obsession, and was wondering if it might be worth focusing the efforts of a few editors to cover the whole universe reboot due in September, to improve the focus of the efforts being made. My knowledge is entirely in the more odd side of DC, and as much love as I have for Supes, Batman, et al, I know I'm ill equipped to cover those bases!

Anyway, I really just wanted to guage interest in this, so let me know if you want to collaborate or think this might be a good (or awful) idea. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a section in the Flashpoint article about it. Other than that I think that as title by title, character by character update are necessary will happen pretty naturally. One issue I do have is on the FP page the Superman-titles are listed as "The Future Happens Now" which the source ref does group them as but that seems wrong to me. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Had a wee spruce of that bit, hopefully improved it a bit. Still think a big event like this might be notable enough to warrant a page of it's own, but don't have the willpower at the moment... Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it's a list of titles and speculation. I think that we should see what it is before creating an article. Being part of Flashpoint works for me right now. Others may disagree. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Flashpoint page there is a like for the new title Legion Lost. Fair enough... except that article is the previous maxi of that name. The article will need some work to reflect the new series. Anyone want to do that? Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just curious what this measures? Cloveapple (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a bot that montiors the new articles and guesses at whether they should be included in WikiProject Comics. The higher the score, the more likely they are about comics. There's some info at the bottom of this page: User:AlexNewArtBot and the "rules" that are used are here: User:AlexNewArtBot/Comics. For instance, an article that mentions either "beano" or "Beano" gets 15 points, but it needs 20 points to be likely to be a comics article (that's what the @@20@@ at the top means). It's done using regular expressions. 207.164.131.30 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm much less puzzled now! 3 of my 4 recent comics stubs showed up in it and I thought it might be checking for quality markers (like infoboxes etc). Neat idea. Cloveapple (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The page needs to be corrected and improved because some IP addresses have added material. Someone who is familiar with the story of the could help. Negativecharge (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please someone take a look into this situation, where an IP editor(s) has been alleging errors made by comics creators without posting a source.[16] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This page needs something; potentially it could become a chronology of tens of thousands of characters. The page needs to be refocused into a narrower topic, or possibly split into two pages. The page has a section for the various superheroes that deputed in each decade, but after the 1930's, the topic becomes way two large. The page could be culled down to a page of superhero debuts before, say, 1940, which would produce a nice pre-golden-age chronology, but I hate to trow away the after-1940 work that other people have contributed. Any suggestions?--Drvanthorp (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not any good ones... One would be fighting over inclusion criteria. Notability, novelty, archetype of individual character, are teams characters, function in the story or production, and so on. Another would be to PROD/AfD as an indiscriminate list or directory.

- J Greb (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't want to suggest that the page be deleted; it provides a nice chronology for the ealry history of the character type, any many contributors have edited the page in good faith. Maybe the list could be pared to pre-1942, be which time almost all the seminal characters had been created, and after which the field explodes with two many characters to list. If there is demand for it, subsequent years could be given individual entries, similar to the "year in film" entries.--Drvanthorp (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The British comics workgroup seems to dead or dormant, so I'll raise my question here. It seems to me that in a lot of ways, particularly in the names of categories, American comic book terminology has been ported directly onto British comics in ways that don't fit. I've just created an article for Frank Bellamy's great serial in the Eagle, Fraser of Africa, and in trying to categorise it i've had to put it in Category:Eagle (comic book) titles and Category:Eagle (comic book) characters, which are sub-categories of Category:Eagle (comic book).

First of all, the Eagle is not a comic book, it's a comic. That's what we call them over here. The names of these categories should be changed to match the article title, which is Eagle (comic), not Eagle (comic book).

Secondly, "titles" is used in American comics for the names of publications published by a particular company, not features in a particular publication. Under those terms, Eagle is itself a "title". I'm not sure what the best term would be for a feature within a title like Fraser of Africa, but I lead towards "comic strip". "Serial" doesn't work as not all such strips are in serial format, "series" can mean the publication, and "feature" is too vague.

The same "title" terminology is used for other British comics - Category:2000 AD titles, Category:Crisis titles - while Category:DC Thomson Comics titles contains a mixture of titles and features, and Category:Marvel UK titles, Category:Rebellion Developments titles and Category:Trident Comics titles seem to be used correctly.

I propose:

• Rename Category:Eagle (comic book) to Category:Eagle (comic)
  • Rename Category:Eagle (comic book) characters to Category:Eagle (comic) characters
  • Rename Category:Eagle (comic book) titles to Category:Eagle comic strips
• Rename Category:2000 AD titles to Category:2000 AD comic strips
• Rename Category:Crisis titles to Category:Crisis comic strips

That's before we consider whether we shouldn't have separate categories for the Eagle launched in 1950 and the Eagle launched in 1982, and if so, what they should be called.

Anyone have any objections, or better ideas? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

2 questions...

1. Is "comic" the right dab or should it be "comic magazine"? (Publication might be a better dab over all.)
2. Is "comic strip" the common term used within British publishing and/or fandom?

- J Greb (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Comic magazine" is not a term I've ever heard used. "Comic paper" is a term that used to have some currency, but not since before I was born, and I'm no spring chicken. Show anyone in the British Isles a copy of the Eagle, or the Beano, or 2000AD, or Bunty, and ask them what it is, they'll say it's a comic.

I think "comic strip" (or just "strip") probably is the most common term. I'm not 100% happy with it as it suggests single tier "strips" of three or four panels like you get in newspapers rather than one to six full pages, but I can't at the moment think of anything better.--Nicknack009 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

...that seems a nice way to thank editors who are conscientious in always adding a WebCitation or Archive.org link when they add a footnote or EL, which is critical in preventing link rot. If anyone wants to use it, see the code on this page's edit mode. I don't know who created this, but compliments and acknowledgment to him/her.

	Thank you for archiving
	Message and signature go here.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hellboy#Appearances_in_popular_culture - I figured anyone knowledgeable in comic books could help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the page for Hawk (G.I. Joe) has the "Category:Devil's Due characters". Now I know he didn't originate in their comics, being a licensed GI Joe property, but he did appear in some Joe comics from DD. He also appeared in some IDW, Dreamwave and Marvel. Is this an appropriate use of categories, or should it be limited to only character? Should we list every publisher who had the character appear, only the first, or none at all for licensed toy line characters like this? Mathewignash (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Off the hop I'd say "yes" since it's a licensed character from outside of comics. The same would go for the (remaining) Transformer character articles, Star Trek characters, Star Wars, etc.

However... It may be better to create sub categories. Using GI Joe for example: Add Category:G.I. Joe characters adapted to comics to the remaining character articles that have appeared in comics, head it as to exactly what is included and acknowledge that all character may not have appeared under all publishers, and and categorize the category under DD, Marvel, IDW, and Dreamweave characters.

- J Greb (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It does concern me though, you could use existing categories, but as you say not ever character in the group would appear by every publisher. I could easily include the category Autobots or GI Joes under Marvel Comics chartacters, but Marvel hasn't made Transformers or Joe comics in over a decade. Half the Autobots and Joes never appeared in the Marvel Comics, since they didn't exist when Marvel had the license. Should I made a category for each of the FIVE or SIX different publishers who have had license to print Joe and Transformer comics? Or just add "Marvel Comics characters" to the ones who appeared there. Mathewignash (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at "simple" solutions.

1. Tagging each character by the adaptations mention in the articles as a "Foo" character is simple, but results in adding between 1 and 4 categories to each and impels the character "belongs" to the publisher(s).
2. Creating a "Bar characters adapted to comics" category groups the characters and allows them to be catted under "Foo characters" separately from Foo's actual characters is also simple. The down side being that a caveat has to be placed in the categories header.
3. Creating a "Bar characters adapted by Foo comics" is complicated in that it generates additional categorization, a container "Bar characters adapted to comics", and still adds 2+ long titled categories to most affected articles.

In order to not over categorize, I think option 2 is preferable if not perfect.

- J Greb (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are requested here at a merge discussion about the best merge target for Rebel Ralston, Dino Manelli, and Happy Sam Sawyer. Any constructive contributions would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Goldstar (comics)'s story: "After Michelle was angry and she about to return to the 25th century and is stopped by Booster Gold admits her that he is loss of his good friend Ted Kord's death, which Michelle accepted." (Booster Gold vol. 2 #31)^{[clarification needed]}
• Tombstone (comics)'s story: "He followed her apartment and attacks attempts to kill her for reasoned that he could find the infant if Spider-Man brought it back to her mother, but knocks Tombstone unconscious by the Goblin glider ramming him in the back from Menace hacking her glider. (Amazing Spider-Man #645) Later, the polices are arrived and takes Tombstone into custody. (Amazing Spider-Man #646)"^{[clarification needed]}
• Tyrannus (comics)'s story: "Later, Tyrannus approached Betty Ross of Red She-Hulk and asks her to join him, where he plans securing some specific item. Later, in Italy, Tyrannous and Betty got an item of Pandora's Box, after Tyrannus has manipulated the Hulk to open the safe. (Incredible Hulks #626)"^{[clarification needed]}
• Firebrand (DC Comics)'s story: he was killed by Jester (Quality Comics).(Freedom Fighters vol. 2 #8)
• Uncle Sam (comics)'s story: Uncle Sam was killed by the Renegades in Freedom Fighters vol. 2 #8, until he was resurrection who had been challenges by Jester (Quality Comics) in Freedom Fighters vol. 2 #8 and 9.
• Cheshire (comics)'s story: Afterward, Deathstroke and his team arrive at South Pacific island to kill cult leader Drago over the arena production of blind warriors; however, his team, Cheshire, and Arsenal betray him, revealing that they had been working with Drago.(Titans vol. 2 #33) While they send Shade is captive; unfortunate, Drago predictably betrayed who refuses to let them leaves, which they angered to attack Drago, as fails that Drago is signalled to handle, Drago sends Cheshire to the chambers room. (Titans vol. 2 #34)^{[clarification needed]}
• OMAC (comics)'s story: The resurrected Maxwell Lord controls the squad of OMACs attacking Jaime Reyes's home and his family. (Justice League: Generation Lost #2) The old Justice League International arrives and takes Jaime's family to safety. (Justice League: Generation Lost #3)</ref> Booster Gold's partner, Skeets, stole from Checkmate to locate the robotics labs that Max setting up. (Justice League: Generation Lost #10) The JLI arrives and discovered the OMACs factory was dismembered droid which can only find out the rebuild OMACs is Professor Ivo. (Justice League: Generation Lost #11) When Captain Atom absorbs the energy from Magog's spear, he is propelled forward through time 112 years in the future, where Max, while long dead, has plunged humanity into a massive metahuman war ruled by OMACs. Captain Atom battled for survival alongside the future versions of the Justice League, however they all are eventually contaminated by a new version of OMACs and one by one become OMACs themselves. Captain Atom is eventually returned to the present, but not before Batman (Damian Wayne) tells him how to stop Max's ultimate plans. (Justice League: Generation Lost #14) Afterward, Max regains new abilities to other's mind efforts to transform his targets into cadaver OMACs. (Justice League: Generation Lost #17) Later, Max uses a device to enhance his mental powers, turning people around the world into OMACs' to attack Wonder Woman and the JLI. (Justice League: Generation Lost #22) However, the device to enhance his killing process of the OMACs stationary turn active and running, Max sends the new OMAC known as OMAC Prime that he controls from Amazo to attack the heroes. (Justice League: Generation Lost #23) After Max's escape, Blue Beetle attacks and OMAC Prime to take Blue Beetle's power but ends up being infected by the Scarab's power. Allows Blue Beetle to attack and destroy OMAC Prime. (Justice League: Generation Lost #24)

Nteinkvnc's notes: please rewrite good sentences seems to be missing key words from grammar, thanks you. - Nteinkvnc (talk) 3:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get this to archive... - J Greb (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that this user tends to remove subheaders from articles[17]. Is there any consensus on this sort of thing? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sectioning works to break up long sections of text. This should proved fair sized unified sections. The dif provided has some sections that are extremely short along with fair sized chunk getting strung together. On the face of it some of the headers needed to be removed, but not all of them. Unintentionally though I think they pointed out a major problem with the article: a massive plot dump that needs to be summarized down. - J Greb (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen he removes all headers from the plot sections (and adds more to the Other media sections), although you are right that some work needs to be done. 71.194.119.1 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am against the automatic removal of all subheaders. It should be a case-by-case decision. As J Greb said, some articles have a plot dump that needs to be summarized down and the subheaders get in the way of the summarizing process. Alternatively, some articles have sections that run on-and-on forever and some subheaders would help sort it out. Spidey104 13:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that we had already resolved the issue of referring to one character as another's archenemy, that we needed a WP:RS to establish this?[18] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "archenemy" is a messy term to use. There are "givens" - Batman & Joker, Superman & Lex Luthor, Spider-Man & Green Goblin - but those are long standing, very notable characters with very notable recursion rates. Beyond that...

Most dictionaries [19] use the definition "a chief, principal, or primary enemy". And with fiction it has a connotation of being a singular character. But the dictionaries also include a secondary definition - "The Adversary" referring to Satan or the Devil.

For our purposes, the "givens" are going to stand, source or no source. It would be nice if we could come up with sources for them and limit them to singular cases - ie just "Batman & Joker" not "Batman & Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Hush, Bane, etc. Once we step away from the top tier cites need sourcing other than the comics, period. And no matter how it's sliced, Ghost Rider is nowhere near "top level". I'd also shy away from applying the term for any stand-in DC or Marvel (or any comic company for that matter) has for the Devil.

- J Greb (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I will undo the change, and ask the IP user to comment here instead. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Imapaqrat is adding the categories; Category:Hostess comic ad characters, Category:Food advertising characters and Category:Advertising characters across character articles. It should also be noted that List of Hostess Comic Ad advertising characters which he/she created is up for speedy deletion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

L&S: Check the article. If Hostess is not mentioned, pull the cats. If it is, pull the 2 apparent parent cats until the CfD closes. - J Greb (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just about to comment here on this. I removed the cats from a bunch of articles earlier today, but this user put them back. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this all original research? We don't have a solid connection between the film character and the comics character except that they are both named "Jason" and have similar powers. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have undone this change, and asked the user to discuss it here. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment (for or against) in the discussion for merging Ghost Rider 2099 (character) into the Ghost Rider article. Spidey104 13:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have recently discovered the Ultimate Comics: X-Men article (created by brand new user The ultimate x-man). I don't know enough on the subject (or the recent history of the Ultimate Universe in general) to be an effective fixer, so all I could do was some minor clean-up. I am hoping this post will recruit some help before this article grows into too big of a mess. Spidey104 18:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion occuring involving the episode order of this TV series and the inclusion of a 'micro-series' here. Input would be greatly appreciated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a Manual of Style discussion debating the merits of keeping or removing "Fictional character biography" sections from all Wikipedia articles. Many people involved in this project probably have opinions (for and against) on this, so I wanted to inform all of you so the discussion could have a full complement of people involved in the process. Spidey104 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is something that has been a long time coming, but we need a clear point as to which names for characters can/should be used where in the articles. Right now we've got names in infoboxes, lead sections, tables, templates, and elsewhere that attempt to cover every option used for a character. By way of example:

And this is just a smattering of the high end characters.

Frankly, we should be sticking to the commonly used names - "Clark Kent", "Dick Grayson", "Ben Grimm", "Hank McCoy", etc - in the 'box, lead, and tables. No honorifics, no expansion of commonly used nicknames, no rarely used second or third names. If the "full" name is notable for some citable reason, it can get its due mention in the body of the article.

- J Greb (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on this? [20] There was previously some discussion on the talk page, but the editor in question did not respond. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not without getting into OR/interpretation of the primary sources - the whole "lugging a 100-300 lb metal skeleton" and "for the power the claws to cut through foo" thing. - J Greb (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man title is going to relaunch next month with the new Miles Morales Spider-Man as the star. It's going to start again from issue #1. My question is, do we create an entirely new page for this book now, or does this become part of the Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man page? I see when the comic last relaunched we created a new page (the old one was Ultimate Spider-Man), but it appears this new one is retaining the name Ultimate Comics Spider-Man (see [here http://marvel.com/comic_books/issue/38394/ultimate_comics_spider-man_2011_1] and here) so I'm not sure how it should be handled this time around. — Hunter Kahn 16:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly?

1. Ultimate Spider-Man is focused on the comic which ran under the indicia title Ultimate Spider-Man
2. Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man is focused on the comic that ran under the indicia title Ultimate Spider-Man. That is it is the second volume of that title. It was started as it is because:
   • Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man is seen as the more commonly used title since it is in Marvel's solicits, and
   • It allows for more plot over the two articles.
3. At this point it is not clear if "Ultimate Comics Spider-Man" is just for the solicits or if Marvel is finally changing the indicia title and if so, to what.

FWIW, USM should have the plot elements severely pruned, including the cast list; UC:SM should likewise be trimmed and then folded into USM, including a note about the title; and UCAM, depending on the indicia when published, added onto USM and plot seriously kept in check.

- J Greb (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been running through articles and merging to List of minor DC Comics characters or List of minor Marvel Comics characters as appropriate - plot only, no notability actually displayed. But I've been running into plot only articles that merging doesn't seem appropriate because:

• Extremely long content;
• Large IOM sections;
• Covers a strip or series as well as a character;
• Covers a character that is/was a series focus; and
• Should be easy to show notability in 3rd party sources.

The articles I've run across so far include:

Some of these wouldn't move to the lists I've indicated, but all of them need a solid look at improvement.

(I'm cross posting this to the main project as well.)

- J Greb (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place on the micro-series and episode order of the Avengers:EMH show. I invite you to leave your thoughts here. Input would be greatly appreciated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to look this one over: [21] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding/editing most of the material on the Dynamo 5-related articles since creating them a few years ago, and have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can everyone here offer their views here? I really need them in order to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

By here do you mean here? - SudoGhost 02:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DC is officially calling it a relaunch and repeatedly saying "not a reboot". The original definition for a reboot (and the one that is still used for computers and movie/TV series) is a complete start from scratch. Some people still use that for comics. I know many have broadened the usage in comics because they (and especially DC) have so many "soft reboots" but I think for clarity and citability the page should be 2011 DC Universe relaunch.

Thoughts? Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actaully shouldnt it be called The New 52, since that is what DC is calling it? The other titles seem arbitrary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"The New 52" works... or "An excuse to kill plot content" since I've got a bad feeling we are going to see massive re-writes to bring FBCs into line with the new canon as it unfolds. Better we trim down and deal with overviews rather than "current continuity".

- J Greb (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah "The New 52" is the name that DC is using, so it should be moved to that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back, I have suggested a move here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being changed to The New 52, but that seems to have hit a dead end. Can we change it to 2011 DC Universe relaunch to solve the "this is not a reboot" problem and work on the change The New 52 after that? Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a backlog at WP:REQMOVE so discussion is still open. We should wait until it is closed and discover the fate of the current request before another move is requested.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent vandal only account editing on articles such as Marvel Comics, Silver Age of Comic Books and MAX (comics) who seems intent on deleting article text without explanation. Seem to be using both the range 218.186.9.X and now user accounts (TheRoD1988). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Still at it - reported but no admin response,so there is nothing else I can do. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion and poll (since there is a list for graphic novels, too). Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please participate here: Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film)#Requested move. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think beano-style comics (The Beano is the most popular in the genre) that is comics that are British and mainly consist of humour strips. There should be an article on that genre but I can not think of a proper name for it. comics such as The Dandy, Monster Fun, Comic Cuts, Smash! (comics), Buster (comics) and Whizzer and Chips among numerous others would fall into this genre. Eopsid (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Gordon is currently at FAC. Any help with copy-editing or other concerns would be appreciated. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Before it escalates, I thought I'd bring it over here.

In Carlie Cooper, the article originally reads as follows:

She is one of the first potential romantic interests for Parker following the retconning of his marriage to Mary Jane Watson in the "One More Day" story arc, and eventually becomes his girlfriend

User:MultipleTom believes it should read:

She is one of the first potential romantic interests for Parker following the end of his long relationship with Mary Jane Watson in the "One More Day" story arc.

I think the former is the more encyclopedic approach in that it approaches the character from a real-world perspective, whereas the latter follows an 'in-universe' summary of the comic. Thoughts?--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it out of "in-stroy" tone. That should also remove the interpretation and fan-spin. - J Greb (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose that since her marriage to Barry Allen has been retconned and that she is more well known as Iris West outside the comics, I propose moving the page to Iris West or Iris West I. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC) "Common name would be as is. We don't do roman numberals nor do we base it on today issue over the bulk of the character history of use. - J Greb (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have a list of enemies in the Luke Cage article, such as this? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be sourced info only, but so should everything else in the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And it should be to secondary sources that present the list, not the primary sources. - J Greb (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate some help in improving on the quality of Gold Digger (comics) and possibly List of Gold Digger characters, by adding more references, characters, improving the structure, etcetera, to help get more attention for the book.

It is the most extensive (and charming) creator-owned American comicbook that is currently published, so it seems like a major shame that it doesn't get more attention, praise (and maybe an Avatar The Last Airbender or Ben 10: Ultimate Alien style animated series). The book is quite wonderful, and very ambitious, nowadays, even though it naturally started much weaker at the beginning, and definitely deserves a lot more love. Dave (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources you may be able to use.[22] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this matters to anyone, but 2010s in comics has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it has no content. I created that page because I felt it was inevitable and I wanted to get rid of the redlink in the template, but I'm not particularly attached to it. Just an FYI. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilovethebeano (talk · contribs) has been busily creating articles on very minor strips in the UK children's comics, The Dandy and The Beano. These aren't the major or long-lived strips, we've no issue with those, but on strips that often only lasted for one joke across a few issues. Basic notability is a problem, but so is the depth of coverage possible - most of these articles do no more than link a strip name with an artist and a publication date. With the lack of referencing, I assume no more than a primary source from The Beano itself, there's no scope for any expansion beyond this. As well as the strip articles being unreferenced, there are also a number of unrefed BLPs appearing on the comic artists.

A look at their talk page and their contribs history will show the problem. Despite regular notes on their talk page, they seem disinterested in changing this or discussing further. Time, I think, for the Trout Of Wisdom to be summoned. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I support the concern raised by Andy. Despite several warnings and PROD notices, Ilovethebeano continued creating inappropriate articles until apparently, he met his quota. At this point, the majority (if not all) of the articles created fail notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. I honestly know nothing about comics, or I would work to establish notability myself. Accordingly, I would request that interested or concerned members of the Wikiproject work to source any articles they may recognize as holding potential notability. Anything less at this point may unfortunately result in deletion. Unfortunate that ILTB was not able to support the article with references before his "job" was done. After creating these articles, he never returned to the project to address any issues raised. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see these minor strip articles ever achieving article status, so how about List of Beano comic strips rather than Category:Beano strips, or perhaps even better as a new List of minor Beano comic strips ?

My main concern isn't the strip articles, but their links to artists. One of the few facts that these short articles do seem to contain is their artist. However we can't (quite rightly) have unref'ed BLPs for these. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Since List of Beano comic strips already exists, it may be worth re-jigging to add short descriptions of the strips either in the tables or as an actual list article. The latter may be preferable, but it may mean splitting the list article into List of Beano humour based comic strips, List of Beano adventure based comic strips, and List of Beano prose stories. - J Greb (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

splitting up the list wouldnt be good because it's not very clear cut between humour and adventure in some strips. Eopsid (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but something would need to be don. - J Greb (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

its not the articles on minor Beano strips that he created that is the problem but articles on minor Dandy strips and minor artists. What we really need is a list of Dandy comic strips article. Most of the Dandy strip articles he created are now redirects to The Dandy article and the only actual Beano strip article he created was Dangerous Dan which isnt that bad an article. Only three of his Dandy articles are still there Freddy the Fearless Fly, Harry Hill's Real Life Adventures in TV Land and Fiddle O Diddle and these are definitely notable as Freddy the Fearless Fly is a very long running strip being in the first Dandy back in 1937 and recently being revived, the Harry Hill one is currently featured on the comic's cover and Fiddle O Diddle ran for over ten years. Also the load of artists articles he created most have biography deletion notices on them Eopsid (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the people who work in British humour comics deserve to be recognised by Wikipedia, and I've found a reference or two for some of the artists he's created articles for - Nigel Auchterlounie, Wilbur Dawbarn, Barrie Appleby, Stevie White and Karl Dixon, on a first found, first edited basis - and someone else has done the same for Alexander Matthews. However, they're still very stubby stubs. The other artists he's made articles for - The Etherington Brothers, Stu Munro, Garry Davies, Steve Beckett, Nik Holmes, Chris McGhie, Wayne Thompson, Steve Bright and Barry Glennard - still have the unreferenced BLP axe hanging over them, and at least some of them deserve to stay. I'll see what I can do to work them up - hopefully some other editors will help. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't have articles just because people deserve them, but because we have the source material to base these articles on too. If we can't do that, the article (especially a BLP) has to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "deserve" - they are notable enough to have articles, and references should be able to be found. I've worked The Etherington Brothers into a referenced stub, and more references will hopefully be found to expand it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Ilovethebeano has returned under the new username. beandand and here are his contributions. [23] he has made three new articles on comic strips (all from different comics mind you not just the Beano). Spoofer McGraw, Willy Nilly (comic strip) and Corporal Clott. the last of which is now a redirect. Eopsid (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed the Corporal Clott article from a redirect to a proper article albeit quite a stubby one. He is notable as he is one of the Dandy's longer running and most popular characters. Eopsid (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect User:WizzKid XD [24] may be the same user abusing multiple accounts. Stephenb (Talk) 09:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your links work [25] but this might. I dont think that Wizzkid XD and Ilovethebeano are the same user. Any reason why you think that? i thought that beandand was ilovethebeano again because he added to a list and didnt use the return key. It was like this *wnew *wdnej and Ilovethebeano had done a similiar thing when he had tried to create a list of dandy comic strips page (an article which I think is needed but his version of it wasn't very good).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eopsid (talk • contribs)

Are you kidding? The second link does work. And the evidence that they are the same person is pretty obvious: none of the three have ANY overlapping edits. Ilovethebeano stops editing on the 9th Sept, Beandand starts on the 11th and stops on the 21st, WizzKid XD starts again (briefly) on the 21st. All have an extremely similar style and edit the same topics. The only reason I haven't queried them elsewhere is that they don't appear to be doing any harm, as such. Stephenb (Talk) 12:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why I thought the second link didn't work. It clearly does. But Beandand just (at 12:33 21/09/2011) vandalised Corporal Clott, see the history. I still dont think ilovethebeano and Wizzkid XD are the same person because there are a lot less frequent edits for WizzKid the same topics is merely coincidental. They dont seem to have a similiar writing style, it could just be they are talking about the same topics, to me though because Wizzkid actually knows how to use the return key when doing bullet points instead of just leaving a huge space like ilovethebeano and beandand did. Eopsid (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me clear this up. Wizzkid XD is in no way related to me, but Ilovethebeano is. These are lies. One thing i was annoyed that was my article, Corporal Clott being redirected, then started again then up for deletion, and i didnt know if it was going to stay or if it was going to go. Sorry. Beandand (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Flavourbeans may also be ilovethebeano/beandand. He has also made a number of short articles on Beano/dandy comic strips. Such as Lucy Grimm, Bea and Ivy, Rocky's Horror Show, Stripz and Zappy. I have put merge notices on all these articles except for Stripz which I think should remain and Zappy (a strip from a fanzine) which has a deletion notice on there. Eopsid (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Im quite annoyed Lucy Grimm was just deleted when it would have been better to just merge it into the article on the notice and then redirect it. The reason for deletion was completely wrong as well it said it duplicated content from The Beano but there is no mention of her on that article and the character was from the dandy anyway. there was also no mention of her on the article i planned to merge her to either. the info was duplicated nowhere. Also Bea and Ivy is now a disambiguation of sorts to both the Bea (Dennis the Menace) and Ivy the Terrible articles so no need to worry about it. Eopsid (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)