Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Conan the Barbarian (comics)

The above page is to be spun off Conan the Barbarian. Anyone up to the task? -- Jamdav86 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just call it Conan (comics) and make it about Conan comics in general? Otherwise people will want to create a page for every Conan series ever made. And there were a few, especially during the speculator boom, when Marvel published three monthly Conan titles (Conan, Conan the Adventurer and Conan the Savage). And then there were the mini-series and the graphic novels, and the appearances in Savage Tales... Pc13 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I only have one issue of a Conan comic, so I can't do it. I suppose Conan (comics) can become a hub if that article became too long, but I reckon it should be up to the induvidual editor to create the article. --Jamdav86 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

If a few more of you would have a look at Alan Moore, the current Comics Collab of the Month, we might actually be able to turn it into a 'featured article'. I'm pretty sure the Comics COTM has never resulted in an featured article - a losing streak we should break! ike9898 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a case of a losing street — no-one's really bothered to nominate them. But if you feel that that article should be nominated, do it. --Jamdav86 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Actaully, it probably will end up being a FA. Look over the comments from the last nomination> The only 2 were a lack of references and no picture of Moore. Both of which are in there now. A few minor tweaks will only make it better.--Toffile 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with Star Brand/Green Lantern comparison

I created a section for the Star Brand article. It deals with the critisim of the original series over the fact that some saw it as a rip-off of Green Lantern.

The problem is that my own bias seems to have gotten in the way. Its too slanted toward the argumant that it wasn't. I've been hoping that somebody from the other side of the argument would edit it and make things more balanced. So far the only person that has is an anonylous user who seems to be even more biased towards my side of the argument than myself.

I'm asking for help in getting this section to a more neutral point of view. Thank you to anyone who helps. :-) (Stephen Day 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Apologies, this is quite a harsh opinion, but since I can't see any references provided in that section, no detailing of who made the criticisms or who refuted them, the whole thing reads like original research. I suggest you either try and source the information or just erase the section entirely. Hiding talk 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I didn't find your message to be harsh at all as its something I've been thinking of doing myself anyway. I know it was one of the critisims because I read it all over the place (and heard it all over as well) when Star Brand first came out.
Unfortunately all of the publications I owned that had those comments are now long gone and I can't seem to find any cite that has what I need catelogued.
That was another reason why I brought this up. I was hoping someone might have a copy of something that published one of those articles and that they could cite a source. It doesn't look like that will happen though. :-(
I erased that section, but I'm going to continue to look. That section can easily be rewritten when I find what I'm looking for. (Stephen Day 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

I recall Cat Yronwood wrote a column back in the '80s asserting in passing that SB was a GL knock-off. Just searched a (not complete) stack of Eclipse comics from the period and didn't find it tho'. Maybe it was in her TBG column.

AC 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, if you find it could you let me know. That would be a big help. :-) (Stephen Day 20:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
Rather than just erasing the section, you could park it on the talk page, with instructions to add it back once someone can support it with references. ike9898 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Now done. ike9898 21:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Typhoid Mary image

Some users (User:DreamGuy and User:AriGold) on the TM page are insisting on replacing the solictation image for the cover to Daredevil #46 with a poor-quality, grainy scan of the cover instead. The cover they want is Image:TyphoidMary46.JPG.

I originally uploaded this cover, which one of the users got deleted by saying it wasnt the cover that was shown in stores, and that someone had modified it (the user refused to believe the links I showed stating how it was the orignal cover art Maleev drew that Marvel modified before releasing). I later uploaded Image:DaredevilV246.png as a compromise (this was the actual cover art Marvel released, with the nipple from the original cover removed, which was the only real difference between the orignal image and the one Marvel used). This isn't good enough either, apparently.

Furthermore, using the users' logic we should replace the SHB images of Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man (all promotional solictated images) with cover scans of the respective issues instead. --DrBat 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer the covers because 1) they more firmly ground the subject matter in its real life context (it is a comic book character, after all, that does not exist outside of those stapled folds of paper), 2) the cover image itself then functions as a cited source for the article, with the comic title, issue number, and date visible, and 3) I believe we have a much stronger fair use argument when it comes to using comic book covers, with all of the indicia that makes them a cover, than the unadorned art from the cover (regardless of whether it's used to promote the sale of the book in that form). Postdlf 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I too prefer using the actual cover, for the reasons Postdlf outlines above. Also; there's the possibility that the art can change between solicitation and printing. I don't think we have a good fair use claim on images which the publisher has rejected for purposes of illustrating the character. If the publisher rejects it, they are pretty clear it is not an image they wish associated with the character. Hiding talk 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Which is why the second image I used was the image Marvel released.
If we must use scans as opposed to promotional art, I'll go replace the images of Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman (all which are promotional cover art) with grainy, poorly-scanned covers instead. --DrBat 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Postdlf and Hiding. AriGold 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

SoM found this in the WikiProject Comics talk archive (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive07#Header_for_linking_purposes) which DrBat then posted on my talk page:

If these are truly promotional images, then the fair use argument is quite good, actually better than for scanned images of the covers. Such images should be tagged as {{promotional}}, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not. And they must be sourced or they will be deleted. (written by Kelly Martin).

I told him to get proof that his image actually is promotional, since the link provided on Image:Daredevil46.jpg leads to a forum which is by no means official and to bring it up for discussion here, but he went and reverted the image anyway. Now putting aside his actions, let's assume for the sake of argument that this image is indeed promotional. If that's the case, isn't this then a better image to use to illustrate the character? We have a better legal argument as well as a better quality image. The only thing left to discuss is whether the displaying of the character within the context of the comic cover outweighs these other aspects, so I leave it to the WikiProject members to figure this out. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Blurrier than I thought - I thought it was a solicitation image (which are released every month, three months before the comics in question are due to be released, as part of the ordering process to entice people to pre-order the comics). It's still promotional, but in a far more informal fashion. - SoM 18:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with Kelly Martin's claims that promotional images are somehow more acceptable than cover images, as cover images are verifiable and undisputable and hold far more obvious fair use purposes. "Promotional" is an extremely nebulous declaration, and in this case not only do we not know that the disputed image was promotional, we also know that it is inaccurate, i.e. not one that was actually used. There is absolutely no justification for putting it into the article, and DrBat has a long history of pointless revert warring and policy violations. He uploaded his image at least three times after it was deleted through IFD process (and repeatedly speedy deleted after that point), which is just obnoxious. DreamGuy 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Pot calling the kettle black? You have several records of 3RRs as well. [1] Furthermore, if what you say is true we should replace all the SHB images that use promo-images with crappy scans.
And the image was deleted under false pretenses (ie; AriGold said that it was modifed, as opposed to it being Maleev's original artwork, and that cover scans are more fair use than promos, which is not true whether you like it or not).--DrBat 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Now you're flat out lying. My exact words were, "Not sure if the first image was altered by someone other than the artist or the artist himsefl at some point" and that since there source infomation was not reliable, I thought the comic cover was the better one to use. AriGold 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do some research on this via Google and the only real place I can find any info on this is the Newsarama forum [2]. There's no indication to me that this is a promotional image of any sort. As far as I can tell, it looks like it just got leaked out by Brian Bendis. That being the case, I highly doubt we can use it, unless someone can prove otherwise. howcheng {chat} 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/104720502629520.htm
And its an old cover; the solicts that originally had it aren't up anymore. Furthermore, I also tried uploading the actual, censored cover artwork Marvel released (sans nipple), but that wasn't any good either apparently. --DrBat 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted I tried discussing the image change several times with AriGold, but all he did was delete my comments from the talk page and dodge my questions. [3] --DrBat 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded, you just kept spamming my page with the same message over and over again while I was writing back to you. Anyone can check your discussion page to see that. Don't try to paiint me out as the bad guy here. You are the person who spammed my page over and over with the same messages while I was responding to you. AriGold 13:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This image is not a promotional image. It was in fact rejected by the publishers and copyright holders.[4] There is no fair use claim in using this image to illustrate the character, nor can it be tagged as promotional, comic book cover, comic scene or comic panel. The best tag would be fair use in, providing an article in which it would be fair use in could be found. Promotional images are those released by the publisher as a solicitation for the issue in question. These can generally be sourced from the publisher's web site e.g. [5]. Hiding talk 23:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And as I mentioned above; I also uploaded the cover Marvel used, but that too was deleted. --DrBat 23:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The comic book cover is on the article right now and is acceptable. There's nothing left for you to do, so this is over. Postdlf 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, even if this image isn't usable, as it appears it isn't, the current image isn't acceptable - have you SEEN it? Huge rainbow patterning, mistoned whites and blacks... as I say, if DrBat's image isn't usable, I don't think the current image is "acceptable" for quality (as opposed to FU) reasons. In addition, there is no scan source. - SoM 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Photoshop it if you want to, but it's certainly functional, and if it were too high res, the fair use argument would suffer. Why would we need a "scan source"? A scanner doesn't secure any independent rights over a scan that would necessitate credit. Postdlf 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The source of the scan is required per upload policy. I'm not over bothered by the quality of the image, that's an issue fixable by a better scan or a different image. I don't think the quality of an image should over-ride the imperative to use the fairest possible image. Hiding talk 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The "source" refers to the source of the picture, not the source of the image file. For the current image, the source is the cover of Daredevil #46, published and copyrighted by Marvel Comics (a date would be helpful too). A scanner possesses no copyright over a scan that would make their role relevant. Postdlf 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I know where you're coming from but that's not what's described at Wikipedia:Image description page, where the immediate source is asked for, not the ultimate source. They also refer to the image file, not the picture, and also note the following directives:
    • If you downloaded this image from the web, you should give the URL. Example:
  • If you got the image from an offline source, you should specify. For example:
    • Source: Scanned from public record #5253 on file with Anytown, Somestate public surveyor
  • The cover from which it is scanned would be required under the direction to include a description of the image. I would hope we can agree that both pieces of information are of use. Hiding talk 08:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Going through the image tags at WP:ICT, we might actually be able to use a low-res version of the non-cover image under the {{Character-artwork}} fair use argument. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.--DrBat 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Note also that this image can only be used as fair use in articles which discuss the rejected nature of the image, and that it should also be captioned to the effect that it is rejected artwork. I don't believe there is a fair use justification for using this image as the charcter description image in the infobox. Fair use only applies if no better image can be used: Marvel can quite legitimately argue that a better image than this exists, namely the one they published. Hiding talk 18:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It's essentially the same image; they just removed Mary's nipple. And I had uploaded the image that Marvel did release (w/out the nipple), but it got deleted as well. --DrBat 14:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The deletion of the second image is regrettable. I also cannot agree that it is essentially the same image; there is an essential difference. That difference being that Marvel have endorsed one but not the other. As I stated above, but will repeat, that makes a fair use defence of the unendorsed one unlikely, because fair use law is allowable on images where no better image is possible. Clearly, in this case Marvel would be able to argue a better image applied. Hiding talk 13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
How's this? --DrBat 00:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That image did not come from that source. Hiding talk 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It did. I modified it by copying the area from the new image where the nipple was removed and pasting it on the original image. --DrBat 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Only so it looks like the image actually used. If we have to, I'll just use the image from sequart, but the other one's quality is better imo. --DrBat 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Daredevil46.jpg is simply a better image than Image:TyphoidMary46.JPG. As far as I can tell, they are both fair use and the first thing I always look at is which one is simply the better picture. Those are my simple thoughts on the matter. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
See above for the reason why they are not both fair use as character illustrations on wikipedia. Hiding talk 13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Creator bibliography

I was just thinking about how to sort creators' bibliographies: Chronologically? Alphabethically? Some are even sorted by publisher, I think. Any suggestions? --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically by first issue written, IMO, with publisher cleearly visible. --Jamdav86 14:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity of Novels?

Since every once in a while we get one of those novels based on a comic book, I was wondering if we should (or do) count those in canon.--Toffile 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless a comic specifically cites events from a particular novel, we can assume they are not canon. The X-Men/Star Trek novel is definitely not canon (to either franchise); on the other hand, the events of SUPERMAN: MIRACLE MONDAY were indeed confirmed as being part of the (Pre-Crisis) Superman continuity. (See: Superwoman.)

What consequence are you implying follows from such a decision? Are you suggesting that the article shouldn't document the use of the character in "non-canonical" novels? Postdlf 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone raised the point on the Flash talk page. I was wondering if that if we considered the novels canonincal, that portions of articles might have to be rewritten, rather than just being mentioned in the External Media section. --Toffile 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense to me that the article can document the characters in non-canonical instances as long as they are specified as non-canonical. I mean, wouldn't we be remiss if we didn't mention the X-men or Batman cartoons? And if it is granted that the cartoons should be mentioned, though as non-canonical, why would the guideline for novels be any different? Sorca1701 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Articles should never be structured around "canon," but only around what is depicted where about the fictional subject. Articles should clearly state that a given story was published in a comic book, a novel, or a cartoon, or that a novel was later referenced in a comic book story. Continuity is the key concept, not "canon." Continuity emphasizes that stories build off of previously published ones, while "canon" descends into a fan obsession with what is and is not "true" about a fictional subject. Continuity also recognizes that multiple story frameworks involving the character exist, often but not always defined by separate media, while "canon" disfavors some stories or media (or simply earlier stories) to boost one particular continuity as the "truth." A fictional cartoon is no more or less "true" than a fictional comic book. And for those who would try to argue that fan perspective is dispositive, consider that more people are exposed to the average movie or cartoon episode than the average comic book issue. Are Superman's parents dead or alive? Neither. The answer entirely depends on what you're reading or viewing. Postdlf 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Canon is not just 'fan obsession,' it is a legitimate concern for many readers as well as for professional writers, who must deal with the canonicity of a particular character or event they might have to write about. See the article on canon (fiction). I do agree, however, that pointing canonical differences is not necessary for most Wiki articles, except where they have become a major issue (as with Star Trek or Star Wars.) Wilfredo Martinez 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I disagree with you, and perhaps I overstated if I suggested that canon should not at all be documented...but while canon is important to fans and comic book writers, it's simply an element that Wikipedia contributors need to consider rather than a content-determining framework. As an illustration of what I mean, check out Captain Marvel (DC Comics). The history of the character is organized according to publication history. What is "currently true" about the character according to current "canon" does not dominate, but a retcon is instead contextualized by when in that publication history the retcon was "enacted," rather than by what part of the character's fictional biography it changed. Or see Question (comics), which gives full and independent treatment to the character's Charlton publication history, DC publication history, and use in JLU. Separate continuities, each with their own "canon." Postdlf 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Academy of Comic Book Arts

Just wanted to let my colleagues know there is now an ACBA entry. Some of the awards are listed as "n.a." (information not available), so any help in confirmably and verifiably filling in the gaps would be cool. Also needed: Any info on who was president when, and when/where awards banquets took place.

FYI, I also recently added Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, so all you Golden Age history folk, link away! — Tenebrae 03:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Monolith (comics) and Monolith (DC Comics)

I just noticed this. Do we really need two articles about this series? (Stephen Day 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

Crispus Allen

Can we expand on this article? Also, should more of the information concerning him as the Spectre be placed in his article, or the Spectre's? --DrBat 22:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

His article, with a short section and Main article link on the Spectre page. - 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wiki

Is there any point in keeping Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/WikiCities Proposal? There's already a Comics Wikicity and proposed wikis should be discussed at Wikicities:Proposed wikis. It doesn't seem appropriate for this to be on Wikipedia. Angela. 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Buffy/Angel comics common format

I noticed that category:Angel (comics) has a number articles all of which begin with a bunch of statistics. They'd look much better in an infobox. Also they have a common block of text on canonicity that would make a good template. The same seems to apply to category:Buffy (comics). Anyone interested in fixing up this group of articles? RJFJR 03:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

Does anyone think most of the article reads like a massive advertisment? --DrBat 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna HEARTILY second that. For starters, somebody needs to purge that entire 'press releases' section (at most, save PART of one of them, I'd think). --InShaneee 03:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've rewritten to remove POV and also remove all the reguritated press releases. Note we can't just post entire press releases, that violates copyright and is also against policy. I tweaked the image, to my mind the poster advertising the series has more of a fair use claim than the cover of a related comic book. Hiding talk 14:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That was due to fixing a cut and paste move which separated the page history. The edit summary made a note that the page would be back soon. It takes a while for the cache to refresh and allow the correct version to be reinstated. That's one reason why people shouldn't perform cut and paste moves. Hiding talk 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thor (comics)

What would you guys think if we nominated this for featured article? It's certainly one of the most expansive the comics project has to offer. Kusonaga 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one single reference in the article, so it's probably going to fail miserably. It's also a little long; the Character biography might need some tweaking. Either way, it should be peer reviewed before nomination as FA. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, then I'd rather the article stay as it is, before modifying it to conform to FA status. Thanks though for the comment. Kusonaga 20:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should be referenced even if it's not going to be a featured article. And it's getting quite long anyway, with currently 47 kB (see Wikipedia:Article size). I think it would make sense to move much of the Character biography to a subpage and keep a shorter summary in the main article (see Wikipedia:How to break up a page). --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

DMZ

I'm thinking of starting an article about this series but I'm not sure what to title it. There already is a character named DMZ in comics making a need to disambigualte past DMZ (comics). He is listed as a member of the Blood Syndicate which was published under DC by Milestone Media. Should I title this article DMZ (DC Comics) or DMZ (Vertigo Comics)? (Stephen Day 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

The current consensus for Vertigo seems to put it under (DC Comics) in the title and state that it was published by Vertigo in the article itself. Eilu 07:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :-) (Stephen Day 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

The Hulk

There are two things to consider about the Hulk page:

  1. Why not move Hulk to a disambiguation and Hulk (comics) into Hulk?
  2. Please, move Bruce Banner (Biography) into a decent title(and turn it into a decent page)!

igordebraga ≠ 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooo boy. I haven't looked at that page in ages, and I'm shocked at how badly the split was botched. I'm folding it all back in temporarily until a better scheme for splitting is presented. - SoM 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Chiaroscuro

Thinking of writing an article for it, but don't know where (or what) it links to. Chiaroscuro is a historical fiction about Leonardo da Vinci, published by Vertigo originally as a series and recently re-published as a collection. Eilu 11:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just start writing, we'll all chip and help polish it. I think I remember the book vaguely. Hiding talk 12:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Chiaroscuro (comics) is live! (This is my first article). Can someone categorize it and add redirects from searches for "Chiaroscuro comic" "Vertigo Chiaroscuro" (and anythiong else they can think of)? I still can't understand how to do it. Eilu 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Handbooks, etc

NB: In the following post, "Handbook" should be taken to refer to all official Marvel, DC, Image, etc published fictional-character biographies, including the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Who's Who in the DC Universe, profile entries (but not stories) in DC's Secret Files & Origins, and so on. Again, text profiles and pics accompanying those profiles only though, not stories where books contain both.

I was thinking earlier tonight about the use of Handbook-derived material in WP articles. Not stuff which occurs in-story (word-for-word copying notwithstanding), but stuff which ONLY exists in the profiles, which in the case of OHOTMUs especially is more common than you'd think, both in terms of tying up percieved loose ends in the minds of the Handbook writers (which are often later contradicted if a writer decides to address the subject in-story - witness the infamous Jubilee profile in the 1989 Update OHOTMU which was wiped out in totality by later stories), strength level/etc statistics, obscure relatives, etc. On the same principle we arrived at on not allowing images created for Handbooks in articles, I can't see how we can use this stuff in WP profiles, except when discussing the OHOTMU, etc in the Handbook articles themselves.

Anyone disagree? - SoM 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, for two reasons:
1. I believe "articles" that merely summarize handbook profiles are copyright infringements.
2. Articles about fictional characters should focus on publication history, and describe how different stories have depicted a character over time.
Too many comic book character articles try to function like handbook profiles, probably because they've merely paraphrased them without regard to any other source. I'd love to see that stuff filtered out. Postdlf 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
If the information is notable, then present it, but present it in an encyclopedic way. We shouldn't be parroting this stuff. I pretty much agree with yourself and Postdlf. I'd love that stuff filtered out too. Hiding talk 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll also need to watch the new Marvel.com wiki as well. --Jamdav86 19:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are they claiming copyright on contributions? That's definitely something to keep an eye on. Hiding talk 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any sort of notice claiming copyright on the text itself on any page or their Help:Posting page, but OTOH their server is running very slowly, so I can't register to look at any user agreement. - SoM 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't tried to register, but glancing at their terms and conditions page it appears they are claiming copyright, they claim copyright on message board postings and that sort of stuff, so I would apply that to this. I think it reads all content is copyright Marvel. Hiding talk 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Starblazer

If anyone is interested, I have added a large amount to the Starblazer entry. It helps to have a full set of these comics to work from. :) If anyone wants to give an opinion, feel free. Douglasnicol 13:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks pretty good! I made some minor changes, but otherwise, my only issue is the 'possible copyright violations' section. Without any references, that's a little iffy. --InShaneee 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose I could try to scan some of the frames in to show an idea.
That constitutes original research. I would also propose excising the copyright section to the talk page, if no references are available. Homages, pastiches and swiping are long established in art, I'm not sure the issue is any more prevalent in this comic series than any other. Hiding talk 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Douglasnicol 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A little more info added. For recurring characters I've started a list of the issues they appear in. There will still be some tidying up to do, but its coming along. Douglasnicol 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the Starblazer article still warrant a stub? I'm adding quite a bit to it day to day, but it's considerably larger than it was. I don't really know if it warrants a stub now. Douglasnicol 17:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation - merge or split?

Is there any consensus on how to edit articles about fictional characters having the same name in the same timeline in the same universe (publisher)? We should merge all those, who run under the same name while separating them into section titled after their "real name"? Or we have to create every identity a separate page? I confronted this problem third times ina week now, and as I saw others have the dilemma (some reverts, some tags it, some initiates discuss on talk page). If you ask me I really think they should remain enlisted in one article with different entries for each of them until the page gets too long (in kilobytes). Please answer, if someone knows the exact WIkipedia standards concerning the matter. Lajbi 02:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you give some examples? Though from what you say, I think you've got the right idea (keep 'em on the same page until the page gets too long, usually from the characters 'distinguishing' themselves as unique). --InShaneee 03:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry examples are:Sentry (comics), Magma (comics), Tarantula (Marvel Comics)
People wearing the same name and costume but have different identities are:Red Skull, Green Goblin, and Hobgoblin (comics). Lajbi 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should depend on how the characters relate to each other. For those last three (Red Skull, Green Goblin, and Hobgoblin) I would keep them in the same article, as it is more or less the same character. For the first three (Sentry, Magma, Tarantula) I'd split them because the characters are unrelated to each other. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds kinda a logical solution, but think of the practical aspect first. Some of the namesakes above can't stand their own article, beacuse of the lack of information that can (or can't) be found in comics. But being so they're still superheros/villains not just supporting characters and therefore they deserve to be noted. Lajbi 12:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How does being a superhero/villain exclude a character from being a supporting character? Also, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) might be intesresting regarding the question of how to deal with these. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should be done according to amount of text in the article. There should only be separate pages if each character has been featured enough to deserve his own page. For example, in the Magma article, the Amara Aquila character should be the headliner, with the other two (specially the one from the Sentry miniseries, who might not even actually exist in the Marvel Universe, given recent revelations about the Sentry) should be included secundarily. On the other hand, the various Captain Marvels do deserve their own entries, as each has had a lengthy career. Wilfredo Martinez 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Lucifer (DC Comics)

I think this needs a re-write. I'm planning to:

  • Shift the focus to the character, not the series- because the character predates the series (and has appeared in several other DC publications)
  • Add other characters who play an important role in the series; those who have articles (or stubs) also need to be linked
  • Add info about the creators, writers, artists, etc.
  • Mention myths and legends from different cultures that were incorporated in the series
  • Add references!

Anyone else have suggestions? I'll probably get started next week. Eilu 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Midusunknown

I've just recently discovered that this user has been copying and pasting information from International Hero. I've not sure how many articles he's created, but its definatly more than one or two. I've already alerted him to his mistake. Hopefully we can alter the articles enough as to avoid their deletion.--KrossTalk 06:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at Special:Contributions/Midusunknown. And remember that if you rewrite information taken from another site, it's a derivative work, and so still a copyvio. You need to chuck out everything copied directly from elsewhere and, if able, substitute your own from-scratch version of the thing in question. If the whole article history is copyvio, get it deleted and start again, if not, revert to the last non-copyvio version and move on from there. - SoM 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Should this be a category?

One editor, Ibaranoff24, has begun adding the category "People who worked with Ralph Bakshi" onto pages including Wallace Wood and Roy Thomas. Does that really seem like it should be a category? That could open up "Category:People who worked with Rodney Dangerfield", or "Category:People who worked with Bob Clampett". Any thoughts? — Tenebrae 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've belatedly discovered the Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion page, which already has an active thread about this category. I've posted a comment on its March 7 page and anyone interested might want to do likewise. — Tenebrae 08:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Eve of Destruction (comics)

Can anyone seriously condense this article? The same goes for the House of M (story) article; both have a topic for each individual issue involved in the crossover/series. --DrBat 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Aliens (comics)

The Aliens (comics) has been prodded. Can some tell if it is significant? RJFJR 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the prod is wrong, but the article isn't worth keeping. I can't see anyone coming here for information on them, and if they do I don't think that's the term they'd search under. Hiding talk 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone deprodded it and moved it to The Aliens (DC comics). I don't that this is much better... RJFJR 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone want to piece together an AfD? --InShaneee 20:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll AFD it if someone can tell me what the grounds to give. RJFJR 14:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Heroclix

I've noticed some sporadic additions of Heroclix info to certain character pages. I don't believe this info should remain, because it opens the floodgates on all kinds of specific merchandise info, which also doesn't belong. HC info should probably stay in a HC-specific entry.
Also, I don't think I've ever posted in the Comics WProj; is there where you guys normally reach consensus of stuff like this? dfg 18:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a bash at generating consensus, yes. I'd agree with your position entirely, too. Hiding talk 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. This Heroclix thing is pure merchandise. Lesfer (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I posted a notice on one (anon) user's talk page (User talk:65.116.251.228) to come here and defend the practice. If anybody sees someone else doing it, feel free to cut and paste what I posted there. I'll wait a day or so for the guy to respond before I start removing the info. dfg 22:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
'Heroclix Rebuttal'. I believe that the informatin should be added as the Heroclix is closely related to the comic book characters. There's an option to show the characters in other media, and is not Heroclix just another form of media? Yes, the Heroclix are merchandise, but because they are so closely ingrained with the comic book characters, they add another dimisnion to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.251.228 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for responding. Yes, there are "other media" sections, but there is a difference between media such as movies and television, and merchandise like heroclix, trading cards, etc.. There isn't enough room in character entries to list every piece of merchandise that the character has appeared on, and frankly, the heroclix info that's been added to the articles doesn't offer any additional info aside from the fact that this partic char was in the set.
If you are intent on having HC info included on wikipedia, I think that a better location for it would be under the HC entry itself, with the specific sets listing which characters are in it. At the very *most*, perhaps you could create a category such as "Heroclix character", and add that category to the entries where it applies. If you need help doing that, just ask, and I can try to dig up some info for you. As it stands now, though, consensus here is to have the info removed, so I will get started on removing it in a few days. dfg 17:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put in my two cents that these things be removed from the articles post-haste. While I don't mind a link to these character articles in, say, List of HeroClix by set or something to that effect, the current notes add nothing to the character articles, and I'd say even smack a bit of advertising. --InShaneee 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto — agree with removing. Heroclix on its own is plenty. Can you imagine how big the Spider-Man page would be if all its merchandising were included? — Tenebrae 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Update It appears the user who added the HC material has begun adding the info to new, separate, HC articles, which I feel is harmonious with the consensus from this discussion. Thanks to all who participated for the peaceful easy resolution. dfg 16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts

I just noticed that an anonymous user deleted all of the comic book requests from this page an I thought I should report this somewhere. Stephen Day 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Green Lantern merge

I was planning to merge some of the lesser, non-headlining Green Lantern Corps members into List of Green Lanterns. I had two issues I was hoping the comics project could help me with...

  • Is anyone going to object to characters like G'nort, the various unpronouncable Lanterns, and such being merged into such a list? I don't want to step on any toes, but right now I see several articles saying little more than "Such-and-such Green Lantern appeared in issue #X, where he participated in an event that involved dozens of characters." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say omit them, all the information in an infobox can be conveyed in the text far easier in a list, I think a long list of user boxes would be far too unwieldy. Hiding talk 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I belive that the satellite GL articles should be kept and instead be cleaned up/brought up to standards. I'm not sure that making a too-large super-artcle would contribute to readablity or usability. List of Green Lanterns should be a list and conform to standards that all other Wikipedia lists do.
See: WP:LISTS
--sigmafactor 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
These are characters who can't sustain their own articles. I'm not going to merge Alan Scott or even Sinestro; I'm thinking more of characters like G'nort, Stel, and Rot Lop Fan. They're all characters who only appear in a few issues, either as one-shots or in group scenes. I've done this in other fandoms and seen in done in many more; this is suggested in WP:FICT (#2) and can be seen in action at List of Johto Gym Leaders, List of Advance Wars COs, or List of minor Star Wars Jedi apprentices. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Many of these characters have their own detailed histories and have appeared in more than five issues (often times spanning multiple GL books and volumes). Compressing them all here will eventually create a super-article that will be almost unmanagable and at the same time divert almost every single GL wikilink to one place.
Wouldn't it be better to take the time to bring each character page up to a higher level instead of deconstructing 20?
G'nort in particular has appeared in many issues of GL titles as well as a Super-Buddies limited-series.
What about the numerous superhero boxes? How would creater information be collapsed into your proposed List article?
Would it be possible for other Comics project members to comment on this? Any input at all would be appreciated. --sigmafactor 08:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Many of these characters...
Such as whom? This may just be a misunderstanding; anyone who can sustain their own article without bloat isn't going to be merged (or at least isn't going to be reverted if you unmerge them). Personally, I was planning on merging the filler GL characters; not Tomar Re or Kilowog or Sinestro, but maybe Abin Sur and definitely G'nort and any one-shot, joke, or background-only GLs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this needs verfication on a character by character bais. In particular, G'nort might have been one-note during the Bwa-ha-ha Justice League, but his numerous appearances throughout the years warrent his own article. On the topic of Abin Sur, he is a character that is part of the genesis of the GLC era. His involvement in Hal Jordan's backstory has been ret-conned and tweaked a good number of times and I believe that is notable enough for his own article.
Please don't mistake my issues with those examples as opposing the combination of true two sentence character articles. I think an undertaking like this is too big for one person to take off into wholesale without any other input. --sigmafactor 08:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On a more procedural note, can you please use Merge notice templates in the future so others are aware of potential changes? --sigmafactor 08:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you think you can expand G'nort into a properly encyclopedic article from the stubbish listing on List of Green Lanterns, go ahead and do so and unmerge it in the process. I'm not really interested in not merging something because someone thinks that an article could be expanded; generally, what happens is I end up challenging the person who thinks it to be expanded to do so, and it never happens. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this point, of course.) This is experience hard learned with List of Johto Gym Leaders, which remains my prototype for dealing with these kinds of merges, both with the actual process (which is a lot of work; usually I'm merging largely neglected articles) and with the negotiation.
As for merge tags, I don't much like them, but I'll tag the articles before I merge them if you'd like. I still need to go through all of the GLs to see who needs to be merged and who doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

<carriage return> Note that merging the articles into a list now does not stop people breaking out characters from the list to their own articles in the future when the information on them warrants it. If the articles are all stubs now, merge them. If they are of sufficient size to remain as articles, leave them be. But rememver, all articles should be encyclopedic: they should be verifiable, of neutral point of view, not original research and citing reliable sources. Hiding talk 13:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The only "articles" I would merge into such a list would be much like G'nort; stubs bloated with plot detail or repetition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After a night of rest, I think I see your point of view now. I was being a little unwaivering for too long last night, as well. I'd be happy help you out in the future.
To explain my motivation for focusing on G'nort: the character is heavily indicative of the Bwa-ha-ha style that Giffen and DeMatteis wrote during the late 80s/early 90s. It helped revive JLA titles and didn't let the writing take itself too seriously. What is unique and interesting is that this non-apolagetic style of big heros and big villians not being deadly serious at all times sold extremely well, but was very rarely reproduced at the time. Today, writers like Dan Slott and Robert Kirkman seem influenced by Bwa-ha-ha and it seems to be making somewhat of a comeback.

I'm going to take some time and track down sources to form a solid article on the style. --sigmafactor 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Inkpot Award

To my surprise, I found there was no article for the comic-book / comic-strip Inkpot Award presented since 1974 by the San Diego Comic-Con International.

Comic-Con has an alphabetical list. I've created an award list by year, and populated it through "B". Anyone willing to help to take a letter or two can use the commented-out, alphabetical list from the official site, which is viewable at Inkpot Award under "Edit This Page" — Tenebrae 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Strange: Template, non-NPOV

Just wanted to draw the troop's attention to a major Marvel character's article/section that might need some adjusting. At Doctor Strange is a "List of significant stories" that appears way not Wikistyle, what with temporal terms as as "recent"; uncited and contradictory statements ("Some fans consider this one of the best recent Dr. Strange stories. Others consider the plot rather standard"), non-encyclopedi language ("save his mother from Mephisto's clutches in Hell!"), etc.

Elsewhere in the ComicsProject, such subjective lists of stories have been rejected as non-NPOV.

This section says, for example, "Some consider Ditko, Englehart, and Stern the three writers to have mastered Dr. Strange." Aside from there being no citation, it shard to imagine that scripter and co-creator Stan Lee would be left out, for example. What is the criteria for inclusion here? Are these stories award-winners? Did they cause a spike in sales, as per the annual published circulatoin statement of industry-press reportage? Is there citable or linkable concensus? Right now it appears to be a list of one or two editors' personal favorites.

It's a problematic section that per Wikistandards needs to be deleted or heavily modified for style and objectivity. I give slightly expanded reasoning/examples of the Dr. Strange discussion pge. Thanks, all — Tenebrae 15:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I was just checking out the newly formed Wikiproject Supernatural, and I noticed they made themselves a userbox for its members. That doesn't sound like a bad way to advertise, what do you guys think? --InShaneee 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Comics.
Isn't this one ours? I found it in the Userboxes directory and have it on my userpage (haven't looked at other people's userpages though, so I don't know if it's in common usage). --Eilu 14:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Alrighty, cool. Somebody should put that on the main project page so it's easier to find! --InShaneee 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Added to main page. Hiding talk 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: Powers section

This was brought up a while ago, I see [6], but not really discussed. The template page [7] states that it should be kept brief, 'cause elaboration should be done in the main article body, but nearly every box I see "violates" the standard. Can we get an impromptu vote on whether (a) the policy needs to be reevaluated, or (b) stick with existing policy and remove excess info? I don't think the status quo is helping anybody, especially new people.
My vote is Stick with current policy (time and laziness permitting) dfg 20:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I stick with what I said there - as short as reasonably possible, in list form only. - SoM 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Short and sweet works for me. Hiding talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I vote for enforcing current policy as well. Lesfer (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

X-Men article

Hi all,

I'm taking another shot at molding the X-Men article into shape. It's a big, unweildly one so I'd like some input/help. See Talk:X-Men and X-Men new article temp. Thanks

Rorschach567 12:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_9&oldid=1111578997"