Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 6 July 2005 and 24 August 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive07. Thank you. Hiding talk 17:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

To-do

Anyone else think that ((comicsproj)) should be edited to be more along the lines of ((WikiProject Formula One))? Yeah, I know we've got a To-Do list, but it's too much "grand scheme" and too little "fix this mess". - SoM 18:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, we should start unifying our efforts a bit better. Although the to do list really only has a couple of things left to get done, doesn't it? We need exemplars, the rest is pretty much done isn't it? Hiding talk 08:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's the requested articles:

A: Australian comics artists - B: Bernard Krigstein - Black Bat (Nedor Comics) - C: D: Deathmate - Destroyer Duck - F: Freff - Fatman the Human Flying Saucer - G: Gerard Jones - H: Hilda Terry - Hong Kong Comics - I: It Ain't Me Babe Comix - J: Jon Sable - L: L. B. Cole - Lynn Varley - M: Manhattan Guardian - Mike Vosburg - Miss Fury - P: R: Red Skeleton - Rex Libris - S: Sandy Plunkett - Sheldon Mayer - Stanley and His Monster - T: Teena & Dorcas Good - Terminal City - Terri Boyce - Totleben, John - Trouble with Girls - V: Vittorio Giardino - W: X: Xenozoic Tales Hiding talk 21:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, taken a random selection from the above for the article requests section and linked the rest as "more". And if the copyedits get done, look here for more, but I'm not linking that directly. - SoM 22:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Now I'm off to bed. Hiding talk 22:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Heh, that was me. Can't remember the context it came up in (probably while scanning the Jim Lee or Rob Liefeld entries), but it seemed like a good idea at the time. ;) Fastbak77 06:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

struck off Jon Sable, though it could perhaps do with expansion now it's back Logan1138 11:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with the NTb #12 cover. Besides, the close up on the A/T #6 thumbnail (And "low resolution" means 72dpi, not a thumbnail), is of Zemo, not Josten. - SoM 10:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Implementation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars

So how should we start putting the above Hiding (or any other preferred) layout into action? --Jamdav86 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that since there has been little objection, yeah, go for it. Hiding talk 04:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bronze Age

Would anyone object if I created a Bronze Age of Comics article and moved some of the material in Silver Age of Comics, Modern Age of Comics, and American comic book into it? When I added the Bronze Age text to American Comic Book there was a claim that there was a "consensus" not to use the Bronze Age, which seems a little dubious to me--the whole concept is too well known. Ken Arromdee 19:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The concept is known, but the definitions are all over the place. Everyone agrees that the Silver Age started in 1955-56 (depending on whether you favour the Martian Manhunter or the second Flash as the harbinger, with the majority going for Showcase #4), but the end is a bit fuzzier, with Jack Kirby leaving Marvel and the Death of Gwen Stacy as the two most common. Now, the beginning of the BA inherits this, and then you have a really wide range at the other end, from 1980-ish to the Crisis on Infinite Earths to even X-Men #1 in one particuarly egregious example. If and only if you can show at least a rough dating consensus (1-3 years), do it. - SoM 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood what I meant at Talk:American comic book. As I said to you before, I think there should at least be consistency across all the articles that refer to this period. If you are happy to do as SoM above suggests, feel free to do so. Note also the articles are at Silver Age of Comic Books and Modern Age of Comic Books, so the article you are after creating is at Bronze Age of Comic Books. Hiding talk 08:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the Golden Age, Silver Age and Modern Age articles, and I was astounded how much bias there was towards superheroes. While the Modern Age article actually acknowledges certain events such as the rise of the direct market and the recognition of creator rights, the Golden Age and Silver Age give the impression that superheroes popularity = comics popularity. The high sales of comics during World War II were caused by large orders from the armed forces, who made those comics available to soldiers stationed overseas. However, comics never really lost their popularity during the late 40s/early 50s (which some people call the Atomic Age of Comics). Instead, a multitude of genres flourished, while superhero sales sagged. The beginning of the Silver Age is connected with the return of the superhero, however, it wasn't until the mid 60s that superheroes became once more the highest selling comics. Finally, superheroes were going out of favor again by the early 70s, with the relaxation of the Comics Code regulations, and the appearance of a new breed of horror (Swamp Thing, Ghost Rider) and fantasy titles (Conan). The historical divisions in ages for American comics is biased towards superheroes, because the majority of current comics fans read superhero stories. Pc13 10:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Feedback on Trouble article

I'd like to get some feedback on Trouble (comic) and some suggestions what could be added/improved about the article and thought this might be a better place than Wikipedia:Peer review for now. --Fritz S. 14:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see a lot wrong with it, to be honest, it needs a copyedit but it looks like what I think an article about a comic book series (as opposed to characters) should look like. The text needs tweaking, it might be worth breaking out a publication history section to bring it in line with other articles, but other than that, not too bad. Hiding talk 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Franklin Richards

The article Franklin Richards is tagged for cleanup but it looks pretty good to me. Does anyone see anything that still needs major work?

However, Fantastic Five is a redirect to Fantastic Four, which doesn't refer to it. Should this be changed from a redirect to an article? RJFJR 21:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, especially as a F5 is an MC2 title and should not redirect to FF at all. Should have its own article. Pc13 21:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Adult humour titles

I'm starting to expand the article set on comics like Viz. I already have some front covers scanned in - see my recent contribs. If anyone wants to pitch in, they will all be in the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adult_humour_titles . If anyone can do pre-Viz ones (I think Oz was an infamous one?) that'd be great, ta.

Shouldn't the name of that category be something like "Adult humor comic books"? I know it's within the "Comic books" category, but category titles should be sufficiently specific by themselves. ←Hob 13:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
At first, it was, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comic_book_titles all have 'title' as a suffix, so I changed it before saving. --Vodex 16:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Vodex, you can link to a category by inserting a colon ([[:Category:Comic book titles]] produces Category:Comic book titles). -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:25, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Vodex, my point was that "Adult humour" is not just a kind of comic book; you could just as well put National Lampoon in that category, which I don't think is what you intended. The other subcats of "Comic book titles" don't need to mention comics because they already include the name of a specific comic or publisher. ...Which brings up another question: is it really a good idea for "Comic book titles" to be subcategorized by publisher and by genre? Isn't the word "title" misleading then? ←Hob 17:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

X-Men article

The X-Men is cluttered as hell, a prime example of fan boy need to add every little factoid. It also needs sourcing. Anyone want to help? Rorschach567 14:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal

Any volunteers to set one up @ Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Comics? - SoM 15:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a look at how it is done later this evening, but yes I'm game. Hiding talk 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Brown Shoes22

Something needs to be done about User:Brown Shoes22. It's gotten to the point where most of my watchlist is articles that he has worked on, so I have to clean them up later. His most recent changes to Arana have turned the article from a respectable large stub to a trivia dump, with a plot synopsis so big I don't feel the need to read the comic at all. He's also the one who created (and continues to "update") Runaways. He made separate pages for Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs) and Runaways (comics) (issues). He's already made a few copyvios, namely for Jessica Jones and Jeremiah (comic). It's not like he's doing page violations, but just his spelling and grammar are enough to drive someone mad. --Pc13 20:42, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

The warnings on his talk page are sufficient enough to merit some response from him... If he continues to misbehave and not respond at all, you should begin the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, which would start with an RFC. If he ignores the RFC, then the arbitration committee can look into the case further. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Brown Shoes22
BrownShoes is at it again. Not only is he unhelpfully contesting the policy voted on at #Ultimates' Naming on each individual Ultimate character's talk page instead of on this page as I have indicated him to do several times, he is also creating sub-stub articles at Ultimates Annual, Ultimate X-Men Annual, Ultimate Spider-Man Annual, and Ultimate Fantastic Four Annual; these articles are not only of extremely debatable notability, but have almost no content. I have noted this on his talk page, and if he continues, I will open an RFC against him. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Guess who's back User:M.C. Brown Shoes. Brand new name. Same edits: [1]... Keep an eye out. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
In spite of the name similarity, they don't appear to be the same person. M.C. Brown Shoes seems to be a quite regular contributor, and his edits are mainly about music. Brown Shoes22 is Canadian, while M.C. seems to be Australian according to this. --Pc13 07:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by BS22 to the Slingers article. Going round in circles here - is he adding anything bar a need for others to clean up after him? - SoM 10:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I repeat the question. For reference: Brown_Shoes22 (talk • contribs) - SoM 17:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Machine Teen

This page needs serious clean-up and an introduction. And it was written by Brown Shoes, so it needs a grammar/spelling fix. Did anybody else read Machine Teen? All I know is it was part of Marvel's Tsunami imprint and it was loosely based on the Machine Man concept. --Pc13 15:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami as an imprint is defunct, and has been since... I think New Mutants (vol. 2) #13 was the last to carry the branding. Either that or the last issue of Runaways vol. 1. - SoM 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Maxiseries or Graphic novel ?

What is a Maxiseries ?--Brown Shoes22 15:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know what something is, why do you start an article about it in the first place? --Fritz S. 16:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

All Star

DC Comics started a new ongoing series "All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder" and "All-Star Superman". So what is All Star ? There were references to it being like the silver age, so is it a continuation of the silver age storys, or is this a fresh start “reboot” with it’s own story line and continuity?

Is All Star warth making a page for Yes or No ?--Brown Shoes22 04:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

All New input will now is in Talk:All Star Batman and Robin for the time being !
All Star DC Comics now here Placess add new info.
I think that's a bit of overkill! We don't need an All Star DC Comics and a seperate page on All Star Batman and Robin too. You already received one comment advising you to wait, why are you just pressing on regardless? Hiding talk 19:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Hiding, meet brownshoes. Brownshoes, meet hiding. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. My.....

He created a blank page for Ultimate Extinction. Actually completely devoid of content. This needs to be seen to be believed before I speedy-tag it - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultimate_Extinction&oldid=22602519 Page history, so you can see who did this - SoM 16:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

... he's really outdone himself this time. Well played. I'll speedy it. I just... don't know what to say. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything TO say? Something needs to be done about this guy. Even if he's not intentionally vandalising, that's the effect he's having now.
(See Special:Undelete/Ultimate_Extinction for anyone coming in late, BTW) - SoM 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that that future comics template in those hands is a worrying thing. Hiding talk 18:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
More than just that. Look above. Look at the contribs (diffs) Brown Shoes22 (talk • contribs). He's a problem. - SoM 19:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Book of Lost Souls

There's also The Book of Lost Souls, which is substub if not actually empty - SoM 16:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Just Imagine...

(Note: I found this in the history of archive 5!) Hiding talk 19:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC) In the 2000s, Stan Lee did his first work for DC Comics, launching the Just Imagine... series, in which Lee reimagined several DC superheroes including Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and the Flash. To make a page or not ?
Just Imagine... Brown Shoes22 16:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What to do?

I've tried to group all the Brown Shoes stuff together. What are people's thoughts on the subject? Hiding talk 19:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Something should be done about this guy. I'm sure he means absolutely no harm and has only the best intentions, but it seems he often adds articles about things he has at best little knowledge of and his edits tend to seriously lack grammar and are probably more work for others to clean up than helpful contributions. --Fritz S. 20:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with FS 100% here. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any process for this sort of thing. He's been asked on his talk page to no effect. If he was being malicious, we could just report him at WP:VIP and be done with it. He's not even a "clueless newbie" any more. I asked on the IRC channel the other day, and got something along the lines of "Well, copyediting's minor, as long as he's not breaking WP:NPOV." I'd like to hear any ideas. - SoM 20:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
He says on his user page that he's dyslexic, and I also can't help but wonder if he has more learning problems like that. He seems similar to User:SuperDude115 in that sense; he's very enthusiastic, and after a while you get the feeling that he doesn't really intend to troll, but his actions are ultimately damaging to the 'pedia. However, the one thing that I've caught him on several times is copyvio- he has a bad habit of transplanting whole sections of other websites. He seems to have stopped the copyvio recently though. We've cautioned him on substubs a lot, and it's really frustrating that he's back on that. -DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:48, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think WP:RFC is appropriate; I wouldn't call this vandalism, just really annoying behavior that deserves some organized review. It doesn't matter that someone on IRC thought it was no big deal. ←Hob 17:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Someone draft one then (not me, I'm not exactly the best guy to do so). I think he's had enough warnings on his talk page by now - SoM 22:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Front page

I reformatted the front page to bring it in line with the nearly completed portal. I added a Recently updated articles section to list articles that we want to bring to each other's attention. Hope it's useful. Hiding talk 21:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Err, it's kind of... busy? Shouldn't we be more concerned with keeping in line with other WikiProject pages than our portal? Portals are for readers, WikiProjects are for contributors, at least that's how I've always looked at it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. Plus... LILAC?! (That one goes for the portal too)
Reverted until there's a concensus in favour of change of this magnitude - SoM 22:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket had done the same, and thought it looked nice. Also, it took about four hours, but I guess that's wiki. Hiding talk 17:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
C'est la vie, I know. I like elements of it, but it's a bit much to just do, y'know? - SoM 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, fair play. I don't mind that much. Yeah, it was probably a bit much, but you don't know until you try. At least it's still there in the edit history if it is ever needed again. Hiding talk 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate WikiProjects are for contributors, but I figured it would help if readers came through from the portal if interested in joining to a familiar format. As to the lilac, it's hard to find colours that look good on a blue background, but feel free to try other colours. Hiding talk 17:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem with lilac is similar to the problem with grey - it's a "dead" colour, especially when surrounded by grey. I'd like something a bit more positive, although I'll wait for opinions from other people.
Oh no, try some out. We can always revert. Hiding talk 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
relevant tyle-sheet history. Still not happy.
You can revert if you want to, or try some other colours, without any shadow of an objection from me. I'm pooped and haven't got it even nearly right to my satisfaction yet. Someone else can try now... - SoM 01:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
And since the "standard" WP:CMC, based on Template:WikiProject, main page is more like the articles, you'd have to say that's more familiar :). Say something @ Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject or the Village Pump proposals page tho. - SoM 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I think this ship has sailed. I'm already fighting enough fires to take this one up. Hiding talk 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, is a recently updated section of any use? Hiding talk 17:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This is going to sound trite, I know, but only if it's kept updated (at least once a week, and preferably more frequently) - SoM 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't the onus be on us to update it with our new creations. But yes I agree wholeheartedly. Hiding talk 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be made more like Portal:Doctor Who. Reasoning:

--Jamdav86 16:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Recently updated section

Okay, a trial run on the talk page.

What are we listing here - all our recent updates? Recent stub articles I added: Sue Coe, Shary Flenniken, Carol Tyler, Wimmen's Comix, World War 3 Illustrated. Phoebe Gloeckner is a little longer. ←Hob 22:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

WEll, I figure articles that need expansion or work. Perhaps articles in need of attention is a better idea? Hiding talk 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles

They seem to be a bit thin on the ground. Any thoughts on ones we could nominate? It would be nice to get comics, British comic, American comic book, Superhero and Speech balloon featured for starters, wouldn't it? Hiding talk 18:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As both Batman and Superman are featured articles, shouldn't we try to get the other one of the big three, Spider-Man, good enough to be nominated? --Fritz S. 21:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ow.
Well, based on Wikipedia:What is a featured article, it fails comprehensiveness (too comphrehensive on powers, not enough on either real-world or fictional history - it doesn't even have more than a couple of passing mentions on the frelling Clone Saga, never mind lesser-known stuff), sources, contains too many lists, the prose is "bitty"...
If we're going to get that up to "featured" status, it's going to need one hell of a rewrite. - SoM 21:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But after all, what's WikiProject Comics for if not to increase the quality of articles like that? --Fritz S.
Point. - SoM
Just an idea: Maybe we could have something like the Collaborations on other Wikiprojects for this WikiProject, too. --Fritz S. 22:42, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
We probably should, actually. I changed the ((comicsproj)) template recently to include a couple of "improvement", etc, bits, but everything we've done has been ad-hoc. We probably need to start doing stuff like that. - SoM 23:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to se a marvel comic article get featured, if just for some balance. I believe X-Men was nominated a while back, and shot down for being too fan-oriented. Fantastic Four also doesn't seem fleshed out enough to be an FA. I'm not sure what other major articles to focus on, but those seemed like big titles to me. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I just thought we should try and focus on the medium before we hit any more characters. But I agree the next step is a collaboration. Hiding talk 20:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
This is semi-related, but I saw a good idea on Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. They have a "Review" page, which is like the Wikipedia Peer Review page, but for the narrow audience of the WikiProject. I think it's a really good idea; i just worry it would get overrun by people just making substubs and throwing them on the page (*cough* Brown Shoes *cough*). Still, if we can keep the load down, I think something like that would help us get articles up to FA status. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that is that I don't think we have many (any?) near-FA-level articles to improve that way (Being proved wrong would be appreciated in this matter) - SoM 22:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think there's still plenty work to be done on those. From the first look, they definately need some images (well, except Superhero, that one has more than enough). I just read the beginning of Comics and I could already come up with quite a list of things to improve about the article, but I think this is not really the right place for that. I still think the best idea would be to form a Colaboration-thingy and then focus on getting these (and other) articles improved. But a Comics-related Peer Review is also a nice idea. --Fritz S. 11:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it would be helpful if you did reveal your thinking, or improved the articles as you see fit. As we have noweher else to discuss these things yet, I would suggest either here or the Talk:Comics pages are the best places. This is the WikiProject for comics. Where better to discuss the page itself, and what better article to have featured? Hiding talk 14:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, just from the first couple of sections:
  • Why is there a logo for comics?
  • I personally prefer the explainaition from Comic over the first sentence of Comics, because comics don't necessesary need text.
  • The paragraph about comics in different languages might be more fitting in the Etymology section.
  • What's so signifacant about Gary Groth renaming The Nostalgia Journal to The Comics Journal?
  • In the Definition section, a little explaination of what Will Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art actually is would be nice, before saying that it doesn't define the term.
  • The 20th Century sections seems pretty much focused on US comics.
  • Several sections use Capitalisations that should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalisation)
  • The article needs more images
As I said before, I didn't read the entire article yet, I'm sure there are some more things to improve. --Fritz S. 14:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The groth renaming is significant as far as I know in being the first usage f the term comics in reference to an artform, although I am happy to be corrected there. I placed the logo there ages ago as a placeholder to convert it into the logo for Portal:Comics, which I shall do so anon. I thought the wikilink to Comics and Sequential Art would provide any definition, but please feel free to amend both that and the definition of comics. I agree about the twentieth century. Most of the British stuff is found at Bristish comic. Hiding talk 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Based on no more than a quick flick-through, Comics is a maybe; British comic has no pictures ACB has no references, Superhero has no references, and I'm amazed you even suggested speech balloon - SoM 12:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
What's up with speech balloon? I'll start scanning pictures for the British comics article. ACB and Superhero are going to have to be referenced then. I'll contact people in the edit history and ask them if they can reference it. Hiding talk 14:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's see:
  1. Gives too much weight to a style of speech balloon which is seemingly exclusively used in a single GN (certainly, if all the speech in the comic in question is like that, that's true, but not noteworthy. It's been used for donkey's years elsewhere to signify someone speaking from off-panel).
  2. Speaking of which, the manga balloon is backwards in the picture.
  3. Caption boxes "are usually connected to the edge of the panel"? Only artist I've ever seen that happen with is Walt Simonson's art, where he prefers to alter the edge of the panel shape, especially when working with John Workman, Jr.. The first box in a panel is usually placed near the corner of the panel, and that's about as close as I can get to that.
  4. Oh, and thought balloons have become very rare in US comics in recent years, with thoughts (where used) now only used as first-person narrative caption boxes.
  5. "In a font similar to Comic Sans" - Kill It. I've never seen a single US or UK professional comic that uses any font even vaguely resembling CS, with fonts resembling specific hand letterers having become "standard" of late in US comics, apart from a few mixed-case experiments.
  6. In general, the article seems to ignore the post-computer lettering explosion of the use of shapes, fonts and colours in speech balloons in US comics at least - and, indeed, the fact that since DC Comics completely ended the use of hand lettering a year or two back, with only a very few non-DCU fringe books excepted (the only one that leaps to mind offhand is Elric: The Making of a Sorceror), you'd stuggle to find hand-lettered comics in America any more. The article completely ignores this.
  7. No references.
  8. Neutrality - the whole thing in general seems skewed towards "independent" US comics, with manga and superhero comics only an afterthought, and UK comics not mentioned at all.
See why I was surprised yet? - SoM 17:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
SoM, I see you've added a couple of those points to Talk:Speech balloon, but only a couple - any reason? I generally agree, though I think "you'd struggle to find hand-lettered comics in America any more" is an exaggeration, and I think it's a mistake to assume the article is only about comic books (e.g. newspaper strips use thought balloons all the time). ←Hob 04:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I only added a couple @ Talk:Speech balloon because I didn't go through it in as much depth as I did just there on Sat night :)
And you're right about a bias towards cbs on my part - my bad, as it were. Change "comics" to "comic books" though and I pretty much stand by what I said about struggling to find hand-lettered comic books. Near-enough all of the "big two" have changed over, and many indies computer-letter because it's quicker, easier and takes less skill if for no other reason than error-correcting is easier and it's easier to look professional. - SoM 09:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

British comic

I've given that images. What are people's thoughts now. Hiding talk 22:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I just read the beginning and I think it still needs some copyediting. For example, titles should be in italics, and the article needs some more links in the lead (and strangely The Beano and The Dandy aren't linked the first time they appear in the article, but the third...?! Same goes for British). Also, the Overview section has a lot of very short paragraphs, I think those should be combined to make a better reading.
Plus, there should be consistancy in linking years. Currently some years are linked, others not. I personally think years are generally overlinked in many Wikipedia articles and should be cut down (see Manual of Style (links) and What should not be linked in Wikipedia) --Fritz S. 10:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Collaboration of the ?

Okay, how often should we run it? I've been bold once more and set up a page at User:Hiding/Collaboration, feel free to edit it until we get it how we want it and then we can move it to where it ends up. Hiding talk 14:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

weekly(?)--Fritz S. 14:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking fortnightly, but I'm not fussed either way. Weekly just means more work given there is likely to be few users involved. Hiding talk 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, fortnight might be better.--Fritz S. 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd go with fortnight. - SoM 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, shall we move User:Hiding/Collaboration to WP:CMCC? Then I'll message everyone on the participants list. What do people think about nominated articles? I just filled the list up with dummy ones, are they okay? Hiding talk 22:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
For the beginning we can use those you put in, but for the future there should be some guidelines for how to nominate an article and how many votes it needs in what time to become an acutal collaboration. --Fritz S. 08:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Created

Okay, have a look at WP:CMCC. I've given it a little more than a week of voting, is that okay? I'll start to publicise this on participants talk pages tomorrow. Hiding talk 21:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BAD url for it. All-caps is asking for people to typo it. You'd be better off making it /Collab or somesuch. - SoM 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Magneto (comics)

User:Zen-master just nominated Magneto (comics) for featuring. Anyone feel like buffing it up before it gets buried under a sea of "No"s? - SoM 12:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Day of Vengeance

Day of Vengeance has a futurecomics tag on it. Is this still future? (The article seems to be written in past tense).RJFJR 16:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

At the time the series was still under publication. It finished up last Wenesday, so I removed the tag a day ro two ago.. Toffile 23:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Genre Categories?

I'm not a member of this project, but I thought I'd throw this out there. Wikipedia has a list of films by genre. Any plans to implement something similar for comics? -- Xastic 07:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a List of movies based on comic books, but comics is not a genre, it's a medium. --Pc13 12:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Ummm... I think he knows that, and meant a list showing Horror comics, Mystery comics, etc.
And "not to my knowledge" is my answer to it - SoM 12:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Initial thought is that it would be a good idea in theory but quite hard to implement. I can see a lot of dual listed comics, Powers springs to mind as both superheroic and crime/police procedural, where would you put Gaiman's Sandman, fantasy, horror or superhero, it mixing all three genres, and Swamp Thing again is a similar mix, and then there's Cerebus, which is fantasy and humour and religion and who knows what else. I agree with SoM's "not to my knowledge". Hiding talk 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
If you were going to do it, you'd either have to ignore superheroic aspects completely and just list superhero/action under "Action", superhero/crime under "Crime", etc; or else split "Superhero" into many subheadings, and not have any base "Superhero" entries. - SoM 15:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
SoM is correct, I meant adding genre subcategories that could be applied to the various comics articles. My thinking was that there are quite a lot of articles on comics and it might be helpful to have subcategories of some kind. Genre categories just seemed like the most obvious choice. Transmetropolitan, for example, seems to have more in common with The Metabarons than with, say American Splendor, yet they are listed only as "Comic book titles" or "DC Comics titles". It's true, "Superhero comic" would not be a particularly useful category, as it isn't exclusive enough. Horror, Crime, Sci-Fi, etc. all seem like potentially useful categories however. Perhaps a distinction between solo superheroes and superhero teams? Or possibly a distinction between "straight" superhero comics like Superman, as opposed to more genre blending superheroes such as the afforementioned Swamp Thing. -- Xastic 16:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Teams, etc are already sorted out (see Category:Superheroes by team, etc). Titles aren't sorted by genre, and it might be something to consider. - SoM 17:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to Xastic. I think it's a great idea to divide by genre, yeah, but I believe superheroes would be problematic. While most fall under the category of action/adventure, some of them are cross-genre and would belong in the action/adventure anyway: Daredevil and Batman are both crime and action/adventure, while JLA and Avengers are action/adventure and space opera, and Fantastic Four is sci-fi and action/adventure. Marvel's Captain Marvel depends on which character we're talking about, and it depends on the writer. Mar-Vell goes from sci-fi and espionage to space opera, and Genis started as a mixture of sci-fi and teen drama (and action/adventure) with Fabian Nicieza, and then changed to humor/buddies/philosophy/social issues with Peter David (hard to quantify PAD, innit?). And what about Hulk, or Hitman (crime? dark humor?) or Starman (could this one be considered biographical)? --Pc13 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I suppose we could just dual categorise superhero titles where neccessary, in a Category:Superhero comic title and a Category:Crime comic book title for example, similar to what we do with write/artists. Hiding talk 19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Xastic's idea seems pretty interesting. Non-superhero and other genres of comic books could be informatively organized in more specific categories, which would definitely makek our categories more browsable. This is similar to the problems we had using superhero infoboxes for non-superhero comic books. Though our wikiproject has a slant toward the action-books, we definitely need to make sure that our policies apply equally to other books. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a fair amount of support for the idea. Last night I put up a page for Category:Science_fiction_comics, and tagged some articles for it. I'll try to start up some other categories soon, but anyone is, of course, welcome to help. Thanks. Xastic 17:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Divison of characters and book history

Advance apologies if this is the wrong place to post this.

I've noticed a consistent inconsistency throughout the comics pages. ;-) It seems like writers of some of the articles are never clear on whether the article is based around the title character or the book itself. Thus one article may focus entirely on a character and his abilities, while another focuses on the history of the book, ignoring the plot and characters entirely. Others are an odd mesh of the two, swtiching back and forth constantly. Also, with some pages, the page seems to be entirely about a character (or multiple characters) that has crossed multiple books, leaving no clear place to add information about the book of the same title. Maybe there should be a clear standard for this... A standardized division of story and "real-world" history (to the extent that one is possible) may help, especially on larger pages. Any thoughts on this? -- Roger McCoy 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This discussion may help. After reading, it would help us to put it into use. --Jamdav86 08:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I like it. When I get a chance, I'll probably try to update a few pages to match this a little closer. --Roger McCoy 09:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

David Cain (comics)

On the David Cain (comics), two anonymous users keep on taking out the information that says Cain is Batgirl's biological father, which has been proven in her comic series. This isn't just fan speculation, it has been established in her series a while ago.

This is nothing new.It was first revealed in #37, and later issues have addressed it (most notably #65). --DrBat 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that all of the anons are used by User:Joel Lindley. Check his userpage summary. You might also consider filing a 3RR, since all 3 IPs share similar edit histories, and are being done by the same user, using sockpuppets to circumevent the 3RR.Toffile 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Amalgam Comics

If you look at both the English and French versions of Amalgam Comics, you'll see there is some info on the French page not addded into the English. Could someone please incorparate this? --Jamdav86 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you don't do it yourself? --Fritz S. 19:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Not only am I (admittedly) slightly lazy, I thought it would be a good point to bring up because it seems that Wikipedians don't just translate a page, they add info or create an entirely new page without knowledge or recognition of the English language one. With this info in mind, it may become easier for programmes like COMICSCOTF to improve the page by adding info in from one of the different language's pages. --Jamdav86 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

American comic book

There's a dispute going on regarding the correct placement of this article, either at American comics or American comic book. Please help form a consensus one way or the other. Hiding talk 13:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to join in the fray, guys. It was just a miscommunication between me and Hiding. I was very excited about finding really good literature on comics and I got a bit carried away with trying to standardize articles.
Peter Isotalo 18:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Panelology

I revived the article about comics collecting since the term seems to be much more common today than at the time of the discussion that decided to merge it with comics was held (see talk:panelology). I suspect that a lot of you who participate in this project are comic collectors, and I think you need a separate article to describe the finer points of the hobby.

Peter Isotalo 18:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Teen Titans -> Titans (comics)

Since the move from Teen Titans to Titans (comics), there are still a lot of links to the Teen Titans article. This would be alright for a while if it were a redirect, but since it isn't, I think that we should try to fix as many links as possible. Additionally, many links point to Teen Titans when they should point to Teen Titans (animated series), which also need to be fixed. KramarDanIkabu (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention for successors

I was wondering if the project had a standard for successors to a mantle, such as Robin I, Robin II, and Robin III. Someone once brought up that Roman numerals shouldn't be used, replacing Robin III with Robin (Tim Drake). We should really develop a standard for this if we don't already have one.

Do we need them? Removing your piping reveals the articles to be located at Nightwing, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake, which would seem to suffice. Hiding talk 12:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll admit that. But aren't we wanting to make these pages accessible to everyone? Putting Tim Drake instead of Robin would probably not make sense to the average reader. I'm just saying. KramarDanIkabu (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
True, but in this manner, the main Robin article will basically act as a very enriched disambig article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with DropDeadGorgias, I suspect the first port of call is going to be either Batman or Robin, where they'll soon get directed where they need to go. I don't think we're being any less accessible however we name the articles, the inaccessibility would be in not linking to them correctly. Hiding talk 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the article names or links to articles. I'm talking about [[article|what goes here]], as in what to call them in the infoboxes and lists. Referencing Titans (comics), the new members could be either this:

or

It currently is the latter and I would like to know how we are supposed to write them. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The latter - Roman numerals are too ambiguous, especially with the habit they have of being screwed up by obscure one issue "Robin"s, etc. - SoM 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Avengers

Something has to be done over at Avengers. There's an edit war going where the only solution I can forsee is locking the page for editing. See the talk page for why. --Jamdav86 20:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert war in Whizzer

User:Tenebrae has engaged in a little revert war with User:Brown Shoes22 in the Whizzer page. Tenebrae removed the content about the Blur from the page, but did not bother to move it to a page of its own (currently, The Blur redirects to Whizzer), and BS22 revert everything without regard to other improvements by Tenebrae. Tenebrae reverted back to his version. I moved the Blur back in, keeping Tenebrae's changes and explained why in Tenebrae's talk page. He left a message on my talk page asking for discussion, but removed the Blur unilaterally. We need more input in Talk:Whizzer. - Pc13 14:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The content's at Blur (comics) (which needs categorised, BTW). The Blur would be going against the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (comics). I also added a "See also" link to Blur (comics) on the Whizzer page.
Abrasive as he's been about it though, I have to go with Tenebrae on this one. Maybe a mention at the end of the SqSup Whizzer section would be a good idea, but having the content at Blur (comics) makes a lot more sense. - SoM 15:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to be abrasive. I had actually put a sepatate Blur entry in September, but someone erased it. I've already categorized the new version (as asked by the note on that page) before coming here, and already made mention of Squadron Supreme. Also added a Blur (disambiguation) page, since there are several other Blur entries. Thanks, and again, sorry for any bad feelings; genuinely wasn't intended. Tenebrae 15:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Power and abilities of Wolverine (detailed)"

Power and abilities of Wolverine (detailed). Begging someone who wasn't involved with the mess of a few months back on Wolverine (comics) to send this to AFD... - SoM 23:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Asking for Advice

I apologize if this is an inapropriate place for this, but this is the only place I could find that seemed like a good place to ask this.

Livewires is the first article that I wrote (and so far the only one). There is a cleanup notice at the top of it and I'd like to get that article to the point that it doesn't need it before I write any others. I'd like some advice on what can be done to make it better and I figure if I get this advice now any other articles will only be better for it. (Stephen Day 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

Well, since I'm the one who tagged it...
Basically, it's a bit long, you don't need every cover (indeed, if you look at the section just above this, you'll see why it's an actual problem), STB has a few formatting problems (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Templates) and needs updating anyway, and there should probably be a ((fiction)) tag on it too.
Plus-side, what there is is decently written for what it is :) - SoM 01:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again thank you for the advice. I do have another question. I think I've got Livewires to the point where the edit and fiction warnings can be removed. What is the proper procedure I have to go through to have this happen? I don't want to step on any toes unintentionally. I still don't know if this is even the proper forum to be asking about all of this. If it isn't I apologize for asking this where I shouldn't and could you direct me to where I should be? (Stephen Day 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
There isn't really a formal proceedure, mainly you just ask other people involved if they think it's time to be rid of it or not. Personally, I think it's close, if not there, already, though I'd definatly get rid of the cover of "clockwork thugs" at the bottom, since essentially the same image is at the top of the page. --InShaneee 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Captain America

I'm going to remove the merge tag. I created a temp page (found here) to see how big the main CA article would be, if I merged the Ultimate CA article to it. Result: The main article would be over 30kb in size. This would be bound to increase in size, since Ultimate Cap is centerstage in a big story arc.--Kross | Talk 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem myself. You could get rid of the picture, as Ultimate Captain America looks exactly the same, or get rid of the entire infobox and put the info into the main article. I don't even mind it as it is. Merge I say, MERGE! --Jamdav86 11:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I must agree with Jamdav. Not only is the infobox unneccisary, but the description of Captain America could be cut down to a discussion of the differences between the two versions (since there's considerable overlap). --InShaneee 19:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, he (Ultimate Cap) is pretty different from his 616 counterpart. His costume and tactics/methods, for example (with the latter being VERY different). Also, as I stated above, with the current story arc, Ultimate Cap's article is going to get bigger.--Kross | Talk 20:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The policy generally agreed on above was that unless the Ultimate character has their own title, then they would just have a mention and comparison on the main character's page. I don't think that minor costume and personality changes should be enough, given that, for the most part, the character is the same. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Omega level

Where can I find a good definition of "omega level" in respect to the Marvel Universe measure of strength of a mutant's powers? I heard this on a comic board, but I can't find it on wikipedia, and was wondering if the term has a canonical definition? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell? They're reallyreallyreallyreally powerful (or at least potentially so in Elixir's case). That's about as narrowed down as it gets. - SoM 21:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Does it merit its own article or a mention on the strength level article? Can anyone recommend comic books that deal with this topic? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
There are no comics which "deal with the topic." It's background detail, thrown out as a synonym for reallyreallyreallyreally powerful in various mutant books in the past three or four years. And on the first part NO!!!!!!!!!!!!, and no. - SoM 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The only reference of importance that I can recall is that the Sentinels (for example, Nimrod) used it as a one of the power levels for their mutant detection sistems. Nimrod itself was considered "Omega Level" and compared itself to Phoenix (Rachel Summers, at the time she had Phoenix-Force powers.) It's very unlikely that a robot could have THAT much power, so it is infered that Omega Level represents the maximum that Sentinel scanners can measure, and that cosmic levels of power are beyond that level. Wilfredo Martinez 13:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I half-disagree with SoM's point. If someone has a confusion about a term, then an encyclopedia article is needed. Since this is a small, insignificant fact, perhaps an article entitled List of comic book terms is in order. Jamdav86 21:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
More