Jump to content

Talk:Living Laser

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expand, please

[edit]

"Recently after returning to earth, Tony Stark offered to cure him, by removing his powers, but it went horribly wrong."

Care to expand on that??? 66.167.147.162 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tags

[edit]

The whole "third party" claim was shot down in two separate discussions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_the_Living_Planet

As for in-universe, in a FCB that is fine. A PH could be added that is out of universe, but I have to say (being the one to rewrite the article and get to it to something resembling encyclopedia-class), that most of it is very clinical, sourced and has the appropriate links. Not even close to being as fannish as some of the other efforts out there. Up for comment.

Asgardian (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires fiction to be written about in an out-universe fashion, and does not distinguish between FCB and PH. The FCB and Powers sections constitute the majority of the article's content, and are in-universe, which is unacceptable. Moreover, the Powers section is completely unsourced. Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the article is better written than most, and I'd like someone to show me a strong out of universe article. Hard to do given this is fiction. The Powers section is also unsourced in the majority of the articles. That will remain the case until some conscientious soul can source abilities via the comics (as publications such as The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe are incorrect and subjective). Big ask.

Asgardian (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presented a good out-universe article to you (one that Wikipedia guidelines themselves name as a good example) on September 25 on the Black Bolt Talk Page, in which I pointed out to you that:


Your only response to this was to say that that article needed "reworking", but you didn't explain what sort of "reworking" it needed, particularly as it pertained to Wikipedia's policy on writing about fiction in an out-universe manner. The fact remains that WP policy on writing about fiction is clear, and we cannot simply ignore it because we don't like titles in the text. As for powers, big ask or not, WP:V requires sources. If you can find sources to support the info in the PH, then it can be found for other information in the article. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CM article is not bad, but has some POV and colloquial speak. Asgardian (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do POV or colloquialisms have to do with in-universe or out-universe? And btw, thank you for finally putting your signature right after the end of your post. It makes the thread much easier to read. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a dog. I've had an attempt at clean-up but there is nothing to work with, it's just plot summary and more plot summary. How this article will be developed further in line with the MOS is beyond me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I 've had to take a technical brush to your edits, but it now looks pretty solid. Unfortunately with C-grade characters it is simply a case of tell the story, but nothing can be done. Tags removed as no longer necessary. Hopefully that will that - far too much attention to a very minor article. Asgardian (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good clean-up but the primary source tag stands until that problem is fixed. If it cannot be fixed, the article should be merged somewhere or deleted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All covered here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_the_Living_Planet

Asgardian (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly

[edit]

He does this in the Iron Man TV series, but I don't see a reference anywhere. Haven't read the comics in which he appeared, so is he ever capable of flight? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

[edit]

I thought I'd add my two cents on the whole situation going on right now. Speaking as not only a comic book fan, but a Wikipedia reader, the current way this article looks is horrible, and it looks like a mess. Imagine a normal person accessing the article, who wanted to find out more information on Living Laser. Do you think they would find this article easy to read? There are numbers and numbers and numbers EVERYWHERE. What was wrong with the old way to cite comic books? Why do they have to be named in the article? All it does it make it look like a horribly dis-organized mess, sloppy and hard to read. This article went from looking like it belonged on Wikipedia to belonging on a fansite, with how the references are placed throughout the article inside the article itself. Isn't there a better way to do this than just sloppily placing them into the article itself? CarpetCrawler (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we are currently managing a somewhat difficult user who is very blunt. More discussion is required, but I am confident it will pass. Asgardian (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am sure I've mentioned this elsewhere but we do need to try and footnote as many of the primary references as possible because, as we can see here, it really disrupts the flow of the article. (Emperor (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

RfC:Need for Third Party Tags

[edit]

This was previously discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_the_Living_Planet

In both instances the motion to add the tag was defeated. 125.7.52.129 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could get really circular as they are AfD and don't contain a motion about the tag (it is more to do with whether a lack of third party coverage means it fails WP:N/WP:FICT). What it contains is Asgardian saying it isn't a problem and other more general discussion.
I assume this tag is about WP:V (otherwise we'd be seeing notability tags) and while we obviously use the primary source there is no reason we can use third party source that back this up (after all some things might be open to interpretation: is that character the same as another character, what actually happened. who was that in the scene?). Now I have no problem with using the Appendix [1] - if it is good enough for Marvel to use as a source then I think that should be good enough for us. Also this pulls up the GCDB results: {{gcdb|type=character|search=Living+Laser|title=Living Laser}} thusly: "Living Laser at the Grand Comics Database" which should be enough when combined to show the primary source used here are the right ones and that we haven't missed anything important out. So rather than going around in circles, I think this is enough to address the third party concerns as far as WP:V goes. (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Actually you've come at this sideways - the problem is not *this* particular article, it's the general principle involved. Asgardian is arguing that those AFDs say that comic articles don't require secondary sources (why he thinks that I'm not sure, because they don't argue that) and because of that, if an editor adds the {{primarysources}} tag, then it can be removed because of this vague odd get-out clause. My position is that's bollocks of the first order and runs entirely against core community policies and guidelines. The addition of a maintaince tag to draw to the attention of other editors that an article contains only primary sources is SOP and that removal without addresssing the issue raised is disruptive. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda thought that was what I was getting at (while remaining civil): those links are to AfDs which discuss a whole different issue (generally related to notability) and there is no motion (so it can't be defeated) and all it confirms is that Asgardian has said the same thing before. These tags have nothing to do with that - all articles should have third party sources, even if those are ultimately also based on the primary sources. If anyone wants to argue that comics are somehow exempt then they are welcome to start that discussion in the right forum but I can't see it going anywhere (comics are no different from other output like books or films). We should always be aiming to make all articles as good as possible but insisting you can rely on primary sources will stall that process early on - what about character creation? Character development? What were the creators thinking?
We'd be better served addressing the tags. Rather than arguing around and around. I give some ideas above and he also appears in 500 Comic Book Villains (page 70 - click preview at that link). (Emperor (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
thanks for clearing that up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Emperor. With the comic articles, we have to take what we can get, which often isn't much. That doesn't, however, mean that an article must be deleted because of a lack of primary sources. That kind of bizarro-logic was soundly thrashed when a past user suggested it.
Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. If no primary sources exist then there isn't much that can be done about it. If we could merge this, where would it go to? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not anywhere - there are far too many of these types of articles for a merge. As to primary sources, surely the comics themselves - published by the creators of the entire fictional universe - are enough. They defined the rules and regulations of said universe before any other secondary material ever existed. Asgardian (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "enough". Without any sources other than the comics (or others that are also purely based on primary sources) the article will struggle to improve in quality. Given the mention in the 5000 Comic Book Supervillain book and appearances in other media, we can, I feel satisfy WP:N/WP:FICT but without any background information, analysis, etc. we can't write a well rounded article (and it is probably not going to satisfy WP:WAF). It may be that we have to concede that we have found all the sources that are out there and that this is the best we can make the article but it will never be "enough." (Emperor (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There seems to be some confusion here about the definition of a primary source. If there were no primary sources, i.e., the comic books themselves, there wouldn't be anything to write an article about.
What's missing are secondary sources. Since "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources", we should certainly endeavor to find those, however difficult that may be. Emperor has listed some good resources above. I know that Wikipedia guidelines tend to favor the printed page over web sources, but in a field such as comics those are harder to obtain. As such, I think we should use whatever we've got. We can always improve it later.
As for using maintenance tags, I'm surprised this is controversial. A {{primarysources}} tag is a useful way of saying, "Hey, this article doesn't have any secondary sources yet! Can someone please help?" It's not the same thing as saying that the article needs to be deleted. Is the concern that the tag is being used as a prelude to an AfD? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a straw man thrown in to deflect from the main issue - the use of the {{primary source}} tag here (and in many many more places) is just as you describe it. That is why I consider the removal of those run of the mill tags to be disruptive and why I'm frankly baffled by the pointing towards a couple of AFDs as some form of argument they shouldn't be used. As far as I am concerned, the central issue here has been settled - a) the tags are legitimate and b) the tags stay until the issue is addressed. Removal of legitimate tags when you know they are legitimate is disruptive and should be avoided. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not up to you alone, and is hardly settled, which is why there is a discussion taking place. Web pages may indeed have to suffice as sources for some comic articles, so long as they are not out and out fan pages, which will be original research and contain a POV. Asgardian (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong - it's really not worth discussing this any further, you are just wrong. It's not a productive use of my time to respond to you further because you seem unable or unwilling to grasp what is being discussed (and I see from your talkpage, others have tried to explain it). On the one hand, I am baffled how you have been editing here for so long without a grasp of the most basic aspects of what we do here, on the other it's becoming increasing clear why you have a block log as long as my arm and are on arbcom restrictions. There will be no further comments from me to you as it's a waste of time - you just don't get it, you are unable to enter into the conversation as an equal. Is that rude? I don't know, but that's my honest judgement of the situation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion. It is not for you to dictate what will and won't happen. Remember you are simply one of many users. Also, focus on the issue at hand - do not engage in irrelevant side bars of a personal nature. Glass houses (see Galactus) and all that. Asgardian (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dictating anything - I am stating that in my view that your thoughts on policy are so out of line with reality and policy that it's not possible or sensible to have a productive discussion of viewpoints. Not a single person here had said a) I was wrong to tag this article and b) that the tags should be removed. If anyone does think that, they should speak up. Otherwise, I consider this discussion over in terms of establishing my actions in this matter were correct. You can talk your socks off for all I care. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it is statements like that which kill your credibility. Since this user has now opted out, we can address the issues once again. I subscribe to Emperor's POV. This seems reasonable and possibly the only way to solve the comic conundrum. Otherwise, by Wikipedia's logic - which is sometimes out of date - many comic articles could be deleted. The links I provided show that some users suggest this and were unsuccessful, as the majority argued that the characters in question were notable (and they are: constant appearances for over 3 decades proves as much). GentlemanGhost's point that we "use whatever we've got" is also valid, so long as the sources are credible. I think so long as the source can be shown to be objective and independent, and not fan driven, it will work. Asgardian (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is still apples and oranges. We aren't discussing WP:N/WP:FICT issues, we are discussing WP:V and WP:WAF and this article does need secondary sources and primary sources are never "enough". The tags on this article were legitimate and are issues that should be addressed. As discussed above I'm pretty sure we can make a reasonable stab at notability (or at least make a better case than those for an awful lot other comic characters articles so it'd be way down the list if someone took it into their head to delete 70% of the comic character articles, and there are editors out there chomping at the bit) but the information above doesn't really address the issue of the lack of secondary sources. As I say it may be we have to concede that they don't exist but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aiming for it. (Emperor (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Fine, would you like to kickstart us and provide an example of a primary and secondary source for this article? Asgardian (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I've stated and restated is that I'm struggling to find a secondary source - the various databases don't count as they basically collate the primary sources (and don't add a synthesis, analysis or add any extra information that isn't in the comics). The only thing that comes close would be the 500 Comic Book Supervillains but it isn't that great for WP:V (I'll reread it but I can't really think of a way to work a mention of it in), however, it would go some way to helping with WP:N if this was relisted as an AfD. So while the article can probably survive an AfD from now on without secondary sources it will be pretty much stalled in improving much further (you can argue about wording or layout until the cows come home but the article won't be getting much higher on the quality scale).
The fact that I can't find any doesn't mean we have to throw the towel in and it doesn't mean that this article doesn't need them or that primary sources are enough - secondary sources are pretty fundamental to writing about fiction (as has been stated a number of times by different editors above).(Emperor (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is the most ridiculous, assbackwards argument I've heard on wikipedia. Of course you don't need secondary sources to state the general plot or occurences of a book, movie, television show or comic book. It's right there in damn book/movie/TV show/comic. What is going to provide a secondary source? Do you want me to find a webpage where a Harvard professor details the events Iron Man issue# 126? 69.3.84.123 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If discussing the mere content of a narrative work, then no, that work functions as its own source. This is explicitly stated, for example, with movies, right here. But with other, out-universe information pertaining to the book, other sources are needed. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's not what this guy was saying. 72.245.29.98 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Living Laser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Living_Laser&oldid=1203721224"