Talk:JLA/Avengers

Imperiex

Perez ignores DC's Imperiex? A vital being living from the previous universe?

Trivia item about Captain America and Martian Manhunter

Trivia:

"In the final battle against Krona, Captain America leads the joint JLA/Avengers team in their struggle, aided by the Martian Manhunter's telepathic link (each is famously the only character to appear in all incarnations of their respective teams)."

I'm not actually sure why this is relevant; is there a significant connection between the two "leading" in this instance and their constant presence in their respective teams?

Also, since the Avengers operated without Cap for the first few issues, does this count as an incarnation of the team that did not include him? And what of the 1950's Avengers, who weren't ever called by that name in the main Marvel Universe, but nonetheless are officially Avengers in at least one other universe, and did not count Cap as a member? Technicalities, probably. Kelvingreen 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Initiative-wise, there are two or three Avengers operating, and the original Captain America -- the one that the article references -- is, y'know, dead. 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.140 (talk)

Publication Date

In the lead it states (2003), but in the infobox it states (September 2004 - April 2005). Which is it? Grey Shadow | Talk 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tidy Up

Replaced main image with a nice promotional shot of the core heroes that can actually be seen. Culled other image as bad fit and begun to try and re-edit the article so less like a fan entry and more Wiki-correct.

Asgardian 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Finished tidy up. Removed large chunks of text that were simply unsourced POV and also the "tell the story" aspects. The Trivia section was an extension of this and just relayed the story. Will try and find sources for the PH section as some claims are still unsubstantiated.

Asgardian 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the "The Items of Power" section would have been quite useful and worth leaving in. (Emperor 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

They are still mentioned in the Plot Summary with the appropriate links, just not as a list.

Asgardian 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do know the S in Plot summary should not be capitalized, don't you? Wryspy 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A small oversight, and easily fixed. Thank you for pointing it out.

Asgardian 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed second image as it displaced the text, has poor labelling, is difficult to see and not required for an article this size. Small "s" added for summary.

Asgardian 05:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very fine image. See it in full resolution. 83.10.193.213 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is far too big for the article. The image is also weak in that characters are difficult to see and not in standard superhero pose.

Asgardian 22:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the panel image that has been added and removed regularly the past week or so, User: Asgardian has said that no argument for the image has been made. While I feel the 4-5 editors that have added it clearly demonstrate consensus for this images inclusion, for the sake of avoiding a semantic debate, here is an argument for the inclusion of this image:

- Images and artwork of this sort enhances reader understanding of comics articles, since the medium consists of both language and graphic art. Therefore a example image of the storytelling portion of an work more clearly expresses that work in an article about it than a "posed" panel, or other promotional artwork

- Simplicity does not necessarily mean minimalist. While I agree that this comics related article (like many others) was in need of paring down a month ago, its prose is now much tighter and there is far less concern about "clutter" or general article size than before.

- Wikipedia works best when issues are resolved so that interested parties can move on to continuously improve articles. Conflict for conflict sake over minutia is a waste of resources. Put the panel image in, let's all move on.

Now there's an argument or two for it's inclusion beyond the "counting heads" consensus building already in place. Hope this helps -Markeer 20:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except that almost all Wikipedia entries of this size has only one image. It is clutter and as JGreb indicates not even a very good picture for reasons he and I have already explained. It works on a fan site, but not here. Find another image that is more appropriate and slot in down the bottom on the left for a test drive.

Asgardian 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You made the article almost worthless to people who actually want to research the miniseries without actually wanting to pay $75 for it. Clap, clap.

Let see -- from this article, can you tell: 1. who's involved? 2. the differences between the DC and Marvel Earths? 3. Any useful information at all that you couldn't get from a seller's synopsis?

How about tackling Citizen Kane now? I'd love to see how you pare that down. JAF1970 14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to grasp is that these entries are not blow-by-blow synopses of stories. The previous effort was better suited to a fan site and contained paragraphs full of POV, the wrong tense and other such faux pas. The article as it stands contains all the necessary PH information and a suitable plot summary that provies the gist of the story - with all items mentioned I might add - without any opinion or great spoilers. There is also a very CLEAR image - the best yet - of the core players in the SHB. Also note the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. And save the applause for others.

Asgardian 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with Early Plans For The Crossover? The info in that section really does come from the Avengers/JLA Compendiun. The Follow Up section seemed valid as well. 71.115.195.228 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No sources. It is all hearsay unless there is a definative source.

Asgardian 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm typing this on another computer, but any. The information comes from an official book from the company. How much more definate can you get? How do I link to a source that's in a book and not online? 71.120.233.114 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop all the relevant information in a reference after the last sentence. Title, author, pages, date of publication, company etc.

Asgardian 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Log on

User ID's only please. If there are any more anonymous efforts I will ask a moderator to place a lock on the page so only a registered user can modify it.

Asgardian 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edit history, it appears only two anonymous users have contributed to this article (and one of those only a minor edit), and their edits appear to be in good faith even if you don't agree. Please assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers Asgardian. Someone who wishes to include an image from a comic book in an article about that comic book is not being a vandal, they are seeking to improve the article in what they believe to be the best way. Disagreement is not grounds for semi-protecting an article. -Markeer 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but we have at least on person hiding behing anonymous codes as opposed to using a username. They have been asked to log on and still it persists. The reasons for the changes have been posted, and no one has addressed them. I can only say again, passion is a great thing, but things have to be done the Wikipedia-way.

Asgardian 01:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that there is no rule against anounymous users, it's just you thinking that your personal opinions are law. If you think I'm a vandal, then check my edit history. While I will admit to having a quarrel or three, my edits thus far have been legitament until I'm informed otherwise that is.

What I think is that you place yourself above others because you have a long edit history. From what I've seen you do more deleting than contributing information, and I believe you do so for personal reasons. Otherwise you'd discuss first, delete second. And considering you've been blocked for your actions before, you're in no place to lord it over newbies. 71.120.233.114 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is lording it over anyone. And how can we tell who's who without usernames?

Asgardian 04:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to "tell who's who" except in the case of straw polls, which has not been done here as of yet. In this case it's also basically moot since the IP addresses that have added the image and discussed the issue here appear to be the same user (at least in context) and because two other individuals (User:LexingtonDark and User:Q Original have also been attempting to add the image, making any "anonymous" argument specious.

Again Asgardian: It is 100% against Wikipedia's guidelines to demand individuals to create accounts. One of the fundamentals of the project is that anyone can edit. Once again I will ask you, please, to re-read don't bite the newcomers and assume good faith. -Markeer 12:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By lording it over, I mean for one thing, you instantly delete something without bringing it to the discussion page first. It makes it seem like you delete something based on your own personal views on the matter. Personal views have no place here. Your reasoning for users to log on is due to one of them causing trouble, but you've violated some rules yourself despite beign a logged on user. 71.115.195.228 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 85.97.5.140 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Keep an eye on the reverts things are already bordering on an edit war (some of the editors are reportable). The bottom line is, if people have an issue with the trimmed down version Asgardian has done then discuss it here first. For the record the second image on the page is not needed and isn't a very good choice for the medium (the amount of detail seems more suited to a print-based encyclopaedia). (Emperor 01:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Thank you. This goes to my comments posted above, which no on has refuted. It has to be done the Wikipedia way. Unfortunately, this is not a fan site. As for the 3RR, it has to be three in 24 hours. I'm watching it, but will keep wiping that image until those involved come here to discuss. This too is the Wikipedia way.

Asgardian 01:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also the wikipedia way to accept consensus, and by my count at least three unique users have attempted to add the additional image. Personally I prefer simpler articles to "busy" ones so given a choice I would most likely go with only one image, but I think in this case it's more a matter of taste than of any editorial policy that I'm aware of. The crowd seems to have spoken in favor of adding the image of the crowd scene, so unless there's a fair use or other copywright issue with that image I'd say add it and stop this edit war. It's a cosmetic difference at best with decent arguments either way. -Markeer 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What I might do is go through an older edit and pick out some of the material that is currently not here (I thought the team and item lists were helpful and stopped the main prose getting too "listy"). If we can batter out an actual consensus version we can then discuss moving things forward to refine the edit back into a more solid shape. And yes I think the second image is undeeded - it is also not worth an edit war over ;)

Also even if we are just sailing this side of violating 3RR the constant removal and deletion of the image is against the spirit of the thing and needs to be stopped (the last 7 edits have been over the image and gaming the system is not the way to maintain the moral highground). The world is not going to end because a picture stays in the entry until we can discuss the best way forward. (Emperor 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

A few other thoughts...

1. Right now I cannot see how a Fair Use Rational can be applied to the dinner party. It doesn't support much of anything in the article as it is constituted right now. It isn't a pivotal plot image. It isn't even a clear image of the predominant cast. That leaves it being just decoration. Even if the article is expanded, that image will still have the same problem.
2. The 'box image is not the best choice for the article. Since it is about a comic boo series, use of the cover of an issue of that series, as published, is more appropriate.
3. In that vein, the current 'box image would work better as a spot image supporting the section of the article discussing the process the two companies went through to get the series off the ground.

- J Greb 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does not "have to be three in 24 hours" as Asgardian put it earlier. The 3RR policy clearly says that it is not a license to make 3 reverts every 24 hours. A person can get a 3RR ban for repeatedly and blatantly violating its spirit, the intent of which is to avoid revert wars. Wryspy 03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If so then they have broken it - the entire history of this page is half a dozen editors putting it back in and Asgardian reverting it. (Emperor 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Image is back for discussion

The image is back and I've added a comment asking people not to remove it unless there is a consensus here - this low level edit war might just avoid getting people reported for breaking 3RR but it could still end up getting people reported and of the last couple of dozen of edits they are all removing and restoring the one image and that is no way to go about things. (Emperor 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Arguments for using the image have not addressed Fair_use_rationale#Necessary_components. When copyvio is at stake, image must stay OUT till settled. Wryspy 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine - all I want is people to stop edit warring over the page and address the issue and come to a consensus on the image.

My opinion still stands - it is a poor image to use on such a page (too much detail to be useful here) and it doesn't illustrate a point in the text and thus probably violates FUR. So I vote for it to go for good. (Emperor 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Should we put a mark on the image it's self in case it gets deleted due to it begin orphaned.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can do if you like. Or add it to your watchlist and address the issue if it comes up. (Emperor 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Ok done and done, so lets discuss now, I think that the image should stay up, it shows an important part of the story that well, they are "fighting" each other, but they really don't hate each other.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 13:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be a relatively important point in the story, but it needs to have a passage in the article that it directly supports and clarifies. Right now, that doesn't exist. - J Greb 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So...... someone add it then.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything that isn't better done in the text - all it shows is that they all got together. Which we already knew. If people want to know how they got on and what they talked about then they'd be better off reading the comic. (Emperor 01:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

JLA & Avengers templates at bottom of page

Reverting back and forth is silly. Obviously people haven't convinced each other about reasons to include or exclude the templates. So make your case and vote. If a clear majority view emerges, go with it and be done with this. Doczilla 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Having both makes sense to me.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 00:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wryspy 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I added them back as they are a standard navigational tool these days and both are appropriate to the article. (Emperor 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Listing all titles? How is that relevant here? It should be on their home pages.

Asgardian 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, both nav boxes are used on articles outside of the articles they list, but relate almost solely to the topics of the 'boxes, including story arcs.

However, even if the 'boxes were to be made collapsible, I think Asgardian has a solid point: the linkages to the main Avengers and Justice League articles should be enough to get those starting with this article more information. That is where the 'boxes would work best, on the major points of interest, directing to the same, basically what's in the 'box. - J Greb 07:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe in links, but it is just a case of overkill here. A-Next? JL Europe? Save it for their home pages. By that logic, every page mentioning these teams has to have this "advert" for their titles. Too much.

Asgardian 05:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• So that's two votes to include and two to exclude. When the sheer number of votes doesn't establish any semblance of consensus, we then have to look at the number and quality of the arguments themselves. Very little reason to include was offered. Saying that it "makes sense to me" is not a reason. Saying that it's a "standard navigational tool" does not explain why this article should include the template while many, many articles about JLA or Avengers stories exclude, nor does that address the specific reasons for exclusion. Given the weight of the arguments, I'm going to vote to exclude. (Any reader can follow linked text to JLA or Avengers anyway.) Should a lot of fresh opinions weigh in to shift a consensus the other way, I would say to stop reverting back and forth and just accept the consensus regardless of lack of further reasons for inclusion, but that's certainly not the case now. Exclude templates. Doczilla 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Avengers-JLA.gif

Image:Avengers-JLA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Avengers-JLA.gif

Image:Avengers-JLA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Not encouraged by Wikipedia, especially when just really telling the story, and being written in such a bias style, a la the Superman reference. As such, it has no place here.

Asgardian (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how the Superman material may have been irrelevant, but how was it biased? Antiyonder (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)