Talk:List of government agencies in comics

Dizzy

Thanks for filling out the Marvel and Wildstorm sections! I knew there were more agencies out there. --Basique 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

It has been suggested that Aladdin Assault Squad (comics) be merged into this article, pelase discuss. --Basique 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Split

I think this page would work better if split into multiple pages based on publisher. FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Split if for nothing else to give the article room to have the entries that do not have their own articles a chance to be expanded. If that cannot be done after the split, it may be that the list needs to be dismantled totally. - J Greb 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Split Marvel and DC and leave the rest here. (Emperor 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

dcuguide

What is this dcuguide? Is it RS? Sarvagnya 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of evaluating it. It looks fishy, but it just might barely squeak by WP:V as a valid secondary or tertiary source. Groupthink 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time you put up a page for deletion which is used by half the Project, you notify both the page creator and the Project. --Basique 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't put up the page, I edited it appropriately. Since when am I required to notify anyone about fixing problems with a page? Groupthink 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you've rewritten your comment after-the-fact, and I'll reply. It is considered good Wikiquette to notify the page creator of an AfD, and I failed to do so, so I apologize. However, would you care to point out the guideline which says that Projects have to be notified as well? I'm only asking semi-rhetorically; I've read the WP guidelines pretty thoroughly, but I suppose it's possible that I missed something. Groupthink 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you have an issue with the use of DCU Guide as a reference, then take it up with the entire Project on the Project's discussion page. --Basique 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Which project are you talking about? And I am not going around looking for a 'project' to ask my questions. The 'project' will come here and answer my questions here. Sarvagnya 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I am not familiar with any WP guideline which states that Projects are granted any sort of authority, supervisory or otherwise, over any page whatsoever. How about addressing our concerns instead of pulling rank? Groupthink 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The unofficial DCU guide is used as a reference for this article. If I have an issue with it, I will take it up on this talk page. Groupthink 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I highlighted my additions for emphasis after I realized that I had left them out of the original posting, but I'm not sure why you did it. I have posted a topic about this on the Project page see the link below. --Basique 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the link below and it took me to a discussion somewhere where you were whining about the article being put up for deletion. That is not what I'm asking. My question is - who the hell is dcuguide? Who runs it? What are their credentials? Are they acknowledged experts in the field? Answer these questions or I shall be removing all the so called references. Sarvagnya 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your initial statement and assume good faith. Following the link to DCU Guide might help you figure out exactly what it is, why don't you try doing that. I dislike ultimatums, especially in Wikipedia, so do try and temper your language. After checking your discussion page and contribution history I can see that this has been an issue in the past. Any other questions you have can be answered by Project members in the discussion link provided below, I have removed myself from this issue. --Basique 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think I havent tried digging myself? Like Groupthink observes below, I havent found a single page on the site which states in clear terms who runs the site and what their credentials are. In the absence of such information, we cant consider it anything more than a fan site. And before you think it fit to pass judgement on my 'temper' I'd appreciate it if you would answer the simple and straight question I asked at the beginning of this section instead of giving me links to discussions which do not address my concerns. Sarvagnya 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sarvagnya, but I myself have looked at several of the DCU pages, and I still don't have a good sense of who created the site, who maintains the site and what their credentials are. Does anyone happen to know this info? (On a side note, Toonapedia I'd say passes muster as far as WP:V since it's created/maintained by a professional in the field.) Groupthink 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit/tag war

Small (maybe) observations:

1. The "Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe" website:
   1. It's hard to see how this fits under "self-published sources" as per WP:SPS. If it does then any website that is self-maintained by an organization becomes suspect. Is there a better tag that could be applied on the question of reliability and verifiability as a secondary or tertiary source?
   2. Also, it looks like the fundamental reliability and verifiability of the source is in question. In that case it goes beyond this one article and should become a topic of discussion for the Project(s) that can or do use the site as a reference, if not a general third party venue. I believe there is such a place with in Wiki, but its name is escaping me at the moment.
2. The placement of the SPS tag is, in and of itself, suspect. Since it refers to the "article" shouldn't it go at the top of the article?
3. The "lack of cite/ref" section tags looks redundant given there is also an article level tag of the same type attached.
4. The split tag: Since there is a discussion space opened for on the talk page, it valid that it be on the article. That being said, if an editor has a strong enough opinion to either delete or read add the tag, the should be voicing why in the discussion.
5. The ref for S.T.A.R.S. (Marvel comics) that was removed is hard to justify for use: It's background material for a fan-run, message-board driven RPG. Not the best of sources by any stretch.

- J Greb 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk

Here is a link to the discussion topic for this issue on the Project page. --Basique 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the tags as best I could. Below are the ones that I removed. I think I incorporated everything as well as possible, but I'm posting them below because there is a good chance I messed things up. -Freak104 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

{{context}} {{Notability|date=August 2007}} {{Primarysources|article|date=August 2007}} {{Cleanup-comics|date=August 2007}} {{Comics-in-universe|date=August 2007}}

Nice cleanup job, less cluttered while still conveying article issues. Groupthink 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Unofficial DCU Guide

The Unofficial DCU Guide cites information published by DC comics in its Who's Who in the DC Universe, which is why it is used as a source on that page. and the Secret Files and Origins publications and pages. It includes information from DC Comics press releases on sites like Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Comic Bloc, Comicon.com and Silver Bullet Comics. As well as solicitation information and in universe profiles from the DC Comics website. These sources more than qualify it as a primary reference. And seeing as Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that This page is a guideline, not a policy I have no problem invalidating this particular claim of yours, which seems to be the entire basis of all your other arguments. --Basique 12:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well why didn't you say so? Gosh, that magically makes every concern disappear. NOT.

There is nothing on that website that indicates what it cites, and even if there was, indirect citing of sources goes much less further toward establish verifiability than direct citing of sources. If you know for a fact that the above-listed sources are referenced, why don't you start citing them for this article? Groupthink 14:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Unofficial DCU guide has the following at the bottom of their home page: "This page and all text herein is Copyright © 107 The Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe". The "107" refers to §107 of the US Copyright Act, which pertains to "fair use". Unfortunately, if in fact that site is excerpting from published sources, their excerpts go way beyond what constitutes "fair use".

So either: 1) The Unofficial DCU guide is committing a copyright violation, which means that Wikipedia is committing a copyright violation by linking to it (see here for more info), or 2) they're just making their content up, which makes them a self-published questionable source.

Either way, I say that the DCU has to go, but I'll leave the citations in place for now to let others give their opinion. Groupthink 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be that if we disallowed this site (without any specific examples of copyright violation) then we'd really have to disallow most others. That said I don't think the site is ideal as a source (it doesn't cite references so we have no way for people to be able to follow up and verify things said) and I'd like to see us work to replace the DCUGuide links with better ones - you'd want something of the quality of the International Heroes Catalogue. So don't remove them all right away (unless anyone can identify a specific issue) but work on phasing them out in favour of better sources. (Emperor 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

We should remove the references that are based on DCUGuide. I don't think it can be considered a RS. Whether it should be allowed in external links in general, I don't know. All or most of the external links should actually be removed or changed because they point to homepages, not pages that directly relate to government agencies in comics. - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Split vote

Should this list be split into multiple lists by company? Please vote here.

No - I vote to keep the article as is, with all the information in one place. --Basique 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's already a vote section above. Groupthink 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Basique has regretfully bypassed negotiation, requests for comment and third opinion and has instead chosen to take the somewhat confrontational step of going straight to filing a formal mediation request. It is unfortunate that this editor has refused to address any of the legitimate concerns that I and other editors have raised regarding this article, and has instead gone the route of impugning my character and my motives and stubbornly reverting legitimate edits rather than engaging in constructive dialogue. I get the impression that Basique feels that he or she owns this article and feels affronted that any "outsider" would dare tread on her or his territory.

In any event, the request was premature and I therefore rejected it. Groupthink 07:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This coming from Groupthink a man or woman who chose not to exercise "Good Faith" and has been continually confrontational. I see no point in attempting to discuss or negotiate anything with you, and in fact find it more prudent to ignore you. So seeing as you intend to camp this page, you are more than welcome to it. Please refrain from contacting me about this issue in the future. --Basique 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Could we get something more specific on this? The whole page has been blanked (despite having information from different companies) and the source of this violation is www.dccomics.com which is unhelpful as I don't believe the site has a list of organisations. So any help would be gratefully appreciated on resolving this issue. (Emperor 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I see a little edit war has broken out. This edit claims to add sources [1] but only adds in marvel.com and darkhorse.com and again I am not aware of what specifically has been taken from there as these are inadequate as sources. It might be best if the editor(s) read WP:COPYVIO about what constitutes a copyright violation and then if they still think they've got a case provide better evidence for this. (Emperor 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

"If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Struct 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with one of our external links? Just remove the external link then. Phil Sandifer 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Which link is it by the way? (Emperor 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Whoah, ah say, whoah thayah! I wasn't pushing above to kill the whole article, just to purge the DCU guide and rewrite using reliable/verifiable sources. Well, great, now we've got to wait a week for an admin to review this. If anyone wants to work on the article in the meantime, though, see the article for instructions on creating a temp page that can be moved back into place once the review is complete. Groupthink 16:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK good, an admin has speedy kept this, but we've still got to deal with the UDCU guide problem. Groupthink 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use?

The fair usage of the Checkmate image seems questionable to me. I'm not sure how it communicates necessary information to the reader as it is used currently. If it were used in the Checkmate article or even the Checkmate section of this article, sure. But as the main image displayed next to the TOC, it doesn't seem useful. Feel free to disagree. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would really meet FU guides even if it were moved. It isn't indicative of all government agencies in comics, and for it to be justifiable in a specific section, the majority of the sections of equivalent wight would need images. Otherwise it's just decoration. - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup work

I am addressing your recent disruptive edits to List of government agencies in comics a page you appear to have an issue with. If you want to make constructive edits to the page without disrupting the layout then do so, but I'd rather you didn't make any sweeping changes to page so heavily deeplinked by other comic project pages without a consensus vote by the members of the Project who maintain that page. If you feel the need to edit something, you might want to try the Wikipedia Sandbox. --Basique (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject has no veto power, and certainly, to my knowledge, does not work by a vote. Groupthink is free to clean up a flawed article, which this surely was. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who's being disruptive by attacking me personally, undoing my work for the sake of making a point, taking unfair ownership, and failing to assume good faith for the sake of a vendetta. As Phil Sandifer points out, my edits cleaned up a deeply flawed article, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Oh, and even if your project had some sort of special privilege, you had months and months to address the issues that I pointed out, and you did nothing. I'm well within WP policy to be bold and perform cleanup myself. Groupthink (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Now now -let's not treat the WikiProject as a "your project" sort of thing - I'm an active participant in that project. I don't recall an effort co lean it up being floated to the project, but I'm sure we would have, and I'm sure we would have, in the end, done it similarly to how you did. So thanks. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more of the same,you've failed at two attempts to delete this article, so now you are deliberately gutting the article. This has nothing to do with ownership or cleaning up the page. And checking the page history Phil would have shown you that the Project was called in earlier. Groupthink chose to ignore and revert our edits at the time. --Basique (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2¢ or so from the side line...

It looks like we are heading into an edit war, so it may be time for both Basique and Groupthink to back off and re-think how to approach this.

Groupthink, based on you past associated with this page, your initial edits after the last AfD you called can look like vindictive editing. It isn't until Phil got involved that the edits took a tone of fixing rather than "slash and burn".

Basique, you are exercising ownership over the article. You are reverting to your preferred version over what have become good faith edits by more than one editor. A version that does have serious shortcomings.

Let's head this off now. Both of you please step back from editing this article right now, regardless of which version is currently up, and put it up for an RfC. And in doing that make sure it's tagged and neutrally posted where those who may be interested will see that it needs help. - J Greb (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with an RfC, and I'm also fine with not including the header warning templates as long as my cleanup work is not reverted again by Basique. In fact, I believe that I called for an RfC a long time ago, as well as a request for a third opinion. Groupthink (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do you one betetr since I'm archiving all the pages I've ever built on Wikipedia in preparation for Knol, I'll just walk away, I can easily replicate this data anywhere. --Basique (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming license compatibility, yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

third opinion request

Someone asked for a third opinion; but it looks like there's more than 2 editors involved; and it's not real clear what, exactly, the dispute is about. An article request for comment might be more in order; and commenters will definately want to see diffs. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

IINM, a need for a 3O is now moot, but if other editors desire, I'd be happy to put in an RfC. Groupthink (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Agency

The very first entry is incorrect or something. It looks like there are two articles that share the same name, one from DC and one from Image. How could we best fix this? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision

Main page revised so that it serves its purpose as an informational resource. --Basique (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought a nice consensus had been worked out. Ah well. Do you want to open the RfC, or shall I? Or is this going to degenerate into another edit war? Groupthink (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching your other revert wars and disruptive behavior I checked your Talk page, so go right ahead P. --Basique (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." Groupthink (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When a contributor is being as disruptive as you've proven to be, then character comes into play. You know initially I thought this was actually about content but then it occurred to me that the attack on this specific page was actually personal. It's not really a page you just stumble across. Of course I realize that assumption must be wrong, no one would create an account solely to attack specific people on Wikipedia. So I'm assuming good faith here. --Basique (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't think filing a spurious sock puppet accusation and reactivating a two month old edit war is the sort of thing you do after assuming good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're disputing the Sock Puppet accusation Phil, and attacking Doczilla's Admin nomination because of it, so how does that apply to my discussion with Groupthink? The same of course goes for the Edit dispute. I don't exactly understand your point here, are you admitting something? --Basique (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What in the name of God are you even talking about? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Phill, for a little clarity, IIUC, Basique believes that you and Groupthink are the same editor since you have both been coming down hard on this list and his position.

Even if edits timed like this and this make that a little hard to buy.

Basique, please, step back, take a deep breath, and discuss the article. If you feel that there is socking, follow through on the report you started and, if needs be, ask for a checkuser. If you fee that you've gotten the short end, take it to ANI. - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, someone has messed up a lot of the links. Instead of going to a group certain links seem to lead to something else entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.131 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating page

Going to to rebuild and update the page's tables using the tables from List of black superheroes as the template. --Xero (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)