User talk:Emperor/Archive 2008

Brendan McCarthy Photo

Hi Emperor

Thanks for the offer of help. Brendan McCarthy sent me a photo of himself to put up on his page, unfortunately everytime I try to add the picture it’s deleted. Any chance you could put it up for me, you can find the photo here:

www.brendanmccarthy.co.uk/brendan-photo.jpg

CSI franchise

I have created the page CSI franchise, a page you said ud help contribute too once created. Do u still want to help?

Illusive arts and Dorothy Notability

I see that you have tagged them. What would need to be done to make them more notable? I've added more information with citations for where the information came from, generally interviews or reviews of their work. They are a small independent publisher, so they won't appear in things like reference USA, although they might be in Lexis-Nexis. I'm currently doing some research to make sure the entry in Lexis refers to the correct company.

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Comic Books

1. (cur) (last) 04:58, 24 March 2008 Emperor (Talk | contribs) (28,328 bytes) (Undid revision 200456581 by 68.13.159.231 (talk) - Maniac18 has a point. take this to the talk page before adding it bac) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 03:46, 24 March 2008 68.13.159.231 (Talk) (28,538 bytes) (Undid revision 200100761 by Maniac18 (talk)) (undo)

Sorry, what point did he make that I missed?

On the :EL page it specifically says:

What should be linked

4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

So why is linking to the review http://www.comicnerd.com site bad?

Thanks

Sean Phillips

I’m not sure of the exact date, I think it’s around 20 years old. I’ll have to ask him next time I see him. Just so you know, I have permission to upload it.

Templates

I was wondering how much you knew about templates, and if you'd be willing to help me with a problem I'm having. I recently installed the same software that Wikipedia uses (MediaWiki), and I don't understand how to get the common templates like {{reflist}} etc to work. Could you point me in the right direction? Please answer here on your talk page, as my ip address may change, best regards.

English as a 2nd language

Hello Emperor, I desire your input. How do you deal with editors who edit the English-language Wikipedia but apparently do not speak English natively? Obviously, it's important to live by WP:BITE, but I'm wondering how I would even bring it up without potentially being insulting. Certainly, it is possible to make valuable additions to the English Wikipedia even if you don't speak the language particularly well. But, I'm wondering if it might be more profitable for 68.151.70.78 (talk · contribs) to edit Wikipedia in his or her native language. I know I'm making an assumption, but to my mind, the edit summaries seem to indicate someone who speaks a fundamentally different idiom as opposed to a native speaker who merely has poor grammar. Although on the one hand, it would probably be a great way to further one's understanding of English to have one's contributions finessed by other editors, on the other, it would probably be a less frustrating experience to edit articles in one's native tongue. And, given the paucity of articles in some languages, it could also fill a need. But, I am at a loss as to how to suggest this without being offensive. For the time being, I have started a dialog with the editor regarding one edit that I find particularly confusing. Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: it might be good to respond here instead of on my talk page as that is where I am currently corresponding with this editor. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lobster random 1349.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lobster random 1349.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Mønobi 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Move

Ha. Already caught it myself. I have included only ongoing comic series. I'm checking on whether I've ommited some current series, otherwise I figured I'd model this off the Marvel equivalent page. Feel free to dive into this one if you have the interest/time as I wont be editing it too frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awayman1 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DDP Publishing

Should be set not. Only minor changes from here on out. Edit as you see fit. I'll implement some links as I find time.

Awayman1 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Indigoprime.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Indigoprime.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New Notice Board thing

Hi, Emperor. Happy New Year!

Since I'm the first to post at [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Requests_for_comment/Users/2008]] and WPC members might not yet be in the habit of regularly checking that page, I wanted to alert a few longstanding editors to a posting there that I think will be of interest. Thanks and best wishes for WPC in 2008, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tein cover2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tein cover2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Colm Kelleher

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Colm Kelleher, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Colm Kelleher seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Colm Kelleher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dropping by #2

Hey, i hope everything's OK, you haven't been around for ages. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, seconded. We went and made you an admin and this is how you repay us! :) All the best, Hiding T 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll third that! Where ya been? :) BOZ (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'm afraid I've been battling health issues. After my last hospital appointment I am feeling more positive that this can now be resolved but it has meant a lot of the aspects of my online (and real-life) life faded away.

Of course, in the end all the information I had accumulating and running across pages that needed editing meant I couldn't keep away forever ;) So, while I will be largely tinkering and tidying things up (and trying to avoid getting involved in heated discussions), as well trying to catch up on developments, if there is anything you feel needs my attention then drop me a note and I'll seem what I can do (so I'll take a look at the Hulk debate and see if there is anything I can offer). (Emperor (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Welcome back!

How did I not notice you there!  :) Thanks for your support on fixing up Plunderer... unless a flock of deletionists shows up, this one won't be going away any time soon.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mr. New Administrator, since Hiding seemed to disappear when you came back (is he Clark Kent to your Superman?), there seems to be a huge dispute at the Hulk (comics) talk page. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Hulk situation is kind of getting worse. :\ BOZ (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll have a read through and see how the land lies. (Emperor (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

LOL - OK, sorry for getting you involved in all of that. I had no idea how he would take it; I figured you'd be able to calm things down, and I don't know why that didn't work. BOZ (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See, that's why I came to you. :) I would have gone to Hiding first because he has more experience, but in the end you're more moderate in tone so it's probably better I got you instead. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for your support on Melter too - now the Ringer is up as well - all the minor bad guys are coming under attack. :) BOZ (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Vernian Process Reboot

Hey man, as you have noticed, someone (I have no idea who) created a new page for Vernian Process, so I fgured I might as well copy my sandbox content into the article to clean it up. So should I officially resubmit it, or can I just leave it, and see if anyone tries to flag it now? Thanks! FACT50 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Future Shock

Thanks! It started out more Sci-Fi-ish, with a research group contacting Roberta after the NY incident and telling her what they knew about The Rapture and without the vaguely Von Danikinesque backstory - instead it was vaguely implied that they were responsible for luring the Rapture here by accident, and they give some kind of EMP weapon to Roberta who is the only one that can use it, which she does. Shock twist: She saves everyone, but the masses turn on her and stone her to death.

Tharg wasn;t so keen on thast one, and suggested that the electromagnetic pulse allows everyone to see The Rapture, but tehn it just turns out to be a nightmarish farming operation, humanity has been bred for this cull for centuries. I wasn;t duper keen on that at first, but then I had the idea of using the Gabriel character, and his Daniken-via-Kirby backstory, whicj was an idea I'd had for a while but not found a home for. After that it all clicked into place. Artw (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover fq06.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cover fq06.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Rossrs (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard

Glad to see that you joined the Anthroponomy wiki project. We need all the help we can get. Feel free to focus on the anything you want since we need help in all areas. Any help you could give in standardizing the disambiguation pages from the name pages would be most appreciated. Once again, thanks for joining. Remember (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pike etc

Thanks for your help. I think the fictional characters came back when User:Marchije and I were near-simultaneously cleaning up Pike; I suspect he hadn't seen your edit. Good faith work all around, I believe. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comics-awb edits to workgroups

There will be some snags based on the intersections. I am currently running through the comic strip categories and because of the way the strips in British comics have been categorised, stuff like Billy's Boots is going to end up wrongly tagged. That would imply that the category structure needs tweaking somehow, with the category Category:British comic strips being used only for strips which run in newspapers, not comics. Comics-awb (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Reverting original research articles about the paranormal as you are doing looks superficially like POV-pushing. You may wish to alter your tactics. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to my arguments on the talk pages, the redirects stand. Make a reasonable argument and I'm more than willing to reconsider. Dragging your feet in hopes of keeping articles about Fortean neologisms on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Accept your conflict of interest and stick to writing about comic books. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't handle the speed, buster, then get out of the way! The argument was made, you failed to respond to it. I see no reason for us to continue this conversation. If you can find a set of independent sources that establish the non-originality of those articles, then by all means make your case on the talkpages and I'll restore it for you. I have other things to do too. So let's just keep them as redirects and allow us to go on our merry way. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me: you are free to respond at your own pace. But do not use your slow response time as an excuse to drag your feet and keep an article that is essentially entirely original research on Wikipedia. Also, I did not know exactly how to handle your report to Paranormal WikiProject which read to me like an invitation to meatpuppetry. I tried to reword your report in a more neutral way as asking for comments. Please reinstate your post if you think that I've violated your voice. I really did, however, think that your report to the Paranormal WikiProject was written inappropriately in both tone, content, and in light of the audience of that WikiProject and past issues. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have "other things to do" then you shouldn't be demanding discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need to work and cannot discuss right away then don't revert right away. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with FeatsOfFact

Thanks for keeping a level head throughout. Rest assured that if this issue gets escalated to the point of being reported somewhere, I'll back you up (and as you pointed out, you don't even need back-up, as a comparison of Contribs speaks for itself). I have been on the fence as to whether I believe FoF is a good faith editor with a bad case stubbornness, or a spammer/pov-pusher who needs to be dealt with -- and in the spirit of WP:AGF, I've tried to assume the former and done my best to reach a compromise. It won't take much to push me in the other direction, though, so hopefully FoF has got the message and will let the issue die. Thanks again for staying calm throughout! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The self-published source thing concerns me as well. And as you pointed out elsewhere, there is a risk of setting a precedent that people can just link to any old blog that has something to say about the genre.

At this point, my feeling is that the compromise version of the quote at least does no direct harm, and if tolerating this quote for a few weeks or a couple months will stop FeatsOfFact from making a federal case out of it, then I think the project is better off all things considered.

If other people start vanispamicrufting the Criticisms section with links to a bazillion blogs, I'll blow all the non-notable quotes away, including the one in question. If FoF starts stirring up trouble elsewhere, I'm ready to come down hard on him (and I can WikiLawyer with the best of them when I have to ;) ) What I hope the likely result will be is that the quote will sit for a few months, and then some vigilant editor will come along and say, "Hey, this is from a blog!" and take it out, and by that time FoF won't be paying attention anymore. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanispamcrufting

Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for inventing the term ;) See WP:VSCA (oops, I forgot the "tisement" on the end, hahaha) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for "Thanks"

Thanks for your thanks, and if you have a spare few minutes to pass briefly by the "LXG" lawsuit, for any feedback you might feel necessary, I'd appreciate it. :o) ntnon (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. ntnon (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comics Talk

For what it's worth, some comments on your Comics comments -

• I think Future Comics is reasonable un-merged (and I'll try to get round to looking at it... later)
• A comics terminology page is an excellent idea - and would hopefully serve as a decent place to comment upon various creators'/other people's debates regarding the whole "comics"/"pamphlets"/"monthlies"/"examples of the ninth art"/"sequential art" "graphic novel"/"TPB"/"collection" terminology debates, differentiation and that general side of things.
• I think Marry Me (comic) is worthy of sticking around. ntnon (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After you pointed me to Comics vocabulary (and I looked at it), I thought it really ought to be a bit more comprehensive... so I dug a book out and am in the midst of setting about providing a much fuller glossary/terminology/vocabulary list. After which I'll try and add in those minor pages that need merging; link out to those pages (e.g. Penciller) that deserve a longer definition-page, etc. Any thoughts, comments, complaints, etc. - let me know. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. I've just noticed your - and Mr Dash's - kind offers at Fortean Times, which I will get back to... at some point! Thanks for that, could be handy.) ntnon (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SA

Please don't goad SA further. I think there's a good chance I'll get him to settle down, but it's not going to done with confrontation or aggressiveness. — Coren ^(talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He is difficult, but he's got a lot to contribute. I think it's worth the effort. — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

CSI episodes

It's done, someone had already redirected the first seasons and I just did those that were missing. That naming convention has been around for some time now, maybe we should add a note on the project so everybody knows. PS: don't stress yourself :) ---Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate WP:CSI's layout, it's impossible to keep things in order. How do you feel about borrowing WP:ZELDA or WP:LOST's layouts? I'm seeing a mix of the two in CSI's future...--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Presidency of the Philippines

The picture of the week thing has a redlink instead of a picture. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you want User:Emperork. I grant it isn't always easy to tell them apart, though. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry The link in the portal lead me here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm looks like I have another "false emperor" for the books. How very confusing. (Emperor (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Harrison

Hello. I was surprised to see Harrison removed from the project page section "articles that could be split". I normally do that once I've finished all the editing for a name, and then add the name to the "new splits". Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

23 (numerology)

I have been doing some work on this article, and want to run an idea past you, since you did some work on the article previously. I was thinking of moving the article to better title, perhaps 23 enigma in numerology. What do you think? I think the current title is not very helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your response. I think that the first thing I will do is to copy-and-paste the old lede into the current article. Then, I will move the article to 23 Enigma, and make 23 (numerology) a redirect. From there, I am going to start adding some of the other information from your old(er) version, especially the Grant Morrison information, about which I was not previously aware. Given that the Burroughs-RAW-Morrison material is all linked, this should be the (black?) meat, so to speak, of article. Some other, more tangential, information can be left---for example, the entry made today to the Black Magic comic book is very intriguing, though the reference is neither adequate nor helpful. I do not even remember how I came to be involved with this article, but I am deep into it now... no point in turning back. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was working on some things earlier, and lost my internet connection. I am not even sure what I was doing, either. At any rate, I will get back to it eventually. As for the site where the comic book is available for download, they have some strange rules for signing up, i.e., no anonymity, so they will not accept an e-mail address from google, yahoo, etc. I would have to sign up using my credit card, which I am loathe to do. But, I may change my mind. Either way, I will be in touch. Enjoy your sojourn away. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find someone, let me know. I may join, though I generally do not trust any website that says their service is free, but still demands my credit card number, w/ the promise that they will never use it. I may be suspicious, but sometimes it's justified. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dieselpunk

I appreciate your interest, but must correct you that the page Mr Piecraft has saved at his userpage is definitely not the article I wrote most recently. Mr Piecraft's version is a bunch of original research that fails to meet even the minimum of standards. An adaption of the article I wrote initially is available at my own website. Though it's slightly more expanded, it's a fine representation nonetheless of how the article appeared before it was removed. Available here. Ottens (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Followed your advice. See Literary punk genres! Ottens (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia comcis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board/Requested_moves/2008 did it. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain Britain Corp

I was removing the tags and moving discussion while you were commenting on the talk page. New discussion @ the Corps. No response necessary, just FYI. _66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Freak (comics)

I saw you added the link back in that I removed. Please see: WP:MOSDAB. Specifically "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line." As Freak (Image Comics) is a navigable link there is no need to link Spawm in (as it is linked through from the entry). (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Check the history and the page. I reverted my own edit before you even said anything to me. —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Marry Me (comic)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marry Me (comic), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marry Me (comic). Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comics years categories

Those seem alright, yes. :o) One point: I noticed that there is something clever that could be done to stop the "main" pages from being listed alphanumerically, so I mini-edited those. I'm assuming that Civil War: Initiatve and Secret Invasion are in both "debuts" and the main category because they are also events occuring during that year...? Might there be enough (and I'm not sure there are) to warrant separate "xxxx comics events" categories..? Also, would/should self-contained mini-series starting and ending within a year (like the events) be in both "debuts" and "main," or is that unnecessary duplication..? I'll try and add the category to some other pages later on (and try to copy it all back to the actual 2007/2008 in comics page, too) including the deaths of comics people. So... book-publication, debuts, events, deaths (and for the earlier years also births), major character debuts - anything else obviously needing to have the category appended that I'm not thinking of? ntnon (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically echoes my own thought exactly, so that's good! ntnon (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Teenaged Titans

Appreciate your input (as always), although - as I just wrote on the main project page - I'm unsure about precisely what the objection is..! If it's simply that what I put together for Teen Titan (comics) should be on Teen Titans (and then the individual titles still get their own pages at Teen Titans (comic book), New Teen Titans and The Titans (comic book)), then I'll agree completely - just trying to smooth things over with this faintly bizarre (apparent) suggestion that the TT page not include much information on the comics... Since the TT have been in multiple (well, two, maybe three) mediums, I was thinking that TT could cover everything briefly; TT (comics) cover JUST comics iterations, and then the specifics could go on specific individual pages. And I'm afraid the comparison to the DC Animated Universe passed me by completely! ntnon (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Far enough, I've grasped your mixed media contention now, at least! ;o) I was really hypothesising about making TT a team description page (although I think the Hulk analogy a misnomer - what I halfheartedly propose wouldn't be any different from having a "The Character of the Hulk" page with sections on "Grey"/"Green"/"Intelligent"/"TV"/Marvel-trying-to-retrofit-them-all-together) broading saying: Teen Titans (1966) featured Robin, Tempest, Speedy and Wonder Girl; New Teen Titans ws Nightwing, Kory, Cyborg, Jericho, Raven, et al.; The Cartoon was (as far as I am aware) bastardisations of Changeling, Robin and others. So I don't see it being a problem of mixing media, even as I agree that it is wholly unnecessary.

I do however think that what I wrote at TT (comics) serves a purpose (and I'm not just saying that because it took a long time to hammer out!) but that purpose could be just as well served in the TT article - which would be in place of the longer descriptive passages comic-by-comic, which I also think could sustain a couple of individual pages.

What's already there doesn't seem to be particularly plot-ty (with the exception of the current TT title, which is arguably for that reason of length the most in need of being split out into it's own page(!)), more descriptive - the series started then, ran for this long and featured these characters drawn by these people. Rather than inspiring people to add plot summaries, I would hope that having a couple of (comic book) pages would inspire people to either learn about and read the comics, or to add helpful encyclopedic information: "Wolfman and Perez came from Marvel to DC and decided to/were asked to make a series to rival the X-Men. Arguably they did, but the TT hasn't had the longevity of those series'. The two are still said to be working on New Teen Titans: Games..." NOT "And then in The Judas Contract this happened." ;o) ntnon (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

In other news...

• I've been meaning to get to Mr Johnston (sooner or) later, but as with nearly everything my personal examples of his work are in another country, so it's been slipping down the list..! Taboo (comic) is far higher at the moment, although I noticed with some minor consternation that, as with Diana Schutz, someone slipped in and started a stub article while I'm in the middle of preparing a full one... Oh well. I can add just as easily as create, I suppose..!
• The TPB Table you suggested seems to be coming along nicely - you were right about the excess of boxes, and I think J Greb is addressing that rather well. Should look nice and uniform, informative and comprehensive before too long, so good thinking. ntnon (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about further TPBTable comments - I've been otherly-busy for a while and missed those! I think it a mistake to not at least include the possibility of allowing editor/colorist/letterer/covers fields, and think that the already-existent compromise table is rather nice looking already. :o) I do take your point about referring to external databases for more information, but I still think the core TPB information should be here in a table, while the external link should be for the more on the issues themselves - story titles & cover pictures. Oh, and Karen Berger was a bad example, because I think she's one of a handful of editors that people WOULD favour and look out for! ;o) ntnon (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Years in comics categories

Fair enough. Hiding T 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Tokyopop titles

I have nominated Category:Tokyopop titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Tokyopop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CSI project's layout

CH-CH-CHeck it out. See also Left panel and right panel..--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stan Lee

Good call. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the NY Con this past weekend, I was there one day. Nice show -- just the right size crowd for it to be exciting without being push-and-shove exhausting. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally forgot to take my camera. I got a couple shots from a Nov. NY con, where old-timers Gary Friedrich, Herb Trimpe, etc. appeared. You know what? I'm gonna upload those, sign off on GNU, and add pix to their bios. Hadn't even occurred to me till you mentioned photos. Look at that! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Reach in Heavy Metal cat?

Why was Star Reach added to Heavy Metal titles category? Did publishers of Heavy Metal publish a reprint of Star Reach materials? --EarthFurst (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Three ghosts of Batman into Batman & Son - (Discuss) -- Emperor 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been almost a year, and several subsequent edits and merges have happened since then. Would you either close this, or give me an update so that I can? - jc37 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• X-Men Fairy Tales with Marvel Fairy Tales- (Discuss) -- Emperor 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Same for this one : ) - jc37 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Crew 12 and Crew 13 into Crew (comic) (Discuss) Emperor 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to merge this one. (Can you tell I'm trying to deal with the back log? : ) - jc37 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I somehow managed to miss it until now. I'll have a look over those and sort them out. (Emperor (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

No worries, somehow I missed this note too : )

And fair enough. Let me know if you'd like any further assistance/help. - jc37 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over them: The Crew ones are straightforward, the Marvel Fairytales will probably need renominating as someone has removed the tags they had been up so long but the Batman one is tricky -have a look over it. The 3 Ghosts are in a different story but one that is collected in the Batman & Son trade along with 2 other stories (see Grant Morrison#DC Comics, so if we wanted to merge them we'd need to refocus the article on the trade and include information on the other two stories. Not an unreasonable idea but it might leave a bitty and unfocused article. Have a look over it and see what you think and if it seems viable as a solution I'll drop a note into the talk page and see what folks think. The only other solution, really would be to delete the 3 Ghosts article - which should do OK in an AfD but I think we can find a better solution and the merge may be it.

Also I'm replying here as you moved my reply over here and I'd get too confused trying to re-reply over there. (Emperor (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Me too. It's part of why I like to keep discussions unified : )

As for the articles you mention, I'll take a look at those momentarily. - jc37 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I didn't propose some of those merges - the Batman one was one I merely noted on the noticeboard and gave my fourpenneth to. I was hoping someone with a better overview of the current Batman story arc would be able to provide more insight. (Emperor (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

I've closed the Batman one, and have left a note at User talk:Wordforge (who, according to his contribs, is still active). Moving on to the next. - jc37 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And now have closed the fairy tales one. It was apaprently more straight-forward than I had first thought.

And I guess that finishes these three. Thanks for your help : ) - jc37 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK cool. I've left my thoughts there - hopefully we can thrash out the best approach but it shouldn't be difficult to do what I propose. It should also be useful given the suggestion that quite a few of these stories will have some bearing/influence on the major Batman RIP story. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dog Logan

Since you seem to agree with me on this, could you offer your opinions on the IFD discussion for Image:dog tooth.jpg? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle

Hello - seeing that you commented on this AfD, could I have you give it another look?

I have two main problems with the process in this case. First off, the nominator removed/redirected all the links to these articles in the AfD BEFORE the AfD was decided. I think this is problematic.

Secondly, he lumped all of them together in one AfD, even though many of the articles have quite a bit of content in them, which makes me feel this, again, is inappropriate. This also causes an associated problem, because I have now been doing quite a bit of work on Sulaco (spaceship) in response to noticing the AfD, and feel that it has enough references and shows enough notability to stand on its own.

So as above, could you be so kind and look at the discussion again? Ingolfson (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you can get access to either of the following two articles, that would be great:

• [1]
• [2]

Thanks for your help in retaing this article. Too bad I won't have the time to save any others, I think. Colonial Marines should have stayed. I may copy and redo it later... Ingolfson (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to Google Books. I never used it specifically, and it seems a really worthy research tool (if a bit disjointed at times due to the "missing" pages). Ingolfson (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Emperor

I've got a few things for you if you have some time.

• Project Fanboy article. You had said that you might be willing to look over the Project Fanboy article if I were to put it in my Sandbox. I've done so in the event that it does get deleted. I'd appreciate any insights you could give me to strengthen it's case.

• I've tried talking to Hu12 on his talk page about his reverts of my edits but he seems unwilling to talk about the reverts. I consider them to be a good contribution to the articles, although Fram did have a point I overlooked about the webcomic addition to the comic book article. Take for instance the Chumble_Spuzz edit though. The edit was in the Reception Category of the article and it had a clear reference to the authors response to the reception of the Chumble Spuzz title by religious organizations. I don't understand why it was removed simply because it referenced Project Fanboy.

• I was wanting to create articles for people listed on the Project Fanboy page who had been interviewed, but I figured that since almost all my edits/articles seem to get deleted, these probably would as well. A lot of the information I would use would be from those interviews, but I'm afraid Hu12 or someone else would just come along and delete the page because it has a reference to Project Fanboy. Any advice you can give me on that subject? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes on my Sandbox to the wiki code for the now nonexistent Project Fanboy page. I thought about listing a lot of the reviews they do and linking to the author's listing at the Comic Book Database (I did a few already), but thought I'd get your opinion before I list very many of them. If you could take a look at it and give me your opinion, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks...Millennium Cowboy (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would something like this be helpful? Reactions to story from SLG: Better Comics Through Superior Firepower, this article on TECHNORATI.com talks about a review Project Fanboy did on the independent title Chumble Spuzz.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

______________________

This is Ethan Nicolle the creator of Chumble Spuzz, I can verify that the Project Fanboy article is legit. I appreciated the reception excerpt that was up and was sad to see it removed. You can email me at the.eef@gmail.com for questions (same email as is in print in the book Chumble Spuzz). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.179.3 (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and I'm happy to take your word for it. Unfortunately this doesn't help address the main issues. I have given Millennium Cowboy a few pointers on what is needed and will be keeping an eye out for anything that can help. Hopefully, we should be able to fix things so it gets to stay but we aren't there yet.

I think Mr. Nicolle was referring to the Chumble Spuzz article not the Project Fanboy article. (There was an excerpt from an interview he conducted with Project Fanboy in the Chumble Spuzz article which seemed substantial to the article but Hu12 removed it twice and refuses to speak on the matter.) On another note, the Project Fanboy page has been pretty much re-written in my sandbox, if you'd care to take a look. Thanks Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah right. Yes I see. I don't think anyone thought it wasn't legit but it is good to hear it gets the thumbs up. I have left a note on the talk page as I think we can get that back in. I'll have another look at your sandbox and leave my thoughts on your talk page. (Emperor (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

So you don think the Scoop e-newsletter Scoop Newsletter is notable enough to support it as an article, and we still need to wait for more credible sources then? (Sorry, at the time you had looked it over, I had the wrong url for the article in the references.)Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Clifford Meth

I agree the article needs source citations and a little smoothing out but the unregistered user, Rosdinwyup, has no other verifiable presence on Wikipedia. His one and only edit is in these tags. This in itself suggests a personal interest in damaging the article. It appears as vandalism in that it does not represent your correct comment that the article needs source citations. But this is an entirely separate issue from the bias and fan page tags that the unregistered user placed. I'll try to gather together the proper references soon. And thank you for the comments on my own bio page, they're taken to heart and I'll address them there shortly. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

John Armstrong (artist on Bella, Moonchild, etc)

Emperor, you've added a link to John Armstrong on the Misty (comic) page but it links to the wrong John Armstrong. What's the best way to create a new redlink with a suitable disambiguation for him? John Armstrong (artist) perhaps, or John Armstrong (comics artist)? Jenniscott (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Emperor. I've asked John Freeman to contribute to the John Armstrong page, which he's done to good effect. The text he's added has been described in the edit summary as coming from the bio provided for the Raptus festival in 2003. What's the best way of including this as a reference, do you think? He doesn't specifically say it was published in the program, for instance. Can it just be referred to generallly or should it have as definite a reference as possible? ta for your help. PS I have now removed the notability flag someone set on this (almost immediately after its creation). Jenniscott (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's Entertainment (comic shop)

You contested the speedy delete of That's Entertainment (comic shop) because you claimed it had notoriety due to having won a prestigious Eisner Award. However it appears you did not check to see if this claim was sourced, which it was not. It turns out that there is not even a category in the Eisner Awards for comic book stores.

It appears that an editor of the article simply embellished the receipt of a local award given to multiple recipients a year that happens to use the name of Will Eisner in the title of the award, to infer that a much more significant Eisner Award had been bestowed.

Your follow-up comments on the talk page for the article would be appreciated. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lambiek

Good catch. Sometimes I despair of what gets deleted and why using CSD's. We assumed a lot of good faith in the ability of people to think when we added those, and with hindsight I think we were wrong. A7 is abused horribly, but when you attempt to change it you are told the problem isn't with the criterion but the admins. Catch-22. Hiding T 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Val Verde (fictional country)

I have nominated Val Verde (fictional country), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Verde (fictional country). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

COI tag removal

Hoping you're well. You might be busy elsewhere and I only wanted you to know about the recent edits on my page which hopefully address all the issues cited previously, and can facilitate the removal of the COI tag. I've also made a first pass at NPOV cleaning up Clifford Meth, though I was not the one to remove the tag again. Looking forward to moving on. MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please feel comfortable and not rushed, I can imagine what you're going through. I've BTW noticed someone unregistered has removed the tags and reverted my NPOV edits on the Clifford Meth page. I'm also a little pre-occupied with something else right now but let me know if I can be of any help. MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could you move No Such Thing (John Mayer song) to No Such Thing (song)? I was unable to do so since I lack sysop powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Making "No Such Thing (song)" target a disambiguation page seems like the best solution. Would you like to do the honours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that works too. Now the dab No Such Thing should be the page title for No Such Thing (film). Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, go for it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Phil Gascoine

Thanks, Emperor, for your help on this image - I couldn't quite see what I'd got wrong with the link but I think I've hopefully got it now. Thanks also for weighing in on the speedy deletion. Jenniscott (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Enigmatic

Good catch on Enigma, thanks. And all your other recent clarifications and help. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! I did think that it might be a little overboard, as it kept expanding - almost exponentially - as I was writing it (which therfore took quite considerably longer than I'd thought), but I tried(!) to keep the information as minimalistic as possible while still including everything that seemed like it might possibly be of worthwhile interest... Hopefully that's what it wound up as..! ;o)

(Incidentally, in you estimable opinion, would it be a conflict of interest/"in bad form" for me to Undo the semi-recent radical deletions Bill Schanes as I suggested and you supported..? I don't want to be thought to be acting out of line in such cases, but really didn't understand the logic behind the radical removals... Any and all advice, etc., etc.) ntnon (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Trinity comic.

Thanks for the clean-up and the the support. I hope you can keep an eye on the articles, because as I say, I want to avoid spoilers... Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing getting out of hand was my worry, too. I was worried about spoilers on a personal level (I want to read the thing in TPBs) so don't want to monitor the page. I'm fine with there being spoilers on the page, I just don't want to read them. Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sentry

I'm currently engaged in a discussion with another editor on the Sentry's discussion page concerning the removal of a statement. It's basically about the point about hyperbole I brought up on the project's discussion page and I'm just curious to have the thoughts and insight from someone else on the subject. ThanksOdin's Beard (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

SIA

If you are still interested in set indices, there is an update available. Your comments are very welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Albion and CBC

Hi someone mentioned that Albion (from Excalibur) was in one of the Handbook's and added a references to Albion (Marvel Comics)... i have since transfered the ref to Captain Britain Corps because people believed it to be right. But now im not so sure i have been trying to find the right handbook but none i have found have his entry... in fact the only place that mentions his name is Marvel Universe Marvel.com's wiki... which isnt exactly reliable. Just wondered if you have heard of it anywhere.

Also on the subject of the Corps... most of its current members are either dead or have no officiation with the corps (like Ultimate and Zombie Brian Braddock.. neither were stated as being in the corps at any point).. i think we may need to have a true look at its membership. --- Paulley (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i asked the person who first added the handbook ref, so hopefully they will get back to me. As for the corps yea we have to change something, i think if we state that the unconfirmed member list are members of the corps that have yet be considered current or former, while maybe a forth list of related but of unknown membership like Ultimate CB.... or we could simply remove them completely. --- Paulley (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope i have issue one and two and that's the Knights of Pendragon Albion in one. --- Paulley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes not up on my back issues but i thing we are gonna have to really go through the former and unconfirmed list to check if they were actually shown as corps members. --- Paulley (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea i think i have got the main of it sorted. I do think if we can get hold of specific sources for the Earths and hope that Marvel releases more information on, or issues featuring, the corps in the future we can really get it looking good. However, as a base to work from i think it turned out rather well.... and i finished it in time for CB & MI:13 #2 this week :p -- Paulley (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just finished reading the second issue... raises more questions than answers and it seems they are gonna have a letters page.. maybe we should consider writing something and maybe answering a few questions we might have. --- Paulley (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You know whats really bad is that i saw your name on there the other day and i took me ages to twig that it was you. --- Paulley (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

lol, very true. Still no Captain Midlands... or even Captain Britain this issue.. im pretty sure Cornell said he wasnt about to embark on a 6 year stint on CB&MI13 without CB so hopefully he finds his way back to the land of the living soon. --- Paulley (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking good so far, maybe you can ask him about which readers has he targeted in regards to UK and USA with America's being a large percentage of his sales, how hard is it to keep the book American friendly but still hit home with UK residents. On that note, you could ask him about how he intends to use the UK version of the registration act compared to the way in which it has been used within US comics. Also is there anything in articles that we need answering or more information on, on a more fanboyic note id like to know what happened the Wisdom mini and now for Tink, having seemingly moved on from MI-13 and Pete. I will wonder round some articles and see if i think he can help us with anything --- Paulley (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you looking to hit the recent political climate you could also ask him if he is going to have a story where documents concerning all the information on UK registered heroes is gonna be accidentally left on a train by an intelligence officer [3]. :-p --- Paulley (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have been replied... he skipped over the missing documents bit, i think that's cus its gonna happen in a later issue lol. Anyway we have at least got 12 issues to enjoy. --- Paulley (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gatecrashers in comics...

Just a heads up, but the links you're fixing are all redirecting to the Marvel UK character. - J Greb (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

request

Hey Emperor, i have been trying to get Avengers: The Initiative character Michael Van Patrick/Scarlet Spiders/KIA upto a good article status for a while.. the nomination failed due to a lack of real world material. Since then i have been on the search of creator comments and such for the character but have found very little success. So i decided to take a different approach and do a reception section to add the comments of reviewers on the subject. Anyway i has hoping you may know of some good sources for reviews, comments from Dan Slott and Christos Gage, and possibly some help for its presentation due to your good work with the CB&MI:13. On that note, i have just got a hold of Captain Britain: Volume 2 (which collects Marvel Superheroes, #387-388, The Daredevils, #1-11 and The Mighty World Of Marvel, volume 2, #7-13) so hopefully this should help me better reference and check the Corps page. --- Paulley (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea thanxs for taking a look. I will see if i can find some information somewhere maybe even ask some ppl at the comics project. --- Paulley (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom

Yea sounds good, if we make another sandbox we can lay it out and see how it looks... it will also give us insight into how the CB&MI:13 article will look after a few more issues. --- Paulley (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.marvel.com/news/comicstories.3984.Very_British_Vampires a little something for you to look over --- Paulley (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Quesada was also on Fox Business News talking about the CB&MI 13 apparently. --- Paulley (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok i will have a look and put in some plot summaries over the next couple of days --- Paulley (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy

Project Fanboy was recently mentioned in Wizard (magazine), and I've taken the liberty of writing it into the history of the site in the article I have for it in my sandbox. Do you think with this inclusion, it may be enough to get it an article that would be allowed to stay on Wikipedia? Or should we wait for more notable sources before trying again? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tabitha Smith

I didn't mean to edit war previously, and I won't touch it again, but you should see this response: [4]. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fluid Friction Comics

Hi there, got your message with regards to Fluid Friction Comics. Just to explain, as we are only just launching our very first product at the moment, I am possibly the only person in the world who actually has access to all the artwork, logos and other necessary information to set up a wikipedia page. On the other hand we have been featured in over 40 major newspaper and magazine articles across 3 countries and have had 5 major TV features produced on us in 2 different languages with another 3 being filmed in the next few weeks. Several people have written about us under other wikipedia pages (which I found out about through people clicking links to our website) so we are definitely a group who should be on wikipedia, our only problem being that not enough information is easily available for copying and downloading yet for someone else to be able to start a genuine or real wikipedia article on us. Feel free to double check all the information I have uploaded on the page, you should be able to easily find press articles that directly corroborate the information and also the style of it's presentation. If you do find any problems, don't hesitate to let me know. I also struggled a bit with the license information and logo image upload as I don't really know how these things work, so don't hesitate to let me know if I did it wrongly. Cheers, Spen —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerDouglass (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks a lot for all the feedback and help! I really appreciate it! Will put in some more of the news references, as soon as I have time to edit the page properly (hopefully this weekend).

Let me know if you find anything I should change about the image licensing. That seems to be one of the toughest parts of setting up a wikipedia page.

Cheers,

Spen —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerDouglass (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

I think everything's working again, but I thought I'd put some drafts up in my userspace before slotting them in properly so that there's a moment for comments...! If you have a spare (few) minute(s), and feel like having a quick read, I'm working on "Peter Laird" and BMB (the latter of whom had a placeholder copyright-violating form hagio-bibliography-biography up until I started work... I'll hopefully get around to writing more about Mr Alessi next, and then.... Dez Skinn! :o) ntnon (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(N.B. There are a couple of bits in the Mr Laird article that are simply quoted from the current article and therefore unsourced or doubled; and everything after "Current works" for Mr Bendis needs work, which I'll get round to sooner or later.) ntnon (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those couple of points. :o) It seemed harder than copy/paste doing it for Bendis, and the search at the ComicBookDb seems to have fouled up, so I dug links for Mr Laird out of Google and put them in longform. I remember leaving myself little "Do this" reminders (and un-reminders... more omissions I hoped I'd catch) as I was typing one or other (or both) of these, and think I caught them all, but if you have some minutes to peruse more fully, that'd be great. If not, I'll give them a once-over tomorrow and then reposition them and hope for the best..! ntnon (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Emperor, sorry i havent quite got to those plot summaries yet.. i think i did the first one and added some info for the last one but never got much further. Work has been hectic. --- Paulley (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

I don't know if you saw the note on the Comics talk, but I've updated the comics series infobox and am working on "fixing" the images...

- J Greb (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comic-Strip mining

Good catch on the Moore interview, I hadn't noticed that yet, and it was indeed interesting. I tried to pick out some salient points - semi-sarcastic reasoning for Lost Girls not having had them pilloried; Century's tentative release date, and then put this together, since it wasn't up yet. :o) ntnon (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I worried - briefly - about that, but fortuitously it's a) Not a comic and b) Very explicitly described by both Top Shelf and Moore. So it's not crystal-balling in the sense of, say, speculation about the already-imminent return of Batman prior to his perpetually rumoured removal..! ntnon (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you didn't think I was toe-stepping by (I noticed afterwards!) editing Mr Davis so soon after yourself...

As a heads-up, I may be AWOL for a short/lengthy/? while, since I'm having serious computer failure.. currently clunking in "Safe Mode," and set to die any second. Could be back tomorrow; could not be. Best case scenario, it'll be like it never happened and everything will carry on as normal. (As if anyone would notice anyway! ;o)) But, just in case... a pre-emptive excuse for absence.

Fingers crossed... ntnon (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not in Windows-forced Safe Mode, but by "choice" - it's definitely heading south with increasing rapidity when started 'normally', though, annoyingly. AVG and Spybot (and a half-dozen other things!) turn up nothing of note, but it seems to do tolerably alright in Safe Mode, which is (as you'll appreciate, I'm sure) nevertheless considerably far from ideal...

System Restore is an increasinly popular-looking option, but it's destroyed a previous computer, so it's a last option. I also suspect it's actually some kind of harddrive problem rather than a software-related issue (despite Safe Mode functioning broadly alright, which could imply otherwise), because this is not the first time I've dealt with a similar problem; nor with this computer...

That said, since it's connecting (..sometimes..), I might not be as "gone" as I'd thought - just minimally about. ;o) Thanks for the positive thoughts, and for the other interview link, if the computer stays on for a few minutes more, I'll have a swift read of that. ntnon (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(Just to update you on the on-going saga... my computer is still not functioning "properly," but it's no longer shutting itself down, so even with "bad sectors" still about, I'm declaring it fixed enough to be used again. Fingers crossed...) ntnon (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm? How do you mean there's just one day for Mr Alessi...? Is there some sort of deletion list, or am I missing something obvious? I'll hope to have something ready and broadly serviceable before too long, anyway. And then back to what I was doing...! ntnon (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse typing. Computer dead. Using a Wii. Badly. 3 hrs on Alessi lost.. May return - not on impossibly difficult Wii. ntnon (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

...yes, that (above) took nearly five minutes to "type," rather defeating the purpose of having access! (But at least it WOULD access.) System Restore was a big help - it brought it back. The first time.. and then Vista decided to install some crucial updates, and corrupted everything you can imagine - including, helpfully, all other system restore points. I did manage to dig most things out of it, however, which was some small consolation. Maybe later I'll get round to re-uploading what I pulled together about Mr Alessi. I'm still musing over the issues you raise, but think one easy solution would be to simply mention bankruptcy as hand-in-hand with CrossGen (I don't recall reading that he went bankrupt, just CC) and then deal with mentioning non-payment issues AT CrossGen. That seems least likely to cause problems and conflicts. ntnon (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

2000A.D.E.

Interesting news (which I've only just spotted). "DE also plans to reprint every issue of "2000 AD" in trade paperback form" - it will be very interesting to see whether that happens, and if so, how they'll do it: straight issue-by-issue or separating series'. I wonder how it'll work internationally, though, with the possible D.E. publications going head-to-head with Titan's... I imagine any new ones will have to be US-only. (And will they step on the toes of the - few - DC-produced books..?) Intriguing. ntnon (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That would make considerable sense - at least, reprinting the Casefiles and other omnibii in the US. (Quite why it hadn't already happened seems bizarre to me - rights issues? Lack of perceived audience?) Here's the report which says "DE also plans to reprint every issue.." although it's probably a mis-reporting rather than a mission statement.

I was surprised DC didn't do more (although they did do Millar's Red Razors and some other "alumni" work) with the Ennis, Morrison, Millar crowd - perhaps Rebellion didn't let them..? (I don't think there was any Dredd printed under the 2000A(DC) deal, at all, was there...?) That said, since one reason that deal lapsed was due to poor sales, I wonder what D.E.s solution/angle is to combat that possibility.

Ultimate Dredd would be an interesting thought...

I have two queries - how well ANY of this will sell in the US, and whether the Zenith rights may be convoluted and undealable only within the UK... that would be interesting! (Although one rumour is that the 2000A(DC) deal was designed - like an allegation behind the WildStorm purchase being to get back Moore - with Zenith in mind, and then dumped when that wasn't workable. Probably untrue, but an interesting thought..!) ntnon (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect something was lost in the reporting. That said, I would like complete, straight reprint collections...! There's no way they'd get to reprinting the 90s until the mid 2010s, by which time there could be nostalgic love for those heady days..! ;o)

But, yes, it was probably American versions of the Casefiles. I don't think that DC just re-barcoded the books - I seem to remember there being DC Editorial information within the books, and that they were a different size... may be misremembering, though. Can another Rogue Trooper game offer anything new..?! A film would be nice though. I'd suggest RT over Johnny Alpha, though, were it up to me.

Zenith is a legendary mess, isn't it? I seem to remember speculation that it's not just Mr Morrison not signing what they'd like though - there was talk of copyright issues being a sub-reason, with the contracts being used almost like a smokescreen. Allegedly. Maybe. The warehouse rumour, however, seems pretty well documented - a raid is an intriguing prospect..!

Yes, there's a lot more "names" about now, which could be a plus - and D.E. have Ennis on board already with The Boys, so that would be at least one possible angle. I do have a bit of latent worry that this is going to just peter out, but... Dynamic Forces owns D.E., and DF has good ties with Diamond (and Wizard), so they should at least have a leg up. ntnon (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that nostalgia won't overrule sense(!), but then.. the nostalgia wave seems to be reappraising the Spider-man Clone Saga, so who can tell..!?

I didn't realise the Trooper game was an award-winning Rogue Trooper game... interesting. And yes, I've done a little digging on the whole IPC/Fleetway/Rebellion/Morrison/Zenith issue, and "complicated" is probably where its best left! I haven't had a chance to ask Mr Morrison, though (not that he'd necessarily have anything to say), which is probably where the most light could be shed.

I had thought that Wizard were possibly involved in owning Dynamic Forces as well as DF owning D.E., but that may be a phantom memory. Either way, D.E. certainly have some resources - think about all their swathes of licensed projects - so it could go well. Or they could over-extend themselves, and... (Is Wagner definitely on board, by the way, or is that all just hopeful speculation on the part of various people..?)

Having read through the early Dredd, Dog, Trooper and other tales fairly recently, I was VERY pleasantly surprised how well they held up. Indeed, a lot of things hold up surprisingly well after several years - including "hip" Stan Lee and some decidedly odd early 2000AD tales. Illustrates rather well why they were all head-hunted by DC, too, when you compare with some of the contemporary US output. Fingers crossed for this, anyway. :o) ntnon (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Another set of eyes ....

Was wondering if you could be another set of eyes on Talk:Captain America#Intelligence. There has been an on-going discussion about Cap's intelligence. It was my impression that the consensus reached was for "no evidence of peak intelligence" and was based on an evaluation of fictional stories in the initial discussion thread. I have posed to insert a statement for "intelligence augmentation" (no extent qualifiers) and have provided both fictional and 3rd party sources; however, most of the purposal has been met with incivilty and threats. This is a lengthy discussion thread, so it might be a little time consuming, but any time you could provide to look over the content of the discussion would be appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Just a quick thank you for the note, your input is always appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC).

Request for help

Normally, I'd let this go, but it's ended up being about a real person, Jeph Loeb, a comic creator. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lots42 the Pyro discussion at the bottom with the other user, part of it takes place on his page. He thinks Loeb is a bad writer and too dumb to understand the difference between mainstream Marvel continuity and Ultimate Marvel continuity. I tried to tell them you can't say that about real people. But as you can see, the discussion has fallen apart. I hope I am clear, if I am not, please ask. Lots42 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Duly Noted

And dealt with in a more appropriate manner.

I apologize if I've been a trifle too rude; I have difficulty seeing the other person's opinion in a subject which to me seems blindingly obvious. As recently proven on the Newsarama article on the late and great Mike Turner, the man can't even write a eulogy without sounding twelve years old. "Supergirl is crying". Give me a frickin' break. What kind of grown man expresses his emotions about the death of a friend by going through an arduous list of known facts and a metaphor based around a scantily-dressed braindead fictional character built primarily to be an offshoot of a male fictional character?

Sorry. Had to get that off my chest...I'm just really angry with this guy about everything he writes. His thing about Mike Turner was almost the last straw.

Anyway. Problem solved. Thanks for your help. SaliereTheFish (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SIA pages with "(comics)"

Since I've noticed you primarily dealing with them, could you take a look at Ghost Girl and Ghost Girl (Marvel Comics)? I'm wondering also if it was a good idea to redirect Satan (comics) and Bliss (comics). Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My quick thoughts are:

* Merge Ghosts Girls as neither is an impressive article (both are borderline deletable) so bringing them together would help bulk them out and might encourage someone to expand them.

* Satan strikes me as the kind of thing that when you start digging you turn up numerous other examples. I'll have a nose around and see what I come up with.

* Bliss is a complicated one as it has never been a disambiguation but looking into it there seems to be enough to warrant further investigations.

I'll sort the Satan one out and probably propose Ghost Girl for merging. (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

I thank you for looking into this. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for pointing them out - I am (slowly) going through them making sure they are up to standard (and helpful) but it is clear there are others I've missed previously so any pointers are appreciated. As was the reminder on linking to disambiguation pages - I've been through and made sure the SIA articles all now conform to that and I'll keep an eye out for this as I work through the list.

I've now done the Satan one, which is confusing as so many characters have claimed to be Satan (especially in Marvel comics for some reason) so there are probably some more but they are the key ones. (Emperor (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

How should it be like for lists? For instance, take this proposal. I'm still wavering on whether it should be a SIA or regular dab page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I don't think there is one good answer. I'd probably add them into a see also here: Spider-Man television series (it might also be a good idea to add a {{seealso}} alongside the {{main}} links in the relevant sections). I reckon it might be worth making that red link into a set index - it can't hurt and if some folks find it helpful then it has to be a Good Thing. (Emperor (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

I'll take that into consideration. BTW, was this edit appropriate? I don't quite know how you work these. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am unsure about "appropriate" - it is something the Anthroponymy Project have been dealing with and I am unsure they have an answer - I notice when Pike (surname) was split from Pike it went in "other uses". On the talk page of {{SIA}} I have suggested that if set indices take off we may need different ways of dealing with this and it may the disambiguation page becomes a holder for links to SIAs or there may even be more cunning ways of doing things. For now I doubt there is an appropriate way but on small pages like that it seems fine. (Emperor (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

I see. Then I'll make a similar edit to Storm (disambiguation) and others I come across. That about right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

Does Punisher (comics) need to exist? Looks way too short to be a dab page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for it. Punisher, rightfully, gets the top slot and as there is only one other use in comics (I did a quick database search and found nothing else) a hatnote would suffice. Just redirect it to Punisher. (Emperor (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Years in comics

Something to keep an eye on... there's a 'bot running that's stripping these out from links like [[1990 in comics|1990]].

I've asked the operator about it here. The rationale for the stripping is cited as WP:EGG, though I cannot see a way to expand the links without the text becoming awkward.

- J Greb (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not letting that go without sticking my oar in... These links clearly don't violate the EGG guidelines, so I've commented to that effect at the link J Greb provided. Hope that's alright... ntnon (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

issue two

i hear CB & MI13 #2 has sold out also, so they are making second printing of that. --- Paulley (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Pollack

Yes, it's time to protect the Rachel Pollack page. 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Mind if I query "why" about this, since this page is on - one of - my 'long lists' of pages to improve..?) ntnon (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is largely covered here: Talk:Rachel Pollack#Transsexual?. (Emperor (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Right. I wondered as much, but couldn't see anything particularly telling in the main edit history. Should have thought to check the Talk Page..! ;o) ntnon (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to fix but at the moment it is back and forth (adding, removing, etc.) when just finding some solid sources should sort it out for the most part. (Emperor (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Comics Project branding

Quick query - are "C" and "low importance" the generic settings, or is there some rhyme or reason about which articles get which initial ratings/importance..? ntnon (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - the workgroup, heading and whatnot are the important additions. I just wasn't sure if you/people were weighing up everything against some kind of gold standard, or whether "C"/"low" were just reasonable middle-ratings prior to better assessment. Young Romance was the one I was a little surprised to see as "low importance" - but, philosophically, I wasn't sure enough of what the baseline was for importance to worry enough about contesting it specifically..! (YR is vitally important in relation to other romance comics; reasonably important relative to other genres and titles. But then as a Kirby-comic, it's probably middling; as a longlasting comic, middling, etc., etc.) Are there any centralised decision-making guidelines/people, or is it all a little arbitrary...? (Also, there must be a way to see which articles are "High"/"A", etc., surely..? Any idea how I find it, please?! :o) I see the guidelines, and they provide the reverse-links to all articles rated a certain way, but I can't seem to separate "comics" from "everything".) ntnon (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Browsing a bit further... I see "top"-level rated articles include Superman, Batman and Spider-man; Comic strip, Little Nemo and Calvin and Hobbes, plus Manga, Robert Crumb.. probably some more, including - rightly - Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Alan Moore (although not all of them have the banner, some seem to have "Category" links. And that page doesn't seem to be fully alphabetised..).

Do we need a concerted effort to rate and rank other things? (Julius Schwartz is "high" to "top," for example; Martin Goodman (publisher) should be higher than "mid", etc., etc.) Plus, some don't seem to have been ranked at all... Indeed, I see from this log page that Flash and Neil Gaiman have been downgraded recently - any idea if that will have been an individual choice or a centralised decision..?

Sorry to burden you with these queries! ;o) ntnon (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Check It Out

Could you maybe help out on these page with displaying references in is own section; tidy it up a bit Kelvin Martinez (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles in popular music

Well I never

I never realised that Americans spelt traveller with one L. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The only answer is the establishment of a Greater British Empire. I will start immediately and you can write the wikipedia article. Be warned, I will sue wikipedia unless I am referred to as Allemandtando the first in all references to my imperial person. Yours --Allemandtando (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Juggernaut (comics)

Hopefully that isn't jumping the gun...

- J Greb (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. and I could use a second set of eyes on Phil's comments re this on my talk and the one post section of his on the article's talk. Thanks - J Greb (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Blue Beetle

Just wondering... why have you catted this with "Dynamite Entertainment characters"? - J Greb (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion as well.

(In most things, of course - grin - but this in particular at the moment.)

Please see my talk page.

I've read and re-read. I've compared timestamps of comments and edits. All-in-all, it's looking rather convincing that Phil was using his ability as an admin to edit a protected article to his own preferred version as "just another editor", rather than as an aid to the discussion.

(Indeed, phil was/is inches away from a claim of "wheel-warring" - a term that I really don't like to see. I think admins should be able to revert each other, though rarely, and when they do, there should be a good reason. With "good" being subjective, of course.)

Anyway, thank you for your thoughts. - jc37 06:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page after looking it over as you'd suggested. Please also see User talk:Phil Sandifer for more information. - jc37 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merlins

I might be a little confused but isnt that the same one that was in Die By The Sword... cus you know he had Fury inside him (which happened at the end of the mini-series)... after pulling it out it took the evil out of him with it and thats why he decided to help and look more like the olde Merlin? thats how i understood it. On that note i must continue to add the plot bit and do the Wisdom ones. --- Paulley (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, nothing in life is ever simple... yea i remember the "which me" bit when Roma asked her father to visit CB after he was resurrected the first time and i know its always been a gray area concerning Merlyn/Merlin but like i said though i think we have to mention that it is a version of Merlyn's (or his character) called Merlin who became dominant when Merlyn extracted the Fury (along with his madness) from within in himself.. that is what i thought Merlin in issue three explained it as... cus i just dont see any other way how this Merlin had a chuck of Fury inside himself. hmmm maybe its a question to ask Paul lol --- Paulley (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh there goes my plan then :P ... also maybe you want to change this edit then an anon user recently made in Merlyn (Marvel Comics) --- Paulley (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, if anything its a quick fix until there is real clarification. --- Paulley (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Something at John Buscema

Could you do me a favor?

User:Scott Free added and external link to the Buscema article, here's the version.

The link is to an article on Buscema on NationMater.com. That site looks a lot like a Wiki knock-off. And the article itself looks a lot like this.

I've already posted what I think are polite queries to Scott Free, here, but I'd like a second set of level headed eyes on it before one of the more enthusiastic editors of the Buscema article see it.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Scott Free reverted the Emperor edit. I restored it to Emperor's, and have commented about that particular mirror site at Talk:John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've just seen that Scott Free has erased J Greb's posting. [5] --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shakara.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shakara.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

More Moore

Thanks for the heads up (again). I think there's some Century notes that could be picked out, and - should there be a need for a separate page any time soon - possibly on Jerusalem. Otherwise it's just another interesting interview, but with little new.. maybe there's a quote that could be dug out and emblazoned atop the The Wire page(!) (Or, if they have any sense, the DVDs...)

Looking forward to Mr Gibbons' Watchmen book (and the film trailer's interesting, too) - I wonder whether it's worth picking through the interview for any salient stuff, though, or waiting patiently for the book itself...? ntnon (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at what was there about Mr Gibbons generally, I've now added a fair bit of chronological information on his various major works. And tried to weave in some stuff from the interview to (although I noticed you'd already added the book itself, of course). ntnon (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fluid Friction Comics

Hey there, I noticed that Fluid Friction Comics got deleted for notability, and I'm not concerned about the actual deletion (I remember it looking dubious), but I am concerned that I didn't know it was up for deletion, even though it was on my watchlist. Do you know how that works? I haven't been through this enough to know, but it seems logical that the physical act of slapping a tag -- any tag -- on an article would trigger its appearance on watchlists. Any ideas? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh how bizarre! At least I know that I didn't "miss" anything. I just assumed it went through the whole normal deletion process and I was blissfully unaware. Thanks for the heads up! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Their first release will be in August" = not yet notable. And yes, I can delete articles without tagging them first (and so can you; process is not all-important). If you think that blatant garbage (which, I'll admit, this was NOT) needs to be tagged as such before being deleted, you're wrong. That said, however, their stuff has already been released, and they managed to get the involvement of some notable people. Don't know how I missed that. Thank you for restoring the article. I agree with your action, but not with your reasoning. DS (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's scary. Why bother to have any processes if they need not be followed? It would be one thing if it was a brand new page consisting only of the text "I just farted hahahahahaha!!!", but it's quite another when it's an actual article, no matter how lacking its quality or questionable its notablity. Not really good for an editor's work ethic, knowing articles can be deleted on a whim. *shrug* --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I misperceived it as spammish - "we're a brand new company and we've got our first publication coming out next month!!!" is never a good sign. If I'd been a little more careful, I would have noticed that they've already got Bisley and Cho doing stuff for 'em, which goes for notability. I'm always willing to admit my own errors. DS (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But surely something that seems spammish -- unless it could actually be dangerous -- wouldn't be a candidate for instant removal and would have to go through some kind of process. I see blatant, blatant spam listed as speedy delete candidates all the time. The article had an infobox added by one editor and categories added by another and wasn't brand new, three signs that the article had at least been given a quick once-over by people besides its creator. It's not really that this particular article turned out to be deleted in error, that you missed a few facts (I hadn't dug into things yet, I'd missed them too); it's the total lack of process that was followed and the fact that every low-quality or stub article on Wikipedia could be targeted in this way. One reason I was attracted to working here was because this isn't supposed to be able to happen. But again, *shrug*. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 17:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes well, accidents happen. It does need a thorough rewriting. I have flagged that on the talk page and we might as well move things forward now this is fixed. (Emperor (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Extra eyes needed.

I need some extra eyes on this User talk:J Greb#Bizarro and [6].

To be honest, I'm tire (long day), and frustrated with this situation. I think I may have crossed a line with my post on my talk page, but I'm really at a loss as to how to get my point across. Hence the request for some level-headed 3rd eyes.

- J Greb (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OEL manga debacle

Hey, I'm going to basically step out of the whole OEL manga category thing. I just...feel utterly useless and it's basically upsetting me, so it's better I'm not involved. Anything that involves me alone having to cross paths with the Anime & Manga project is generally destined to make me feel rotten. So, I just wanted someone to know, and if I could go back in time and just pretend I had never heard of it, I would but, well... I'm sorry to have stirred it up to begin with.  :| --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff

Nice work on Alex Nino, E. Glad to see he's still remembered. To this day some panels of his "'Repent, Harlequin'..." are etched in my brain. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agents of Atlas

D'oh! Of course. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice

• WP:AN/I

I'm currently under time constraints, but wanted to leave you a notice concerning Juggernaut and Phil Sandifer. - jc37 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew J Lewis

Do you want to have a look at this and comment at the afd? The article lists him as being known in 2000AD circles, so I figured you might have heard of him. For me as it stands I'd probably go deletion, but if you can see something I can't I'll follow your lead. Hiding T 10:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Start-class assessment

Hi there. I noticed that you added more information after I gave Elsa Bloodstone a Start-class rating. If it interests you, I had gone through the unassessed-class comics articles and given a few dozen of them Start-class ratings earlier today. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.  :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A second opinion

Can you take a look at Howard Mackie for anything potentially libelous? I already deleted some stuff in the name of caution, considering Mackie is a real person, but a second opinion never hurt. Lots42 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Compliment

As BOZ rightly and humbly pointed out when I complimented him on his talk page just now, I somehow stupidly missed sending the same compliment your way. To save my tired brain, I'll just reiterate: You're doing a hell of a lot of work adding ComicsProject class/grade boxes and detailed rationales to a lot of articles. I, and I'm sure other regulars would join me on this, want to acknowledge and thank you for doing so much needed and time-consuming work. A round of applause! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!Lots42 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can only do a few dozen (a drop in a bucket, or perhaps a cup if we don't want to be overly dramatic) which is only going to amount to 1 or 2 % of the total that need doing. I'm mainly hitting the more important ones that pop up on my watchlist and the ones I'm interested in. There are vast swathes of unassessed articles and in the end many hands do make light work #hint# #hint#. If we can get a reasonable number done it might inspire others to have a go and it could snowball. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Infobox comics creator

Finally added the website param... though it may need eyes kept on it. If it becomes an auction house magnet, I may just remove it. - J Greb (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Superheroes

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. That template is not needed or required. Showing that template, shows your looking for help or trolling for users to support your concensus. Please see WP:Troll --DJS24 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another request for help

The Buffy episode Prophecy Girl. I know it might not be your area of expertise but I know you're a cool editor. Someone keeps adding in a bit of misspelled, mist-yped information about Buffy's clothes many, many times in a row. History shows I've deleted it twice. Now I can deal if the info stays in, but one, there are many, many typos and the person keeps re-adding it in, many times in a row, it is so confusing. In conclusion, can you give them a quick (and polite, naturally) talking to? I hope I am making sense. Lots42 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

Well, it's been a day. But you seem to have started an RfC at the project talk page, so I am loathe now to MfD it until the RfC has had some time to continue. I have little doubt of the merger/deletion of the project. (Which seems to be the work of only those 2 enthusiastic editors - presuming that no puppetry is involved, of course. There have been some "interesting" edits by the two).

As such I'll wait, unless you suggest otherwise. But please keep me "in the loop" on this. - jc37 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't start a RfC - someone posted merge tags so it made sense to start the discussion (as those tags have been removed a number of times - and I somehow managed to get a vandalism warning over it) I think that technically means the merge has been squashed. Also they pitching it as an us vs them situation (when there certainly isn't an "us") and so throwing it open to wider discussion and getting more input on this would be a good idea. (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, AFAICT, merge isn't PROD. So actually, the tags shouldn't have been removed until consensus one way or the other was determined.

But that aside, it looks like we have a new wrinkle. See my talk page history for the actual posts, and the discussion at User talk:Blackwatch21‎ - Your and others' thoughts would be most welcome. - jc37 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh it has all got confusing. I'll leave that to see how it pans out. (Emperor (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Workgroup

As an aside, what are your thoughts concerning the creation of a character (or broader: content) workgroup?

To give you some of my thinking, I have been torn between a WikiProject Fictional characters and a comics-related content work-group. The former would be inclusive of all media, since most character articles are similar. The latter would just allow us to streamline and focus on comics content-related articles. And yes, I suppose both could be created, for that matter...

Something I've been thinking about for awhile. What do you think? - jc37 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In discussion have said I didn't think something like a fictional character project would work that well. If you look at things like the DC or Marvel characters they are very self-contained and there is so much crossover with Marvel character, titles, locations, etc. that it wouldn't make much sense to bring another project to bear on one aspect of that as they are so interconnected someone knowledgeable in the character would also know about the title and associated artefacts (same can go for say the Heroes characters - you'd have to know about the episodes too). Obviously something like the creators work group makes sense as there are WP:BLP issues that need to be applied and monitored very carefully. That is just my feeling - it seems like it would be adding in an extra layer which doesn't bring any pluses and could potential throw in some minuses (it might be you'd need to set up different criteria and guidelines for each medium when these are already in place with the respective projects). However, I might be missing something. (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

That's kind of why I haven't gone further with it. I would speculate that (besides page formatting questions like infoboxes and the like) we talk the most about comics content-related articles, and the organising and describing thereof. That and, I doubt anyone would bother making the step to the work group. The main project talk page would likely still be used. (etc.)

I still think that a character WP might be interesting, especially since I think that the articles could definitely use some standardisation. (Every WikiProject has their own standard. I think these should be unified, while allowing for individual customisation.) And I have a few things started on my computer, but it's rather in rough draft mode, yet.

And while on the subject of workgroups, I'm wondering if maybe we should turn the geographical workgroups into "noticeboards" instead. There really isn't much more to them than their main page and talk page, I think? - jc37 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On your points:

• I wonder if it might be better to work at WP:FICT to create a rock solid set of standards for fictional characters (perhaps spinning a page off from there) - I know from going through and rating that while articles can do well and get to a B following general guidelines where the start to need work to push them on further is more out-of-universe material. This isn't really what WP:FICT can deal with (as it is mainly for notability) enshrining this in guidelines so it gets added in early would be really helpful. Articles like Nova (comics) are rather stuck, the only way to push it on further would be to hack back all that plot and try and expand things like character design, the creators thinking behind the storylines and a reception section. Obviously as all Projects have to follow such guidelines it would start really creating some consistency and helping to get fictional character articles off to a good start (although obviously the general principles also apply to comics titles as well as comics characters, so perhaps we need to get the fictional character material worked out, then something on fictional output and then sketch out how this applies to comics - we are trying to do this in an uncoordinated way at the moment, trying to keep a solid lid on plot and working on the out-of-universe material, see Final Crisis, Guardians of the Galaxy (Modern) and Captain Britain and MI: 13 which are all ongoing now and keeping the plot low means you can write a decent plot later on without it growing wildly and then having to be hacked back and rewritten). Obviously having a guideline to point to would be great as it means everyone will be on the same page. I think that angle of attack could be a lot more productive (and would then trickle down to the various projects).
• I think they work OK -I'd like to see more activity on them but part of the point is it supplies the necessary resources for people to go and do it right, but they also allow talk page tagging so we can split down requests and quality assessments by work group - which will really help with targeting clean-up. If only for the latter I'd argue for keeping them.

I can tell what we are doing is generally working when I find a new article started by someone who might not be in the Comics Project but they have clearly picked up things from similar examples and the current guidelines and got it off to a good start, which is exactly the kind of thing we want. (Emperor (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Makes sense, and makes sense. (I actually was wondering about the tagging when I posted that : )

As an aside, would you be willing to help with the creation of a sort of WP:CLN for fictional content? - jc37 04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I probably wouldn't have been interested in a Fictional Characters Project as I talked it through above it occurs to me something like that would make a lot of sense. A Project might clash with the ways other Projects already do their work but guidelines are a higher order framework which could help the individual projects strengthen up their implementations of the guidelines. There are general principles and also ones that might be needed for specific types of storytelling (for example serialised storytelling like comics and TV series will need extra advice about holding off on major plot sections until more information is available). I do wonder if it should be pitched as characters or broader at stories themselves as the two are pretty similar and can be interchangeable (like eponymous mini-series or character based books, like James Bond).

And yes the tagging is key - like the Comics Project as a whole we don't need people to sign up, the information is there for people to use. I've dropped in a to do list on each talk page and dropped in links to the various categories so people can can jump straight in an see what needs doing. After we get the B-class business sorted out I'm going to try an infobox drive. I'll be focusing on British comics and comics creators but there are a lot of articles that need them and the work groups will be key in splitting them up so people aren't overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

"...something like that would make a lot of sense." - Which? The WikiProject or the WP:CLN-style page? (Or both?) - jc37 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"a sort of WP:CLN for fictional content" (Emperor (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification : )

And yes, for one thing, I'd like to try to "settle" the list vs. category vs. navbox confusion for fictional content. (Let's see, Afd the list, and make it a category, then delete the category, and turn it into a navbox, and then turn the navbox into a list, and repeat : )

And there's always the question of categories (or navboxes) for team membership. Hmm. Don't we have some MoS pages which discuss this that we could use as a starting resource? - jc37 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the categories -> lists -> cat -> lists, gives me the fear. It should be possible to draw on previous discussion and policy there. If the category is contentious then it has to be a list. I also don't see a problem with having a list and a category (as the list can be sourced and include red links) but I'd prefer them to complement each other (so you have Category: Films based on comics and List of films based on comics, where the category and lists cover different areas, e.g. List of films based on English-language comics, so a category might have a lot of subdivisions and a list pulls them all together in one place - it came up recently in relation to... something and having them both but each covering the same topic in different ways is quite useful).

There should be something as team member categories were firmly put down and it must be written down in the guidelines... somewhere. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Looks like you and I agree on this. How do you think we should start? - jc37 00:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

{unindent) Well I prefer the slow and steady approach (which doesn't mean you shouldn't just go for it if you want) and would suggest drawing up an outline in your sandbox, getting input from the Comics Project and then reaching out to novels, film and TV and then take it up to the next stage. Of course, there might be a quicker and simpler way of doing this. (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

So in other words, the ball is in my court to get anything started. K, I'll see what I can do : ) - jc37 20:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - go for it. I will chip in when my thinking on this crystallises a bit more. (Emperor (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

CfD nomination of Category:Warcraft comics

I have nominated Category:Warcraft comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William R. Corliss

I have nominated William R. Corliss, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Corliss. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Britain

Good work - it's now a much more solid B than when I originally commented.  :) Still could use more refs in the bio, but I won't complain. I'm going to try to add the checklist to more articles today, as time allows. I got dozens started yesterday. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll betcha "Brittanic" will be easier than most characters to find information like that for.  :) Good luck! BOZ (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Underground

I'll see what I can dig up on Vinyl Underground. It's a series that I have, but for various reasons don't have access to... but I think I can get access to at least the first six via an intermediary! That and interviews should be a help, so I'll give a go. It was pretty good, although I was under the (presumably inaccurate) impression that it was only a six-issue mini/12-issue maxi to begin with, and, yes. The figures I've seen from it's early issues were a) 'typical Vertigo numbers' and b) 'low'. Still, always a shame to see the English contingent's work drift under the radar. ntnon (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to pull together some background and overview-esque details prior to being able to get hold of the issues themselves, and I'm not at all sure how coherent or "encyclopedic" it all turned out (tired, busy, other excuses..). But there's something there now other than links and the trade details, which is a start at least... :o)

I left "plot" for later and "reception" since I wasn't sure if you were already working on anything with numbers and reviews for that. I agree though that Paris has considerably more interviews, previews and notes than VU. I couldn't find anything from Mr Spencer beyond his Vertigo column, which was distinctly odd - it can't have been pushed much at all. Mind you, the Hellblazer link might be part of the 'why,' since (maybe) it was difficult to see what VU could have done differently. But certainly a relative lack of promotion from Vertigo and the UK does seem to have hamstrung the title. Not that any Vertigo comic sells particularly high numbers, of course.

And, yes, I did just notice that oddity in collections. I was assuming that it was a 6/6 split, six being the more common number for a tpb, but apparently not, as you say. Maybe before December the powers that be will bump the page count and collect seven in Pretty Dead Things. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but hope that it turns out to be a 170-pager. ntnon (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Masters of Horror

Hiya - It looks like tehres a lot of articles relating to the Mastsers of Horror series that are being deleted, redirected or pretty savagely pruned, particularly the episodes. I beleive they can be saved with some effort, detailed here, and it seems like the sort of thing that might be up your alley. If not I'm sure you might know someone who might be up for it, and that you might let know. Cheers, Artw (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

*cough* You seem to be pushing the canvas line (never mind the false statements above when the main Masters of Horror article was actually expanded for the first time in ages with basic info long missing, with real references and only the episode articles were redirected, by guidelines, to the new episode list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a freindly notice about some work that I believe would benefit wikipedia, to someone with an interest in similar articles. Possibly you should reread the policy article before continuing. ANyhow, this is not really the place for this discussion is it? Artw (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As Emperor is an admin, no reason not to note it here where someone who you might actually listen to can confirm or deny. And your note above is obviously not a neutral notice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry - I have Artw's talk page on my watchlist and I edited a number of articles in the past (I also did a series of reviews of the series, but they seem to have disappeared in a redesign of the site I did them for) so looked this issue over yesterday. That said a friendly nudge is always worthwhile - Artw knows I'm a sci-fi/horror fan so it makes sense )I've also worked on improving a lot of TV episode articles), and just because he asked doesn't mean I'm going to agree with him (as he well knows ;) ). I think we can safely move this discussion over to the Masters of Horror page. (Emperor (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Rocko's Modern Life

The references are on the paragraph with the (current) ref number 5, which paragraph begins with Murray also sought Alan Silvestri; according to Murray, Silvestri did not wish to perform the theme song as "wasn't into doing television. As far as I understand citing, this citation would encompass the entire section up to that point. Unless you'd prefer to have the exact same cite tag on each individual sentence? Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually if anyone deserves thanks, it would be one of your fellow admins, who spent a large amount of time and effort finding those references in the first place. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Black Cat

As a Poe expert round these parts I wonder if you had come across any resources that could be used to help improve The Black Cat (Masters of Horror episode)? I'm having a general nose around but it may be you've seen something somewhere else. (Emperor (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Hey, Emperor! I'm not familiar with that particular piece... In fact, I only remember hearing about it for the first time through Wikipedia. There is a good "Poe and Cinema" book that I once had my hands on, but I don't think it was recent enough to have included this one. Sorry I can't be more help! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Top

Looks more like an SIA page rather than a dab. Thoughts? And may I suggest using a redirect for Whirlwind (comics) per WP:PIPING? Human Top (David Cannon) comes to mind. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah about the character Whirlwind, is flight a significant ability of his? I ask this because the article is categorized as such, yet there's no mention of it in context. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Shield (comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The page looked like it could use a little more detail. For instance, why isn't it marked as SIA? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What should become of Effigy (comics)? I noted that someone moved it to Effigy (DC Comics) but didn't bother to make a set index article out of it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And I made a few edits to Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics). How does it look [7]? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My only concern now is that WP:FN#Resizing references implies that {{reflist}} should only be utilised if the list is exceedingly long. That's why I switched it to <references/>. How does the layout appear on your screen? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Speed Demon (comics) and Whizzer (comics) would be better off as set index articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds confusing. Probably best if we left it alone eh? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Until then, I have both pages watchlisted. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I seem to be busying myself at Douglas Macmillan for the afternoon, but just stumbled on this flickr set, [8]. See who you can recognise and if you can upload them to the commons, or let me know and I'll do so. I've spotted Nick Abadzis, Rian Hughes and Paul Gravett, I think there's more gems in there. I think there may be something to do with the DFC in there as well, see [9]. I know you were working on that article. Hiding T 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• The licensing is fine, CC-attribution-only share alike. Perfect for Commons. I've made a start with Gravett and D'Israeli, just doing Hughes and then onto Abadzis. I only search Flickr using the creative commons search. I wish they'd allow a rss feed of cc licensed images, to be honest. Hiding T 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's the search query url, by the way.[10] Makes sense to share it. Probably be a good idea to stick it at the resources page or the phot needed page, thinking about it. Hiding T 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added it to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators right at the top. Hmm, Ditko may be an instance where we have a good claim at a fair use image. After all the man is a recluse, I reckon we could put up a bloody good argument that it isn't easy to get a free image of him. It seems silly that we have to wait for these people to die simply to add images to Wikipedia. Mind, there was that BBC doc on Ditko recently, who owns copyright on BBC stuff, us as the license payers? Be nice if it were true.... I'd have Blake's 7 on every Monday just like when I were a lad. Hiding T 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I've added a Ditko image, given a fair stab at a decent tight rationale. We'll see. Yes, Blake's Seven was somewhat wobbly, but that's half the fun. It's the dialogue and the delivery that holds up... stuff like "he's the second greatest computer expert in the federation" "Whose the first?" The man who caught him." Tight and well paced. Special effects in the seventies look awful, but when you compare them to the eighties they actually date better because they have a sort of honesty about them. The eighties stuff really is silly, very basic special effects I could've achieved on a ZX Spectrum no doubt. But then I hate Colin Baker, so... Hiding T 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some feed back

Could you take a look at the docs for {{Infobox comics set index}} and {{Infobox comics set index}} and see if they're with in reason.

I figured, given the revamping of the templates themselves, reworking the docs in a consistent manner was in order. I'm not sure though if I've gone overboard.

- J Greb (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... the second one should be {{Infobox Asian comic series}}. Basically it's the "alias" and "Asian non-manga" infoboxes. I've been trying to clean up the documentation sections. - J Greb (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... its the one thats been in use for a while now on articles like Robin (comics), Flash (comics), and Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics)... - J Greb (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, and it can be moved to either "Infobox alias" or "Infobox alias hub".

The long and the short of it was that the "Alias" box be used in cases like "Robin (comics)" and "Flash (comics)", where all of the characters have their own article.

The idea was that the infobox shouldn't have redundant information. If a character has its own article, then the other aliases, affiliations, creators, first appearances and name changes, and powers should be in that infobox, not the one for the hub article. This is why in articles like Doctor Fate and Atom (comics), even though all of the characters are listed under alter egos, but only the characters cover by fully in that article have all the details added. The "comics set index" 'box went the step of removing the fields that shouldn't be present.

- J Greb (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of those have merit... though I'm leery about stacking the Asian infobox variations with the examples, way too long for the sections. - J Greb (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy

The Project Fanboy Awards are scheduled to be announced Sunday, March 1st, at MegaCon 2009 and have been announced on the MegaCon website here MegaCon 2009 News. Does this effect Project Fanboy's notability enough to stick as an article now? Best regards, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Comicrelated.com has added a Project Fanboy Press release concerning the event under their section, Rapid Fire News which links to their Conventions and Events forum where they posted the [url=http://www.comicrelated.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2557 Project Fanboy Press release]. (The link under Rapid Fire News is called Fanboy@MegaCon.) Not sure if this helps any, but thought I'd bring it up.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CB's SI over

Well one story arc down and 7 covers over the three first issues... that's gotta be a good sign. Not sure if you have read issue 4 yet but well there is one thing in it alotta people are not gonna like. --- Paulley (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's why i was being vague lol.. i havent mentioned the real spoiler to be worried about in the article as its very character specific, but well i wouldnt suggest you read John The Skrull's article until youve read the comic. --- Paulley (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Protector (comics)

User:Brian Boru is awesome moved the page Protector (comics) to Protector (DC Comics). Was it wise of him? I'm unsure if a SIA would be necessary to make use of the redirect. What are your thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it needs to be a SIA as we have Protector (Marvel Comics) and a couple of other related items. I've sorted that out. (Emperor (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Dracula (comics) could use a little attention. BTW who else do you think should fall under Category:Fictional hypnotists? I've kept psychics like Professor X out of here because it seems there is a difference between hypnosis and mind control. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And there seems to be a mini edit war going on at Cheetah (comics). I'm not surprised that it's the same guy moving the page. Should Cheetah (comics) be changed to a set index article or is it fine where it is? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2¢ on Cheetah: No, the "(comics)" shouldn't convert to an SI.

As near as I can tell we've only got 2 characters: 1 DC, 1 Marvel. If both were equally likely search targets, or if there were more targets, then yes, an SI would be a good idea. Without that, the "(comics)", IIUC with WP:DAB, goes to the most likely with a hatnote for the lesser. That's the current situation.

- J Greb (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there are no other Cheetah's that I can find and the the DC one is a much higher profile character and far more likely to be the search term people are looking for. So leave it as it is. (Emperor (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

What about Effigy (comics)? Is one more popular than the other? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Trickier to say - it is more balanced (although in favour of the DC character), with Cheetah she is a solid second tier character with extensive appearances across decades and completely eclipses the Marvel character. Obviously, given the way characters can come back the Cheetah one is something we'd want to keep an eye on but for now it seems fine as it is. (Emperor (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

I've just discovered that Sgt. Rock's talk page is titled Talk:Sgt. Rock (comics). I'm unable to move the talk page back. Thoughts on what should be done? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Titans, etc.

Sorry, weaving all over the place at the moment, so I've only just seen these notes... Do you have the power to drag the deleted text on the "Terror Titans" out of limbo and stick it in my slashspacething somewhere like User:Ntnon/Terror...? I've no idea if it was good/terrible/other page and worthy-or-not of deletion, but I do seem to see a lot more deletions and (over-)editing than creations and additions. Hard to say if it's a new trend, an inaccurate observation, or how things necessarily work, but it's a little sad to see.

That said generally, I haven't read much on or featuring the Terror Titans, so they could easily be a flash in the pan (and with the underwhelming initial reception that the new Titans series, the Titans franchise in general is in need of a good hard look). It may then be wise to hold back for a while, but if there was anything worth salvaging from the now-deleted page, it might not be a bad idea to do so. (Although - is there any reason not to do that..? Are there behind-the-scenes/etiquette rules that procled this sort of salvaging operation..!?)

Thanks for the Abrams link, also. I don't know that there's all that much to be teased out of it, but I know that I'm personally grateful for the heads-up note over those titles..! I'm implausibly busy at the moment, but I've uncovered a lot of good stuff on some under-represented topics which I'll hopefully get round to writing up soon. (Plus I realise I haven't finished/shifted this or this into Wikipedia-proper yet.. if you have a second or several to cast an eye over either of those, I'd be grateful. And no rush at all, as I say.) :o) ntnon (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. And again - no rush. I likely won't be in any position to notice anything for a day or so, so.. only when you have some spare moments. ntnon (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Started a storm in a teacup... I saw your comment to Protonk about the impermanence of linking to the DCComics.com/comics solicitation (which would obviously be preferable as the publisher's own record), and agree completely. So the propogation of October Solicitation information at Newsarama should provide a permanent link to the October 1 due date. (And December coverdate.) ntnon (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get a permanent link caches someplace but it hasn't been crawled by the internet archive yet (perhaps they might not crawl it as the url suggests it is autogenerated). when I can find a permanent link I'll try to post it. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As I say it might not be a big deal - the link is really only useful in the early days when the issues are coming out and over time becomes less useful, so we could just remember to remove it. As mentioned the information there is usually only what is solicited, just not in a big long list with other titles out that month. So if you want a permanent record of what it says it is in the solicitations (although you could double check to see if it covers everything). (Emperor (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

I just assume DC doesn't want to use more bandwidth/space than is necessary. And there isn't much need to maintain "FUTURE" solicitations when they are become past solicitations..! My "preserve things at all costs!"-side sees minor parallels to their deletion with the early destruction of artwork and the Beeb wiping Dr Who (etc.), but... the parallels are slight-to-non-existant. Removing "a paragraph summarising a future comic" when the comic has been published and thus the summary superceded isn't that big a deal - except in trying to link there, and that's probably not a concern for DC.

Incidentally, looking at the URL, it's possible that the current solicitation links will survive beyond six months. I'm sure they used to be in MMDD## format, so the purge after six months was merely to clear the decks for the next year's batch, which would have (near-)identical links (and why they weren't YYMMDD##, I don't know. Or, maybe they were and I'm misremembering..!). The current links - and new DC layout - appear to be solely numerical. Starting from when, I couldn't guess... maybe Crisis? Or just arbitrary... ntnon (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Crisis of Infinite Solicitations?

It is a good point about the future comics, as our main point of reference has to be the details in the comic itself not what the company says is going to be in it so we may not even want a solicitation link after the comic is out, just to confirm details of issues before they emerge (often they'll note how the issues fit into a crossover storyline, for example, which is quite handy beforehand). (Emperor (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

terror titans

I tagged Terror Titans as a repost. I read and understand your rationale for recreating the article but I think that we should respect the outcome of the AfD and not recreate the article pending a future comic release. I hope you can see this as a good faith disagreement on the merits of the article rather than an antagonistic act. I apologize if this seems brash or insulting. Feel free to dispute this either on the talk page for the article or my talk page. thank you for your time. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• The CSD-G4 was declined with the suggestion to list the article at AfD. I have done so here. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. Not sure where you want to continue the discussion, but I'll do so here. So long as we can find and agree upon some reliable sourcing to verify the claim that a comic is in the bag (I agree that October isn't really crystal ballery if the info is good), I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record: When the comic gets published and hits the shelves, I'll be helping build it. However, promises of publication from a publisher arent' the same, see Ultimate Hulk Vs Wolverine, issue 3 and 4, for an example, or Astro City in general. Multiple solicitations don't equal reality. ThuranX (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comics categories

I'm trying to build a category structure so that I can add it to the style guidance, and I'd appreciate your input. I've made some initial comments at User talk:Hiding/X7. Hiding T 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've copied your comments over from my talk to User talk:Hiding/X7. You make some good points that I will respond to, I think you're right about being too technical regards comic magazines and so on, but I'm off to bed now. I think Jc is going to continue the conversation, so keep an eye on it. Best, Hiding T 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  I have, but I suppose we can wait on further discussion until Hiding returns : ) - jc37 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Message from WikiProject Media franchises unofficial coordinator

Dear Emperor...I am so happy that you are part of WikiProject Media franchises. I am still reaching out to other WikiProjects to see if we can get some more interest, so I would like to depend on you and the others to do things like get articles assessed and find other articles which might need our attention by placing {{WikiProject Media franchises}} on their talk pages. Another thing is to start using {{Infobox Media franchises}} on franchise articles. I trust you to use your best judgment, and if you haven't already done so, you can add {{User WikiProject Media franchises}} to your user page or dedicated user box page. When enough people have that, or WikiProject Media franchises participants on the user pages, I will start that category.

I may not be the best coordinator around, but I am doing my best. I hope that you approve. LA @ 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Emperor...Just as an aside, if you want to see just how big Media franchises can get, and probably bigger, take a look around at my personal list of media franchises which I am watching. I had to split it between several pages. LA @ 07:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list of comics. I will add them soon. I wonder if my film or television list has any films or television series on them with comics. LA @ 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

---

To my comics guru...I have a big favor to ask of you. I know almost nothing about comics and trying to list them is confusing at best. I was wondering if you would help me even further by helping put together the list of the ones in the franchises I am tracking. (If you want to track franchises on those pages, let me know, we can work it out.) What I am looking for is the following...

"<series title>" by <comic/comic series creator> (<original year>) <redlinks are fine>

So, for example, the Superman series "Death of Superman," believe it or not I remember that, it would be...

"The Death of Superman" by Dan Jurgens, Louise Simonson, and Roger Stern (1992)

Do you have time and energy to help me with this? LA @ 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the time constraint completely, and thank you for jumping in to help me with the project. I am so relieved that I am not the only one who is interested in this kind of thing. There is a fledgling list already started here. I may spend some time and add everything that I am tracking, maybe not in detail, but a list none the less. I will hopefully have it updated soon. LA @ 06:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I made you a list of comics related lists and categories, some of which need to be created or renamed if you feel like it. The only thing that I am not sure about is music, should it be split between albums and songs? Also, here is a group of 4 television programs and a radio program based on a comic strip Ripley's Believe It or Not! Oh no, I forgot radio programs. EEPS! I will need to go back and fix the grid again. Also, are comics and comic strips seperate? I think that is it for now. LA @ 22:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• List of comics based on books
  • List of comics based on novels
  • List of comics based on short stories
• List of comics based on films
• List of comics based on games
  • List of comics based on role-playing games
  • List of comics based on video games
• List of comics based on music
• List of comics based on plays
  • List of comics based on musicals
• List of comics based on television programs
• List of comics based on toys
• List of books based on comics
  • List of novels based on comics
  • List of short stories based on comics
• List of films based on comics
• List of games based on comics
  • List of role-playing games based on comics
  • List of video games based on comics
• List of music based on comics
• List of plays based on comics
  • List of musicals based on comics
• List of television programs based on comics
• List of toys based on comics
• Category:Comics based on books
  • Category:Comics based on novels
  • Category:Comics based on short stories
• Category:Comics based on films
• Category:Comics based on games
  • Category:Comics based on role-playing games
  • Category:Comics based on video games
• Category:Comics based on music
• Category:Comics based on plays
  • Category:Comics based on musicals
• Category:Comics based on television programs
• Category:Comics based on toys
• Category:Books based on comics
  • Category:Novels based on comics
  • Category:Short stories based on comics
• Category:Films based on comics
• Category:Games based on comics
  • Category:Role-playing games based on comics
  • Category:Video games based on comics
• Category:Music based on comics
• Category:Plays based on comics
  • Category:Musicals based on comics
• Category:Television programs based on comics
• Category:Toys based on comics

For the lists based on novels and short stories, you could just create redirects to the fiction list and rename the fiction list to List of comics based on books so that you can include non-fiction on it (what little non-fiction exists in comics). Books usually means non-fiction with novels being fiction. And I take that I am right that comics and comic strips are two different animals? LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Satana (Marvel Comics)

Should the page be located at Satana (comics) or are there others with similar names? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And I found the same problem for Siren (DC Comics), there's no Siren (comics). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Do you plan to make those set index articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed it, but when did you say you would create those SIAs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Stoshmaster

Hey, have you noticed Stoshmaster? :) He seems to be adding and adding to a bunch of comics creator articles and other similar stuff. He worked up David Anthony Kraft from the stub that I created, for example. Check him out! BOZ (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my point - his contribs are all pretty useful stuff.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Offline Encyclopedia

It may not be best to ask me anything about the Vertigo page... I'm still on a (self-imposed) hiatus thanks to the last time I tried to turn the page into something worthwhile. :o) That said, "further reading" would make the most sense. I'm looking forward to the book, although - for reasons I still don't understand - I doubt it will be of any help to us here, because it will inevitably be frowned upon as it's companions (DC, Marvel) are. However, if it maintains the page length of those two books, it's unlikely to be "too broad" a topic - the Vertigo universe naturally being smaller than it's parent or the honorable competition. I would be inclined to hang back on listing it now, and merely using it as a reference when it's out. But, since it's probably an 'unacceptable source', then I would say stick it in "Further reading"/See also. (You may want to put "Vertigo Visions" by Alisa Kwitney - details, if they have survived, are already on the page - on that list. It's tempting to then branch into a list of reference materials for Sandman, too, but they may be better suited to the specific page in that instance.)
(Was that any help..?! ;o)) ntnon (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :o) Thrill Power Overload is obviously an entirely separate issue - a nearer comparison might be the Judge Dredd A-Z. I don't see why there's a problem using a reference book (or, indeed, Official Handbooks and Who's Who entries - they will necessarily (probably) be more accurate than an outside source, and more handy to refer to than piles of individual comics... but, never mind. Overload is a great source of information. The Encyclopedias are as well, but seem to also be frowned upon, and are, as you say often only a minor overview.

I presumed that the Vertigo Encyclopedia would follow DC and Marvel and be primarily a character Encyclopedia, but the article certainly makes it seem like it's mainly/only titles and series. (As an aside, I notice that they disallow Watchmen firstly for being DC, and secondly for being too early. And then talk about Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol. Which was DC and too early..! Smooth....) I still assume that Sandman will get an overall summary as well as a major characters breakdown, but I wonder if it will be alphabetised and cross-referenced or whether it will be sub-sectioned...? Probably the latter, so hopefully there'll be some insight amidst the summaries, and it could then be a viable source here.

There aren't really that many different Encyclopedias and Guides - well, DK has put out a dozen or so guides to individual Marvel and DC characters when they wend their way onto the silver screen, and those are quite interesting if generally brief - but they tend to be worth a browse at least. ntnon (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, TwoMorrows is probably the greatest (current) publisher of comics-related books, although some of them do fall a little short of brilliant. Still, though. An excellent company with superb, information-laden and enlightening output.

I can't remember if I ordered the Dark Horse book... or, to be more precise, I can't remember receiving it. Thanks for the inadvertant reminder..! I did track down an older book about Kitchen Sink not so long ago, which on first look seems like it will be very helpful indeed - albeit with a very limited scope. The definitive books on Marvel and DC - Les Daniels' marvellous works aside - seem not to exist in their entireity, but then so much of the information they should contain is now lost to us. Image is a much easier and better-documented candidate for a full history, although I don't remember specifically reading The Road to Independance. Odd. I'll have to rectify that as soon as. ntnon (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I'm making some progress tracking down sources for information on Mr Skinn, so I may even be able to put something together before long, but you're right: it appears to be an under-reported area, despite its significance. It appears that Mr Skinn doesn't give (m)any interviews (perhaps at least in part because he seems to be so busy), maybe the purported 'persona non grata' is a factor in that; maybe not. Added to which, since he was editor of UK MAD and heavily involved in Marvel UK, it's not implausible that both are seen as the ugly stepchild of their True (US) parents, and thus are not covered in great detail very often. We'll see though. I am finding little snippets here and there, I just now need to find the time to compile them and research/locate some more..! ntnon (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Quick aside - I said Judge Dredd A-Z the other day, but meant "The Mega-History".) Drifting in and out at the moment for various reasons, but hoping to return shortly. For various reasons I have no access to a number of sources now, but DO have Thrill-Power Overload and lots of computer-free time, so I'm notetaking-with-intent to add... well, probably everything you've already added! ;o)

Do you know anyone involved in Dr Who fandom..? I can think of a couple of people I might ask (and will do), but it just occurred that Mr Skinn set up DW Weekly, and therefore must have been interviewed on/in that at some point. I know of Dan Fish/'s website, and yes, that does bring some interesting things into the light. There's a tonne of terrible and terribly incomplete articles here. Mind you, there's also a lot of brief articles that get frowned upon for being brief (when there's nothing else to add, but IS a need for them), and many others that get frowned upon for being lengthy (which annoys me a great deal... largely because it's often my fault! :o) I think Alan Moore is reasonably good, but could do with a bit more length - and most similar articles seem overly brief and too prone to jump around), even when the information is there.

"thanks to the publishers not even crediting work even using the actual comics is problematic." - Yes, I was interested to read it being set down logically in TPO as designed - or at least justified/rationalised - to protect the companies from having their better workers poached by the competition..! I can see that.

"British girl's comics... Jenni Scott" - Might have to delve more deeply into the girl's comics myself at some point. I think I may be able to lay my hands on some of the actual comics/annuals, although there's definitely even more of a dearth of information than with other UK (and US) publications/histories. Mega-History (and TPO) mentions a couple of 2000AD people who worked on the girl's comics, but I can't immediately think of any books covering them (although some of the UK character guides mention some of the characters, but briefly; Trina Robbins' books mostly focus on the US females in and working on US comics, etc.) so that could be tricky to do anything more than cursory. Which is a shame. Probably partially because of the creator-crossover - some of the stories were pretty good, plot-wise!

[sidenote] Is it rude to ask 'which Prog'..?! Good work! ntnon (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comics lists proposed moves

Hello there...I have proposed the following three moves, want to know what you think. (One of them you proposed before.) LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• List of television series based on DC Comics → List of television programs based on DC Comics (discuss)
• List of television series based on Marvel Comics → List of television programs based on Marvel Comics (discuss)
• List of television series based on comic strips → List of television programs based on comic strips (discuss)

Help Requested on article John Michell (writer)

I would like to request help with John Michell (Writer) Discussion page. A newbie editor 91.84.237.105 is attempting to smear this author with slanderous allegations. He has been warned by several editors and keeps reverting editors or adding outight lies although verifiability in regard to living authors is clearly stated by Wikipedia at the top of the discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. SageMab (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help put this John Michell talk page to rest? Several users are branding John Michell a fascist. A laughable premise but the discussion has gotten way out of hand. Thank you for your time. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, several users are accused of calling Michell a fascist. I've been accused of that but mysteriously any such comments by me have disappeared. :-) What is happening and that I have complained about is that people keep editing other people's comments, deleting them, changing section headings, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

91.84.237.105 has been removing my edits and blanking pages and lying about sources. 91.84.237.105 (he admitted that he is using another IP) posted a bizarre paragraph where he said I knew that Michell was passing around this booklet of Hitler quotes. Not true and the booklet is not in praise of Hitler. It just goes on and on with that IP who is trying to draw connections between this author and Hitler that is not there. I have read the material in question thoroughly and by no stretch of the imaginaion is Michell an admirer of Evola. I have read many of Michell's books and he is the antithesis of a fascist. How do we put this discussion of something that is not to rest? Thanks. SageMab (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my thoughts over on the talk page (the bits I can follow as sections of teh talk page look like a bomb has gone off there). (Emperor (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it has, it's this Evola nonsense. And nonsense it it. I have read all the material in question and JM has no leanings nor sympathy for Evola; the essay was short and in a limited eidition of the book; the material is not notable by Wiki standards as it is a tiny blip in JM's prolific writing career. A couple of people seem determined to smear this good man and they have found nothing to do it with. Just because reviews of an author's work is good does not make the reportage of it fan-like, bias or "fawning". Nonsense again and a wase of time for everyone. No one has ever accused JM of ant-semitism. On the countrary judging from both his writings and his colleagues. Thanks for your help in this. The whole topic should be laid to rest. SageMab (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - even from the material that some seem to think is evidence of anti-Semitism and fascism, I can see no clear evidence and anyone saying it does is imposing their own reading on the material violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Given that this is a very minor part of his output (that no one has bothered to address in reliable sources) I can't see any reason to mention it (see what I say about undue weight). Given WP:BLP I'd suggest removing it from the page unless someone can demonstrate its importance on the talk page first.

The article does need better referencing so I will keep an eye out for more sources and I think that is the best area for everyone interested in improving the article to focus their attentions on. (Emperor (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the solid Wikipedia advice. I agree. I've added some solid reference material from my own library and from the net which can be sketchy . I'd like to request your august eye on both the article and the talk page. If i remove anything there are several IPs who will jump like Rumplestillskin and who will then keep posting and posting OR, NPOV just to advance their own point of view. SageMab (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it is on my watchlist and it'll be quick obvious if anyone tries to sneak the material back in. (Emperor (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Please take a look at the new comment on the John Michell Deiscussion page under the header "Reception". I think this fellow means to gut this article. The problem with this article on JM is that his work has not received much negative publicity. His work is picked up by lots of publishers and readers and they all give him glowig reviews. Most critical reviews, both pro and con (few) are just not posted online. I remove the word "Reception" as a header on the article page as it did not really fit. Thanks Emp. SageMab (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It does need work as that section is more a random collection of quotes (of variable reliability) and needs more focus - looking at themes in his work perhaps or the publication history and background (including his thoughts on why he did what and when), other people's thoughts on his work are worth including too where they support, expand or contradict points touched on. Also it was probably a good idea to remove reception is better suited to an article on a specific book. (Emperor (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree, good points. I really hate to bother you about this again but I do think that DougWeller is drawing his own conclusions about this author. He keeps slapping a New Age category on the article page which is inaccurate as I have never heard of John Michell describes as a New Age author. I am not in the least inclined towards an edit war but he seems to want to go on and on with the discussion. I did warn him that the article discussion page is not a chat room. I will assume good faith but how do you put the brakes on an editor that is inserting his own viewpoint frequently? SageMab (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. First, I didn't think 'New Age' as a description would be controversial. He's already described as an Earth Mysteries writer, online sites such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble list him as New Age, etc. I also don't understand how I am using the discussion page as a chat room, which I agree it shouldn't be. It should be used however for things such as a discussion of whether New Age is a correct category, right? Where else have I inserted 'my own viewpoint'? And there is nothing wrong with editors having their own conclusions about a subject, is there?

The 'fellow' did raise a point -- what weight should flyleaf, etc comments have? Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article and article talk page again Emperor. DougWeller I would appreciate you not using the term SageMob on my talk page and in edits to the John Michell article. Once might be a typo, twice is problematical. Thanks.SageMab (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited my typo on your talk page, I can't find any such type on the John Michell discussion page. I am on record in several venues as objecting to messing around with people's names, I assure you if I do it it is an accident (more likely now as you keep repeating it, strangely enough). Doug Weller (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is in the history of the John Michell article page. I do think you are trying to start an edit war. I am not interested in one. You are following every edit I make from the article to Emperor'st talk page. You just removed an entry on the JM article from a holistic writer from a decent Canadian New Age Magazine wich looks like bias on our part. To date, I have not seen you add any information to this article. SageMab (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Emporer, please take a look at the article edits and also the discussion page. Agree with you; it does look like a bomb has gone off by those with a bias against this author. SageMab (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical problems have kept me offline for the last couple of days but I am catching up slowly (as I'm still trying to get things fixed). I'll have a look over that later. (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Angel (comics)

Was this edit legit? I used Human Top as a precedent. Also, what is the criterion on overlinking in these SIAs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And would it be a good idea to have a Doctor Strange (comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You said quite a bit of things on my talk page, so what exactly would you want done for Angel (comics)? As for the possible Doctor Strange SIA, there are several entries that could be listed:

• Doctor Strange
• Doc Strange
• Doctor Strange (comic book)
• Doctor Strangefate
• Hugo Strange

Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Per the changes you did to Angel (comics), I made an edit to Human Top. Should Doctor Strange (comics) become a redirect for Doctor Strange? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Strange

Can you take a look at the new hatnote and comment here? Despite a joke reference, I fail to see how he can get confused with Hugo Strange, and I believe WP:NAMB agrees. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely candidates for SIAs?

I'm glad you reminded me of something. What do you think of Superman (comics), Batman (comics), and Iron Man (comics)? Also, would it be best if Captain America (disambiguation) was changed to a Captain America (comics)? I could come up with more ideas, but would like to hear your thoughts first. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also going to say Spider-Man (comics), but you're right. It might be best to just leave it as such. I'll make redirects out of Spider-Man (Marvel Comics), Captain America (comics) and Captain America (Marvel Comics). Anything else I should know about? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

• Hiding's talk page

Please see, so we can find out if you agree. - jc37 04:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Category

You expressed concern to me that you didn't get to comment in the original discussion regarding these categories so I think it's only fair to let you know they've been re-listed as I'd like them recreated. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_30#Eclipse_Comics_and_Antarctic_Press. Hiding T 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing category changes on the noticeboard

Can I ask a favour? You seem more up to speed on the category discussions and I see to be stumbling across them when I am looking at something else (unless I'm lucky enough to spot the category getting listed) and I know it'd be helpful for me, and many others in the Comics Project, of they could be listed on the Project noticeboard. I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to pass on anything you find (as are always there before me ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Sure.

At the moment, I just listed the dates, since there are soo many : ) - jc37 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Too right!! Every time I turn around I see another handful - I'll try to list any I find that aren't already covered (unfortunately my connection still seems a bit rocky so my time might be limited and I'm running to try and keep up, so all help is appreciated). (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

If it helps (since you asked), here are the links I just recently posted to User talk:Black Falcon:

• Several categories related to comics and fiction have been nominated, spread over August 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31; and September 1, and 2. (so far).

• The WP:UCfD page discussions. (Noting that it's also quite backlogged.)

• The proglang user cats discussion.

• And this poll (though so far, it's not much of a "discussion"): Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise.

Hope it helps : ) - jc37 04:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Saw your call for infobox creation, and thought I'd tread water and try and do a couple... Alex Toth didn't have an infobox?! Outrageous. But then I wound up at Amazing Adventures, and... I'm not sure what it needs. Should non-Marvel AA have a separate box, or not..? No rush, but I thought I'd delegate it to you so I can do something, but also not muck it up..! ;o) ntnon (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I recalled that there was a similar case with a cross-company multi-box, but since I thought it was Daredevil and DD is already two pages, maybe it was something else entirely... Certainly they must be wholly different titles, although the Standard Guide un?helpfully distinguishes them by "vol 1"/"vol 2" - and the Ziff-Davis title is "vol 1"..! Hm. Er. Ah. I'll give it some thought, and/or make it someone else's problem..! ;o) ntnon (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Wyatt

...Sorry, I should have thought to do that when I stuck in the homepage link. I'm in the middle of (as in: will finish tomorrow, all things being equal) bring Arthur Ranson up-to-scratch, and as part of that, thought I'd take out the oddly inserted website for Mr Wyatt and put it in its rightful place. But then I overlooked the box, which was the starting point for most of these last few edits, so...! Thanks for doing that. :o) ntnon (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to describe this problem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enemies_of_the_Secret_Hide-Out

Two editors going at it tooth and nail. Not quite sure if there was someone in paticular to report this to but I knew you could help out/tell me what I need to know. Lots42 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't one thing, it's two other things. The exact same style of conflict is now happening with different editors on the Thanos page. See edit-history comments. Lots42 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Question on link above; how can the consensus be 'Delete' if it was 3 to 2 in favor of keeping it? I'd have no problem with the page going away...if the votes were in favor of the page going away. Wikipedia is not -that- serious if a nice stub goes bye-bye but numbers mean things. Lots42 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Category 2(000AD)

I tried to formulate a mini-argument to keep the category, because I don't agree with any of the arguments to get rid of it. It is, perhaps, a unique situation because it's about an English comic, and partly because of the longterm anonymity (ironically, something 2000AD helped try to overturn!), creator-crossover is not something that happened overmuch. Clearly the more famous 2000AD alumni are not "just" 2000AD creators, but then Margaret Thatcher isn't "just" a Prime Minister, so I think the logic underlying the instant-removal of 'categories by company/project' (or whatever the argument is) is flawed. Alan Moore may be several rungs above being a mere "2000AD creator," but he got his early (although not earliest) start/exposure through it. 2000AD was the touchpaper and source for the English Invasion, after all. Most of the categorised creators are primarily (many 'solely') known for their 2000AD work first and foremost.
There seems in the initial 'debate' to be some confusion over what the Galaxy's Greatest Comic is - it's not comparable to Aquaman, Captain America and Thor... Similarly, the attempt to use Stan Lee as a counter-example is.. odd! Lee is a Marvel man, end of argument. But "DC creators" and "Marvel creators" would not be advisable categories, because there would need to be strict guidelines over percentages and notabilities - not every artist who has worked for the US companies is a "[blank] artist"; conversely, the 2000AD crowd are... Morrison and Millar and Ennis considerably less so than Mills, Wagner and Ezquerra; O'Neill and Bisley somewhat less than McMahon and Ranson. But even so, they typically gained their later status, name (and work) thanks to 2000AD. Thatcher and Blair are known because they were Prime Minister, but would be notable had they not been; similarly, Bolland and Fabry would likely have broken through without their 2000AD work... but that's a strawman argument, because they did work for it, and did gain their name, success and later work because/in spite of 2000AD.
So I would much prefer to see the category stay! ;o)

If not, of course, then yes I can assist as need be - is it wise to lump "creators" into an alphabetised list, or should it be "artists" and "writers"..? And might it be a better or more complicated(!) idea to separate by Date (77-8x)/(8x-9x)/(9x-now) or subject (Primarily Dredd/Primarily one series/Anything)...? If it becomes a list-page rather than a category, it might be more helpful if it were to be EASILY navigable, so I would certainly suggest writers and artists being separated, perhaps hiving "mainly known for Dredd" off, perhaps separating (as per List of Batman creators) the most known/notable/famous from the also-rans (maybe the "headhunted"/went on to American success should be highlighted..? In a 'did you know that they started off...' type of way). i.e. Much the same as you've started doing with the "History" section, but perhaps drifting into the list...?

Columns would be a massive help, yes. Any idea what you might like me to do...?! :o) Don't want to step on your toes or whathaveyou... ntnon (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's worth a try to at least attempt to put the argument out there. Even if I may not have put them as well as they could be... we'll see. I think there's a parallel between listing these chaps as "2000AD people" and, for example, the "Prime Minister" category [that's where the primary notability comes from], and this is more important than say, the categories that say someone is a "Graduate of Suchandsuch School". (Which I wouldn't want to see removed, but..!)

I don't see too much discrepancy with Bamforth and Higgins being "just" artists just as Alan Moore is a writer... first-and-foremost they do one. No doubt there are some who aren't as clearcut, but I can't instantly think of any writer-artists like Byrne and Darwyn Cooke from 2000AD.

I agree. The initial handful; the pre-Invasion British Invasion lot (and the second wave); everyone since. I agree - section it up (with

Main article: British Invasion (comics)

links under the section headings as needed). I wonder though, if doing this would be taking it too far away from being a basic "list," since it would be becoming a full article - which might draw ire or annoyance from some quarters.

...probably wise to do a sectioned prose lead-in (much like you have already), with mini-lists of the primary playes (Mills, Wagner & O'Neill; Ezquerra, McMahon, Grant...; Moore, Bolland, Gibbons, etc.; Diggle, Millar, Spurrier, Irving, etc., etc.) underneath each section, and then a full list at the bottom of the page. Would that work..? ntnon (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have Grant Morrison: The Early Years (assume that's the one you mean?) but it's currently (I think) in "parts foreign" and therefore inaccessible to me. I'll have a dig about, but I don't hold much hope out, I'm afraid. Sorry... ntnon (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2000AD - Arthur Ranson

Since the 'Droids' section of 2000adonline is not working, I thought I'd try to run a hopefully quick query past you: Arthur Ranson. First work in 2000AD...

• The major interview says Judge Anderson was his first work. ThrillPower Overload concurs.
• BUT... TPO says "Arthur Ranson made his 2000 AD debut in the same issue as Hewlett" (p.128), and this artists index says Hewlett popped up in #614.
• However... the same index lists Ranson's first credit as #635. This place seems to agree: Anderson: Psi - TRIAD #635-644. (Although this alternate suggests TRIAD was #624-630.)
  

So... I'm assuming that Ranson began in #635 with Anderson: Triad, and that the TPO suggestion that he debuted alongside Hewlett is hyperbole or mistake. Unless... there's a pre-Triad Future Shock-y brief thing in #614 (but likely not actually a Future Shock, says this index).
Not sure what query I'm actually making - probably just sympathy that the 2000adonline Droid-index is AWOL..! ;o) ntnon (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nearly there now... by-the-by, looks like Thrill Power Overload should be at Thrill-Power Overload... not sure if that's important enough to worry about (or easy to do), but, thought I'd mention it. :o) ntnon (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You conflicted me! ;o) But hopefully I've incorporated your changes well enough, and haven't made too much of a mess of things. (Fingers crossed.) ntnon (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :o)

BM4/Button Man IV, though... no clue, I'm afraid. T-PO says Wagner was still writing it as of mid-last-year, so (forgive me for being somewhat out of the loop), are the "personal reasons" from 2000AD itself..? I assumed it was still "in the works," but if not then I wouldn't even know where to start looking for an answer. Comics International seems to have stalled, last I checked, and that would be my only real thought for a 'current' British pro-zine. It does sound like the old film-code for "didn't like the script," though - Sir Sean passing on Indiana Jones 4 springs to mind. But, who knows. Has Mr Ranson drawn much recently, because a lot of artists have eye problems... (but that's drifting beyond mere guesswork into personal invasion, so I'll stop there.)

Incidentally, somehow the "New Messages"-banner didn't alert me over your exhaustive credits sourcing, so belated thank you for your (better) cache-hunting skills, enviable ability to have Progs easily to hand, etc., etc.

I've come to suspect that the Hewlett/Ranson mention is just a mildly misleading/slightly anachronous reference to Prog #700 - Hewligan's Haircut and Shamballa being the more "important" early appearances of both artists. So not a terrible error..! ;o) "Whitaker" is an interesting mystery, but all things being equal #635 seems fair enough for the time being, yes, thanks again.

I'm sure apostrophe's sneak their way into thing's I type by sheer force of will, osmosi's, or something. Maybe. And yes, things can usually be simplified/pared down, but I get into the swing of things, and...! I'll sort that out 'later'. ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

...trying to keep up. Yes, I wondered if there's enough for Mazeworld on its own, but decided to hold off on it for now. If you can dig out any more, that'd be great. I think there's some very-picked-clean bones left in the Ranson interview, but not much of any substance. Similarly, I will back-edit/retro-engineer Toxic!, etc. tomorrow. In theory. It's on "The List," at least. ("It is"/"It's". OK.) ntnon (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those half-thoughts-half-memories would surprise me, but I suspect only time will tell. I wonder how likely the film is...? Incidentally, I stumbled across the hipster-Zarjaz blog, but then I found THIS - The Look-in Archive. 'Only' S&S, Buck, Tomorrow People, Space:1999 and Terrahawks so far, and with a grey degree of absolute legality (as far as I can see), but still: a pretty vital resource. They're actively seeking help on the history side of things, scanning side of things and general "improvements," and I was wondering about Mr Allan - cited as the main/only author, do we (and by 'we,' I mean 'you' or 'anyone') know whether he's about anywhere..? An interview (old, or - preferably - new) would be utterly invaluable...

Oh, and can we reasonably adopt & adapt (i.e. borrow and cut down to single-panel size) some S&S scans by someone else; credit them as copyright... whoever (would it still be IPC?) and have them >here< to illustrate the relevant sections of Mr Ranson and S&S (not that there is one at the moment), or do we need special permissions from the scanner/website...? ntnon (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Equus

Sorry. I looked through your edits to the article, and couldn't find where you'd used it. Which info did you add from that site? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The References section is for a list of the sources used when constructing the article. Not verifying it, which is a different activity. Wouldn't it make more sense to refer to that as an External links seciton? Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting moving it, just a more accurate title for that section, that's all. Nightscream (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear Emperor...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Akin & Garvey

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my entries for Ian Akin & Brian Garvey. Couple of issues, though. For their bibliography sections, those are selected listings. They each have a lot more credits, but they tend to be short runs or one-shots, so I didn't bother listing them (That's what the Comic Book DB is for!). But it really is more correct to specify that those are selected bibliographies.

The other issue is that I have no definite information that both of them are American. I can't find any specific reference, but for some reason I thought one or both of them were actually British. So it may be a good idea to take out the references to them being American in nationality, and placing them in the American comic artists category.

Thoughts?

— Stoshmaster (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hippolyta (comics)

Looks more like it should be marked as a SIA page rather than a regular dab. Also, look at what links to there. Seems that some of the redirects would be better of targeting the actual characters. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Annotations

Apologies. Ignorance of the law is no excuse I know. I've taken off the links I put on the following pages in the last few days: Ian Edginton, Kingdom_of_the_Wicked and Judgment_Day_(Awesome_Comics)

The Judgement day notes can be found here All my other pages are linked from my scarlet traces homepage here As you know I had previously added links on: Leviathan_(comic) and Scarlet_Traces should i delete those?

thanks for the help. Ejclarke (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ok. thanks again.Ejclarke (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Emptying and deleting categories

I see you have emptied and deleted Category:Works based on games and Category:Works based on television programs (both of which I started). I've been busy and may have missed the discussion on this but, as I've said before, emptying categories and deleting them except in cases where they are mistakes, does tend to remove other editors abilities to actually discusses these changes. (Emperor (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

And Category:Novels by source. I assume this is to do with cleaning up Category:Media based on media but it was the "media" categories that were clunkily welded onto to those already existing categories and my thinking on this was that it was those later additions that needed changing/removing not the other way round. I also think a (well-publicised, of course ;) ) CfD would have been preferable so more people could have had their say (unless there was one and I missed it, which is possible). (Emperor (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Also I won't be around for a few days so no rush in replying (and if you do then apologies for a late reply). (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Right I just found this, the fundamental problem is they aren't adaptations of the works but they are more usually based on the characters and fictional universes (hence the naming structure) - straight adaptations are rarely given much of a mention as they contain pretty much the same content (like Alan Dean Foster's adaptation of the Alien film). Things like Buffy Season 8 aren't, for example, adaptations. I seem to be coming to a lot of these discussions late which is a pity as the result strikes me as incorrect. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

(De-dent) - First, my apologies for any confusion.

The categories were a mess. In looking over the edit histories, this "tree" seems to have been 3 or 4 separate "schemes". One of which was started in Feb of 2008, which I noted had had quite a few nommed for deletion. I even found a cat which had been around since 2005, as it was apprently intended to be a large cat, solitarily grouping all the related pages. Which would be duplicative of the other 3-4 schemes. So after going through it a bit, I attempted to merge the schemes.

I basically went forward with the idea that "Works by source" was the top level, and "works" cats were always a level higher than "media" cats. I also created several cats to cleanup navigation, and for accuracy. (For example, plays are not "media", and mythology and fairy tales are not "works".)

In doing so several categories had only a single member - a single subcat. In most cases, it seemed better to upmerge. The cats can always be created if there is a need. But atm, many reciprical branches of this tree do not exist, so there's little reason to try to attempt "reciprical completeness" at this time.

For example, I believe novels by source and books by source both each only had a single subcat. So I merely upmerged them.

I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that "games" was like a tree of 3 categories deep (subcat of, subcat of...) And when I got to the "bottom", there was a single subcat which had members. I upmerged the subcat, and removed the branch.

All this said, obviously please feel free to (re-)create, if you feel it's appropriate.

Also, something I found in wading through all of these is that there was a mess very inconsistent of conventions. I tried to make some sense of it, but I do think it's more complex than it needs to be, which I think is an hindrance to navigation.

So, what would you think about all the "Media based on..." and "...based on media" cats to be nominated for upmerging/renaming to change "media" to "works"?

And further what do you think about standardising "based on" and "adapted from"? (On this point, I'll likely waver based upon the discussion.)

Again, my apologies for any confusion. - jc37 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - partly my own fault I suspect ;)

I agree that the "media" articles needs... something - it caused a lot of consternation when it was bolted on to the existing structure but attempts to remove it have been difficult. Problem is with all the recent changes that have taken place I suspect I am "out of the loop" so don't feel I am best placed to come up with a good solution to this. Time is limited but I will try and re-familiarise myself with the way things stand and, hopefully, in the process something might suggest itself to me. I'll let you know if I have a Eureka moment. (Emperor (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Marvel Girl

Shouldn't Marvel Girl (comics) redirect here and not at Jean's article? Inclusively, what should I do with Marvel Girl (Marvel Comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Way I see it, having Marvel Girl (comics) target the SIA would best. That about right? And just curious, but why categorize this as an alternative misspelling when we could use {{R comics naming convention}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. What exactly of the redirect Marvel Girl (comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I just noticed that you have edited Marvel Girl (comics) to target Marvel Girl. Anything else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Emperor for keeping cool and maintaining peace, defusing a potential dispute regarding the Legion of Super-Heroes category. Nutiketaiel (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a little token of thanks from me for keeping this situation regarding the category thing from getting out of hand. From what I can tell, you make a habit of helping out with these little issues, and deserve some recognition for it once in a while.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, just let me know if there's anything I can do to help make things like this less likely to recur. Actually, on that note, is there anything you think I should have done differently to help prevent this situation from occuring in the first place? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is reassuring. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comic Book Publication Dates

Hi. If a comic book cited as a source is described with its volume number, and a user know its month and year of publication, should the volume number be deleted in lieu of the date (an Either/Or situation), or should both be included when they're known? Has there been a ComicsProject discussion/consensus on this? Personally, I think they should both be used, since they're two different things, and volume number can be important, especially for verification purposes, regarding comics that have had more than one incarnation over the decades. Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mills & O'Neill

Did you see this interview...? Talking - mostly - about Marshal Law, and the prose novel collection Titan is/has published/ing. But did you know (I don't recall seeing it mentioned) that Moore is "finish[ing] up the finale to his suburban vampire goof, The Bojeffries Saga..." Intriguing... Plus Top Shelf are putting out a massive Marshal Law Omnibus/Compendium next year, which is always good to see repeated, lest they forget! :o) ntnon (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm mildly pleased that this isn't just a repeat of 'old news,' then..! ;o) I certainly hadn't heard anything about Bojeffries (which of course leads to the logical phrase "..hope that's accurate"), but then if Mr Moore is working with Top Shelf/Knockabout, there could be all kinds of bizarre old things dredged up..! Reprints of Maxwell might be nice, and if he doesn't mind (although I think he may) the Sounds strips/articles being reprinted and thus made available to most people for the first time... but that's idle hoping.

'Apparently' (as QI so hates), via Rich Johnston, comes the surprising, but believeable suggestion that Moore renounced Watchmen BOOK royalties as well as film monies and whatnot. So while high sales are exceptionally pleasing (why haven't DC put the previuosly-in-Kingdom Come CD sampler of their Archives and other works in the back of the new million(!) copies..?), I suspect he was free of financial concerns - if he has any: few expenses, by many accounts, and obviously does well work-wise - quite some time ago. But the Bumper Book, Century, Jerusalem and now Bojeffries are certainly all eagerly awaited. (And, well, most have been for some time...!)

Yes, the Bojeffries article (as with so many - and yet the time and effort is spent debating the minutiae of guideline interpretation...) does need a lot of work. I was(/might still be) heading back, but then my Tundra collection is in parts foreign; I have no idea where my Warriors went, and A1 is definitely in a box in a separate foreign locale. So I'm strapped for (re)sources..! Infobox-wise, though I'd say slap a series box onto it: it was a serialised strip first and foremost, so "comic book title" should do. "Superteambox" might do, but it doesn't seem like as much of a fit.

Mills, Ennis and Warren Ellis - none of them sound very fond of superheroes, but the latter two have done some pretty good work with them (Ennis more on the non-costumed anti-heroes, but he does write the more superheroic people well as extras). I'd say the Marshal Law picture has to be #1, so I'll go do that next. And then I'll leave you to worry about whether the correct box is being used later! ;o)

(Unfortunately I'm busy at the weekend also, since I've literally heard in the last two days that Mr Moore will be signing in London, which would be a perfect opportunity to hound him for information. On a personal, rather than here-research level.)

Kevin O'Neill leaves a bit to be desired, you're right. No "main" links, no art editor, no sources. I'll try and give that a look, too... and inevitably forget and cede it back to you. :o) ntnon (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (that's probably the best word, even though it's harsher than it should be!) I wound up being otherwise obligated, and missed him. Which is rather galling. (It's also looking likely that I'll miss the Harrods-held comics art exhibit, completely, too... Just one things after another to do and places to be, and...!)

I seem to be running out of time far more regularly than I used to, too. Hopefully that'll turn out to be proof of alien abductions, rather than more mundane time dilation/perception and menial things..! :o) I trust/hope your family event went well..? ntnon (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bojeffries

I was able to get hold of a Compete Saga a week ago, and finally had time just now to add in/tidy up the broad facts for The Bojeffries Saga. The best picture is probably this one at International hero, but I can't instantly place it - an A1 pin-up, perhaps..? Otherwise, the picture of the family from the back cover of the Complete Saga would work, but I remember some mumbling about whether it was permissable to cut sections out of published pictures or not, so I decided not to do that yet. Any thoughts..?

Also, on the projected list for what will be included (comics-wise) on the DVD of Wikipedia... I don't know precisely what you think, but I fear that some of the projected articles are currently still pretty terrible facts & content (and sources)-wise, and either need to be left off (bad choice) or included shoddily (potentially worse). Not sure what to suggest - or whom to suggest it to - on that front. In particular, Hellboy and Dark Horse (as you flagged) ought to be included, but really can't be "as is." Also key to comics, but possibly not up to scratch are: All-Star Comics & New Fun Comics; Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, Martin Goodman, Max Gaines, Julius Schwartz, Bill Finger, Bill Gaines, 2000AD, Spider-man 2 (..why Spider-man and 3 but not 2? Odd.), DKR, Secret Wars, Frank Hampson, Wally Wood, Gardner Fox, Jerry Robinson, Dick Giordano, Carmine Infantino, Vertigo Comics; Crime Does Not Pay, Vault of Horror, Young Romance and Our Army at War (a representative of each major genre). Then Creepy, Eerie & Warren; Goscinny, Uderzo, Art Spiegelman, Alex Raymond, Chester Gould, Dave Sim, Scott Adams & EC Segar. Any thoughts, additions or suggestions on how to try and avoid this embarrassing the comics project..?! ntnon (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up that interview. I ordered the Mindscape direct from Shadowsnake, but it was a pleasant surprise to then see it in a regular HMV advert(!) (albeit probably in the FT, tailored to their audience), and then get an HMV e-mail, also..! I think it's already been out a fair while (at least in the UK), has it not...?

I must not be thinking straight..! But thanks for pointing out that the Bojeffries picture was from the mooted Terror Tomes... Atomeka as a whole, though, yes. Shame. I remember reading a fair bit about all that at the time, largely because Mr Elliott posted reasonably regularly at Newsarama (or wherever). I think there was a wave of desertions - certainly Mr Richie launched Boom! Studios off the back of helping relaunch Atomeka. Certainly their initial output was predominantly reprints, so there's also plausible scope for rights/royalties issues - since a lot of it was early Warrior things, I suppose there could even be MiracleMan-level rights confusion, perhaps. But that's editorialising. I thought I'd read that Atomeka is not officially dead, merely resting... but then editor Dave Elliott is currently back in comics with Radical Comics, so who knows? Maybe Top Shelf will reprint Laser Eraser and the rest at some point.

Regarding this Wikipedia-point-something farrago (...short deadline...), I think the whole thing is a very bad idea. I will be amazed if there isn't something that sparks a libel suit if and when this occurs. (Pessimism vs. realism vs. miscontruing legal terms!) I've been thinking/discussing with various folk about whether it will reflect better or worse on the merits of Wikipedia and/or the competence of the Comics Project if: a) Articles are included and are wrong/rubbish/brief/pointless or b) Articles are not included. If Dark Horse isn't on the disc, it'll be ridiculously algorithmically-biased, and utterly pointless. If Dark Horse is on the disc, as is, it'll be equally pointless. I think this will also have (as you say) a knock-on effect whereby vast swathes of semi-sourced information will be gutted. Plus, I think it highlights that the addition/creation/correction parts of the comics project have been downplayed in favour of petty arguments and widespread removals of various (difficult-to-source) information.

Hellblazer is poor. Interestingly, it also reminds me of a lot of the criticism I got when I rewrote Vertigo.. and yet it's still about in this form. The trade-template (which I think we eventually got off the ground, although it barely went anywhere..) should definitely help. As for Hellboy - how's this for a suggestion (that might be me putting my foot in it!): throw it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises. We may or may not be able to get anything done by the deadline, but it might be worth mentioning Hellboy to Lady Aleena and seeing if we three (plus whomever else) can thrash out something with Hellboy that will benefit Hellboy, comics, franchises and Wikipedia as a whole. (Having suggested that, now may not be the best time to say that I've become unexpectedly busy.. again... and may be sparsely involved for a while. Or not. Remains to be seen...) ntnon (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, the new Bojeffries prepared for Atomeka will now be coming out from Top Shelf.

Wikipedia 0.7

(cross-posting)

I have started a new page to help keep track of the articles which have been selected. If you wish, we could move discussion to that talk page, or we could just direct people there? I forgot to add the articles which appear only on workgroup pages, so I'll get to that now. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I've been trying to keep up on that page with articles you have assessed; hopefully I got them all.  :) BOZ (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was moving Phantom (comics) as you were responding to me. :) I don't think there's any particular priority, as I count 87 more articles that need a B-class assessment - on the bright side, there are now more on the list that have been assessed as C or solid B than have not, which I count at 102 total. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think having a list of "key" articles is an excellent idea. You are right that the algorithm is crude, but it's probably the best that it can be - I bet that if we had the "importance" part of our assessments kept up properly, the results it turned out would have been a lot different, for instance. In fact, we could review specifically what needs to be on "Top" (all of which would be in the "key list") and the "high" (many, but not all, of which would be in the "key list") and make sure that really imprortant articles be rated as such. Keep in mind, that the whole point of the assessment scheme in the first place is that it is being used to decide what will eventually be in the 1.0 print run!

As for the Marvel matters, well you are correct that I do have a lot of Marvel Comics knowledge... but I have to confess that nothing comes to mind immediately on the items you mention.  :) I know that Jean Grey was known as the Black Queen before Selene took on the role; the one you refer to seems to be an alternate world version of Jean? Red King I also know nothing about. Doctor Nemesis, I'm not sure either of them are all that significant either - Phineas Horton is well known as the creator of the Human Torch, and I was unaware that another character had anything to do with that. :) BOZ (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Great - you're a good fellow!  :) Keep up the good work, as always - sincerely! BOZ (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the video game either, but I agree that something somewhere should be said. Do you think the comic was based on Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects? If so, do you think it would be best to put a section in that article, or create a stub? BOZ (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a fair amount on the internet: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22MARVEL+NEMESIS%22+%22GREG+PAK%22&aq=f&oq= BOZ (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Either that, and/or turning the redirect into a disambiguation page. Your second diff is probably not what you intended. :) BOZ (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, then, adding some info on the game page should be sufficient, and linking the writer's page to that section should suffice.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to start the 300-ish list. It may take a little bit of time to put together (not a very long time), so please bear with me.  :) Ntnon's list from the project talk page gave me an idea... First thing, I'm going to move the chat to the subpage I created, as I've been threatening to do. :) BOZ (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm nearly done. :) BOZ (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done - check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7‎#Articles by Type. BOZ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - meanwhile, I think I'm done doing any serious work for the day. :) Whew! I'm exhausted. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think sorting it that way shows where things are too heavy and too light, and it shows the holes where things are missing fairly well, as Ntnon tried to do. BOZ (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What's missing

Care to edit/shuffle and add to this list...? :o) ntnon (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Hellblazer or John Constantine, though..? (Incidentally, I had a stab at adding to JC yesterday, but couldn't locate a source for the Moore/Delano claim.... indeed, I couldn't locate any trace of major Delano/Hellblazer interviews, which is odd. Probably not looking hard enough.)

I don't know in what form - the long list is awkward, but it won't table too well with my asides in there! - to stick my fairly arbitrary/arrogant list up anywhere, so advice will be welcomed. ntnon (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters by politics

Since you were commenting that you felt you often weren't in the discussion until "late", you get to be my first stop with this : )

Category:Fictional characters by politics - This whole tree would seem better listified. What do you think? - jc37 04:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - its a tricky one. I am wary of "fictional 'anything'" as you'd need to prove it - it can be proved in some articles (V and Anarky have discussions on their status as anarchists) but I'm sure some are marginal (the fictional fascists category strikes me as being especially tricky). That said the Nazis sub-category should be straightforward enough as should its comics-related child and you can bet your ass a list could have similar problems to the category unless policed hard and could be wide open to getting deleted (or turned back into a category!! We've seen that happen before). So I'd be tempted to leave it alone but check through the members of the categories and if none of the articles even mention the topic then remove them. It seems the approach less likely to result in a big headache. (Emperor (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

As I don't have the "cool tools", I tend to nominate, so that the bots can help : )

That said, if you have such, please feel free to do as you suggest. - jc37 12:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no cool tools either. That said I can't see they'd help much with checking articles to see if they qualify - that is just something that is going to take time to work through (unless someone has a zoooom cool tool which means you can fast forward through such dull tasks - and if they do then why did no one say earlier!!). (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Wonder Man (comics)

I would say this is better off as a SIA instead of a redirect. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of publishers' publications

I don't want to side track what looks to be a good discussion at the WikiProject.

But basically, I was intending on breaking up the DC and Marvel ones the same way that the DC and Marvel characters lists are split. (It's been on my "to do" for a while.) Just want to throw that out there while you're discussing a ReOrg. - jc37 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible.

The only niggling issue is that if some series weren't thought to meet notability, as it stands, we can't merge them into the publications lists. This might not be seen as a big deal and possibly all the Big Two's titles are notable (or strictly speaking we can probably prove notability for all of them). The same technically goes for characters as the solution to WP:FICT is to merge them with a list of characters. Might not be a big deal, or something we can deal with in the future but it might be something we need to keep in mind while expanding. (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Just as an FYI but I have started splitting of publications - first is Talk:Image Comics#Split and I'll move on to IDW Publishing if that works out OK. (Emperor (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Vampires

• Category:Fictional vampires
• Category:Vampires in comics
• Category:Marvel Comics vampires

Some merging/cleanup may need to be done here. But since you created one of these, I thought I'd ask your thoughts first : ) - jc37 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted - the last one was only added recently so I've shuffled the three together and sorted the Marvel vamps out to the subcategory - seems to work out OK. (Emperor (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Fine with me. Note that there are still several members of Category:Fictional vampires which probably need to be diffused. - jc37 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got the obvious ones - I'm sure there are others but they'll get picked up eventually. In my rounds I spotted this: Category:Marvel Comics Witches, and the others like that which I have seen haven't been capitalised like that. Might be worth looking around for others. (Emperor (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23 for that one and several others. - jc37 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comics (and fiction) categories

Well, we've had a bit of a break from it, but are you up for delving into User talk:Hiding/X7 again? : )

We're (mostly) done with the more "top-level" cats, so now I guess it's a question of spelunking : ) - jc37 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Its rather a long page - is there anywhere you want to start? (Emperor (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Sure. I'll start a new section shortly. - jc37 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Started : ) - jc37 06:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a starter I just found: Category:Comics characters by medium - you keep going down until all you find is one unnecessary category that could be upmerged into "Superman in other media." (Emperor (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Asgardian

I'd like to ask if you would be willing to help mentor him in dispute situations. If you agree, I'll leave a request on his talk page that should he become embroiled in any future contentious situations (even if it be 2RR, or a contentious talk page), that he drop a note on your talk page. - jc37 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I suspect I am not a great choice for this as I have edited a number of pages he also edits and I suspect you'd need someone more independent than me (after all I can't complain to myself!! OK I can but I'd rather keep it to a minimum if anyone is watching) and potentially someone from outside the Comics Project, as they'd be able to come to the whole thing fresh and be able to judge the situation without any preconceived notions.

I do think it is doable - these problems have rumbled on for years now and I have seen him change, albeit slowly. So I wish you luck finding someone, I just don't think I am that someone. (Emperor (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I wasn't necessarily looking for you to be the "neutral" voice for the situations (I guess that's me atm).

But, from what I can tell he trusts your opinion/perspective. (And I know that I (and others) do as well.)

Mentoring (in this case) just means being another set of eyes and ears.

Someone he can come to when in doubt, or potentially in contention.

Anyway, it's up to you : ) - jc37 04:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well OK - I could (provisionally) go with that and just see what happens. I'm always available to give a second opinion on anything and from what I've seen the problems seem to largely be from interpretations of guidelines (often overly strict) and communication problems (which is far from unique), rather than things that are more difficult to address, like point-of-view pushing and the like. I have his talk page on my watchlist anyway but will keep a closer eye on it and if there is anything I can help with then drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. (Emperor (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I've left a note on his talk page. Please look it over to make certain I haven't misconstrued your offer in any way. - jc37 08:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I've left a note there and also read through the various threads surrounding this and it seems to be the same problem reoccurring so we can try and address that and the fact that the situation has improved over the years means there is some hope we can get this all sorted. We'll just have to wait and see. (Emperor (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

You know, this has touched me. I was really wowed by the impartial way in which the other administrators handled this. Very fair and forgiving... That said, I'm taking the advice of jc37 and posting here. I'm guessing he and Hiding will read it anyway. Mentoring? If you like. I don't think there will be any issues with my edits per se, as most would have a hard time proving they are detrimental as opposed to beneficial to the articles. Methodology is a different case, and here we get into the grey area of how Wiki guidelines are perceived - the source of so many arguments. No, I don't (heh) have a medical condition. Unfortunately, I have a lot of pride and particularly so in my hobbies, one of which is comics. Having a photographic memory and being able to pretty much cite off the top of my head character appearances does make me a tad arrogant. I have to work on that. As far as I know, I'm the only one that actually rewrites whole FCB's accurately, and while this is great for Wikipedia I sometimes forget that others may contribute in different and smaller ways, as these efforts are no less important.

Nightscream? I bear him no ill will. We'll have a chat on the relevant pages about style, but that can be worked out. I think he perhaps took the styles changes that Tenebrae and I pushed for in Ultimates the wrong way, and seems to have "followed" me ever since. As jc37 has spoken to him about wearing the admin and editing hat at the same time, I'll leave that alone. Anyway, feel free to throw anything else you'd like to say to my Talk page.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Asgardian again removed the material in question during his rewrite of the Ultron article. I restored it, though in a more brief form, and tried to incorporate it more smoothly into the passage. I thought I'd let you know before/rather than confronting him myself, but if he keeps this up, deleting material that does not conform to his aesthetic whims, without even trying to do what I did himself, or solicit discussion from others, then the problems with him are going to continue. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all things being equal, that's what I would normally do. But since he has shown little interest in discussing things with me in a constructive, civil manner, that's why I figured I'd alert you instead. Nightscream (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've made numerous efforts to speak with him, and he's usually dismissed my statements, particularly of late. The fact that he's mentioning his edits on the Talk Page doesn't mean he's necessarily trying to speak to me. But if he continues to delete that info, I'll try to talk with him again, and if it doesn't work, we'll cross that bridge there and then. Nightscream (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If the idea here is that he's going to try a new approach in how he responds to me that is distinct from his approach prior to his ban, then yes, given that rationale, I would be more than happy to speak to him. I certainly hope that is the case. Nightscream (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been attempting to speak with Asgardian on a number of article-related issues, and he is only partially responsive. He sometimes responds, and sometimes does not. We resolved the Tiger Shark article issue, for example, but he continues to be problematic on the Ultron article. I tried to speak with him on his Talk Page, but twice he ignored my posts. He made an edit that I thought may have been a reference to this, but as I pointed out in my third post, it did not address the issue. The discussion continued on the article's Talk Page, and I attempted a compromise. When he did not respond on that Talk Page, I took it that he accepted the compromise. But then he reverted it again, without discussion, and without citing a policy or guideline to support his edit. He repeatedly makes declarations by fiat, like "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH." and "No Marvel titles in FCB.", and when I ask him to cite the policy that says this, he does not respond. This is inappropriate. If there is a such a policy, he should cite it, not simply make up his own rules to suit his personal aesthetics. Please read the appropriate Talk Pages and Edit Histories. I just pointed out to him on the article Talk Page how WP policy actually does not support his position at all. If he continues to revert the passage without citing a policy, and indeed, against policy, and without discussing it with me in good faith, that would constitute disruptive editing. Nightscream (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, he is blanking out content from the Black Bolt article, including the portion that you yourself added to it, again, refusing to discuss it. Nightscream (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though his statement that titles do not belong in Fictional Character Biographies was refuted by multiple times, both on his Talk Page, and on the Black Bolt Talk Page, Asgardian again blanked out that content, without refuting my counterstatement, or citing a policy, saying in his Edit Summary that "that's how it should read." I left a final warning on his Talk Page. The next time he blanks valid content without citing a policy that supports his edit, or engaging in discussion, he will blocked for disruptive editing. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking information is not a content dispute, especially when there is no policy to support his edits, when he repeatedly refuses to cite policy that does so, and when policy is presented to him that calls for the opposite of what he's doing. This, and the fact that he refuses to engage in discussion in anything resembling good faith, so that we can work this out together, constitutes disruptive editing, and not a content dispute. But if you insist on getting a third party to review this, that's fine. I suggest it be done now, and not after he reverts the articles yet again. Nightscream (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, in order for one to argue this, you have to discuss it with them. I never edit with the idea in mind that my edits are absolute or set in stone; they're provisional. But part of maintaining a dissenting opinion with someone on WP is that you talk to them about it. If you cite policy, that's fine. But if you don't cite it, and completely ignore the other person, while continuing to revert, and cite policies that do not exist, and repeat these things even after they're refuted, that's disruptive editing. For Asgardian to revert in good faith, under the possibility (which I freely acknowledge) that he might be right, is fine. Doing so in bad faith, is not. That his position is wrong (which I will have addressed, and get to again below) is only half of the problem. His behavior is the other.

As for CRYSTAL, I addressed that policy, and explained why the info did not violate it--twice. For his part, he just ignored it, by repeating his original argument on another page, pretending not to have read my counterargument on his Talk Page, requiring me to repost it on the Black Bolt TP. In doing so, I explained why the Black Bolt situation is distinct from the Ultimatum matter that he brought up as an analogy. Nightscream (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

Can I get your input here: User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian. (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

(Cross-posting)

I was watching this yesterday, but at that time "discussion" was just starting.

I have no opinion on the current disputes except:

• (again) discussion with a goal for determining consensus should happen, per WP:BRD, and
• no, based on the discussion last time, and the edits I see now, Nightscream is not an uninvolved admin, per WP:ADMIN (direct link seems to be WP:UNINVOLVED). Hiding tried to politely help Nightscream understand their involvement last time. That said, if Nightscream disputes this, I will post a notice to WP:AN (with supportive links) and see how others feel as well. (Though we already have Emperor, Hiding, and myself. How many admins should it require?) - jc37 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Side note

(Sorry for piling on the stuff...)

You may also want to be aware of this edit to Wonder Man.

I'm not up to speed on what exactly the issues have been with the leads elsewhere, but...

It looks like Asgardian has buried content removal in the edit — The "Secret Invasion" section disappears and the edit summary is "Added sources & corrected lead". I believe he's been made aware that he shouldn't be editing this way, but I'm not really up to speed on the current details.

(Off to try and save some more images...)

- J Greb (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

COI tag

Hello, my name is cat yronwode. I saw that you recently discussed the COI tag added to the page about me. I believe that this tag was added as the result of an edit war in which i recently found myself. I think that my record of editing the article shows that i am not engaged in COI, but that i was simply attempting to supply refs where they were requested, ad to correct a few errors. The COI notice gives the appearance that i engaged in underhanded or immoral editing; i believe that it is not necessary, as there is already a perfectly valid Notable Wikiedian template on the discussion page. I would like to work with an editor to resolve this situation, with the goal of getting the COI notice removed. Any help or suggestions you can provide would be gladly accepted. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

COI II

There you go. Much trickier, so a full-on re-sourcing/re-writing/addition-ing has sorted that one out. ntnon (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Swampmen...? Well, from Johnston (that bastion of uncitability), there may have been problems on the writing side... Certainly it was solicited at least twice. I've been looking forward to the Schaffenberger/Captain Marvel and Jim Aparo books, too, which are also in some eighth circle of limbo. Fortunately, when TwoMorrows' books come out, they're fantastic!

N.B. On a similar note, have you seen Dark Horse: The First Twenty Years, which Dark Horse alleges is out, but The Internet (and Amazon) say is not, and might or might not be soon...? I'm looking forward to reading that anyway, but particularly since this place here really needs it... could be handy. ntnon (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looking forward very much to the Vertigo book, and thanks for the heads-up on the new Paul Gravett title - reminds me a lot of The Incredibly Strange Film Book by Jonathan Ross. Could be good. I'd forgotten Greatest Hits was out already... have to hunt that out. ntnon (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Pym lede

Just wanted to drop you a thank you for defending me on the Henry Pym lede debate going on, over there. It's also nice that you are contributing in a civil manner in the discussion over there, as is Asgardian! Last time I was on Wiki, I dealt with un-civil jerks almost every day, it's a refreshing change to see civil debates on this site. Thanks, and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Galactus lead suffers from the same problem that the Pym lead does, IYKWIMAITYD. :) BOZ (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd respond on the discussion page, but Wikipedia is giving me a strange server error, so here is my response. Much better than anything I've done, most certainly! I agree with you in that it needs some clean-up (Specifically, I don't like the sentence where you state that he turns from Giant-Man to Goliath... it could use a re-write,) but all in all it's a great job! Mine so far doesn't look good compared to yours, mine is still wordy! :P When I finish it I'll get it on the discussion page as soon as possible. CarpetCrawler (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, while Wiki was down, I got to fully finish my lead, tell me what you think! CarpetCrawler (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. The hardest thing (Other than the leads of course!) to me will be finding references that aren't from the books! Reviewers like outside sources too... which is a pain sometimes! See you soon and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference places! I put up a new lead, tell me what you think. CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the last block, but you need to know that the user got it wrong, for all the reasons that were pointed out to him on his Talk Page.

Asgardian (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quick little reminder, a new lead was added to the Henry Pym article. While I am disappointed by the brevity of the lead, I'll have to say that it's better than what was originally there. What do you think? CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you also for getting involved in the conversation, as we couldn't have resolved anything if it weren't for others (Like you,) getting involved. I agree that the current lead is better than nothing. I want to thank you for getting so deeply involved in the debate, since it seems we both contributed the most discussion, ideas and drafts! I thought I'd give you this.

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For playing a major role in resolving the Henry Pym lede conflict. Thank you once again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No problemo, glad a compromise was finally settled. CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. ;) But alas, I'm glad everyone reached an agreement without the arguments going un-civil, like every other disagreement I've suffered through on this wiki! CarpetCrawler (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Head's Up

There's a weird little edit war slowly forming over the soundtrack section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film) Lots42 (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have added this in (if I hadn't already told you about this in the past). People keep comparing Stan Lee, a real live person, to the fictional slave trader, Funky Flashman. I'm keeping an eye on it but I thought the weird seriousness of the situation warranted a note here (even if I had repeated myself in the past, nobody messes with Stan). Lots42 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two asides - I suggested to WikiProject Media Franchises that soundtracks generally do not warrant a separate article, so that could be part of these new edits.

- I'll find the citation, but Funky is definitely Kirby's swipe at Stan Lee. He was not best pleased with Lee during that time, and lashed out in print at what he saw as Lee "using" artists without (to his mind) giving them the credit they were due. It's not a comparison between a real person and a fictional cad, it's merely mentioning that it is a (mean-spirited) jibe by a former employee at a former boss. ntnon (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There we go - Kaplan, Masters of the Comic Book Universe Revealed!, pp. 69-70. ntnon (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect mean-spirited jibes are probably not in the spirit of WP:BLP - nice find though. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

I would broadly agree with that. However, that means that Funky Flashman should be disappeared - the only purpose of the character is to have a go at Lee. That's why he was created, and to not mention the - known - origin of the character is a distinct oddity, even if politeness (and some - usually my - BLP interpretations) might suggest otherwise. I suspect there are other obvious examples of characters created in this manner... but I'm blanking on them! If I/you/someone can think of one, maybe we could see its handled elsewhere..? ntnon (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm I could see how this could end up tying us up in conceptual knots (I may need a lie down). What I actually flagged as possibly BLP-violating (see the B-class assessment on the talk page) were some of the other parodies. We clear can't tone down or remove Funky Flashman, as it stands, but what we can do is aim to reduce the "editorialising" in the parody section of the Stan Lee article (as has been done with the Moore bit below that), I think the wording is OK for Flashman as it stands (although obviously whip out the weasel words and source it) but watch out for things like "because of his poor treatment of coworkers" or actual comparisons with slaveowners, etc. The article makes it clear enough what the character's.. character is and we can allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Also it'd be worth our saying "X says 'Y'" rather than paraphrase as it puts us at one remove from the issue of whether he is or he isn't. As I say in the assessment parodies/homages sections are bit quagmires of opinion and original research (as well as having the potential for BLP violations with controversial/high-profile figures) and they have to be kept cut right back to what we can prove and I think, carefully-worded (and heavily-policed) that should be OK. (Emperor (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Precisely. Wikipedia is covered from BLP issues simply by having the phrase "Jack Kirby created the character because he believed..." as a caveat. Basically, what I would want to do would be to editorialise: something like:

"Lee, as the most prominent and vocal member of the Marvel bullpen, main writer and creative maelstrom, is often (in print, particularly by outsiders) apportioned sole creative credit for many of Marvel's most famous characters, sidelining the - often considerable - input of his artistic collaborators. Although this is largely media-portrayal, and not necessarily that which Lee tells himself (although his verbalising can sometimes stretch into hyperbole), he has often been demonised and resented by his colleagues in part for being the face and spokesman of Marvel. As a key editor/member of staff and prominent fixture on the lecture circuit, Lee has often become so interlinked to the company he represents that the two are inseparable to many minds. This, as much as his own statements and actions, have made him the most obvious point of blame for the often-terrible treatment of artists, writers and of work-for-hire deals in general during the most productive early years of Marvel's output. As such, he has been regularly maligned and attacked in print and on the page in a variety of unflattering roles, lampoons and hatchet-jobs. While there is likely some kernal of truth to some of the criticisms levelled at Lee, even his more vocal critics tend to (grudgingly or otherwise) acknowledge that he has had considerable achievements. Most have ultimately clarifed that their beef is with Marvel the company, not Stan the man - Jack Kirby in particular has been outspoken against Lee, but also backtracked on other occasions, returned to work for him and the two have both been shown to have been the victims of misrepresentation in things they are said to have said. Lee for his part is not wholly whiter-than-white, and has occasionally seemed to downplay or even sideline his collaborators; at other times, however, he gives them the lion's share of the credit for scripting and story details as well as 'just' the art."

But that's tantamount to original research and blather. ;o) The issues of 'who did what'/'who owns what'/'who "ripped off" whom' are probably unknowable, but underlie most of the potential BLP issues surrounding many of the early comics folk. But it's not a BLP conflict to say "so-and-so claims that.." and "such-and-such felt so strongly he produced an embittered swipe in print.." Generally I would avoid mentioning some of the things that are likely to give rise to heated debate and problems, but... if Funky has a page, then it is relevant that he's Kirby's (one time) attack on Lee. The Kirby vs. Marvel artwork saga is something I've been (not) working on for a while, and it got some flak for being biased and anti-Marvel, but it's a vital part of his history in comics. It does portray Marvel in a bad light, as Moore's complaints over various things can (although he takes some 'grumpy old man' criticism, too), but... these are relevant points.

There's usually two sides. In some cases - many more, because people change their mind, or clarify their point, or backtrack or are pointed to bigger villains, or...! I could dig out quotes from Lee downplaying the artists role(s), and compliment them with the opposite. Likewise criticism and praise from Kirby, etc. But that doesn't really have much of a place here, and isn't particularly helpful. Careful wording - and sources - are definitely the important points. I'd say it's touch-and-go as to whether "alleged poor treatment of co-workers" is a useful point to make - obviously setting up the reader for their own conclusions is one thing, but if you're talking about analogies (sidelining colleagues/slavetrading), a little clarification of the intent might (might) be wise. Tricky... ntnon (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Once you are talking about intent then you'd need to source it solidly, from the person themselves to be 100% sure. I'm sure "allegedly" counts as a weasel word and we also have to avoid such pitfalls as WP:SYNTHESIS, as well as WP:NPOV and avoiding putting our own spin on things - the situation wasn't great and a lot of people feel hard done by but equally it wasn't too rosy elsewhere!! So not a "don't do it" but more in line with Hill Street Blues: "let's be careful out there." (Emperor (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Another Weird Problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Care_(Star_Trek:_Voyager) says it was copied from StarTrek.com but there's no actual file when I clicked through at the URL. The Startrek.com website says 'You no can copy us'. Wikipedia's copyright violation page requires one to submit the URL that the text is copied from. I do not have the URL, just the claim it was copied. Catch 22. Why do I always get the weird problems? 8-) Lots42 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an easier one - the link has an extraneous percentage thing at the end. Try here. :o) ntnon (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The page resolved now and I did actually manage to do the HTML DB thingie right (I even remembered to do a Preview). All with a big headache. Usually Wikipedia reporting rules give me a headache. 8-) Lots42 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British UFO Research Association

I have nominated British UFO Research Association, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British UFO Research Association. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Something else to scour for books on, then... ntnon (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Angela

Hmm...! I'd somehow forgotten it was Monday (although for a couple of weeks, I think it's been pushed back to Tuesday anyway), so no, I hadn't seen that yet. Thanks for the note, certainly have to look into getting that tome if I can. (Next time - and hopefully there won't be one - could you make the "don't" rather larger, so I don't misread your note..? I don't speak Japanese, you see...) ntnon (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comics encyclopedias

I'm not in love with the Vertigo Encyclopedia, or the other book I'm using to ref articles right now, DK's DC Comics Encyclopedia. They're simply, well, here. I get pretty tired of AfDs for characters who are obviously (to the comics community) notable, and of seeing "This article has no references or citations" templates at the top of otherwise very good articles. Part of the problem is that of insufficiently flexible notability guidelines (when applied to fictional subjects), but also part of the problem is that media-based communities on Wikipedia often have only inconsistently grokked the need for WP:RS in all articles.

So yeah, the information in the Vertigo Encyclopedia is by no means revelatory. In fact, the information you're going to find in any comics reference material is pretty much guaranteed to be inferior to that which you'd find on Wikipedia. But I do believe that WP:RS are an effective hedge against deletionist tweedheads who will indiscriminately nominate anything for deletion that hasn't already been sourced, or will do a drive-by on the article, dropping templates, when they could be spending time improving articles, instead of asking others to improve them. Third party sources are also reassuring to our non-contributing readers. So yeah, what a lot of comics articles need is someone to systematically mine the printed literature on the subject and extract appropriate references. That's me! I'm good at projects like that; I have a high tolerance for repetition. These books aren't something I'd like to own, but they are invaluable in that sense.

As far as a parent category for stuff like Category:1990 comics characters debuts, yeah I've also been thinking there should be one, but I hadn't planned on doing anything about it until I finished my current ref'ing projects. The ones you propose sound sensible to me. Cheers. Ford MF (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Awards

I've encountered a redlink! Any idea what the "favourite new title" Star Hunters may refer to? It doesn't seem to have an article. It seems to be a DC Comics title by Michael Netzer, David Michelinie, Bob Layton and Don Newton. May be worth an article? Fram (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wilson of the Wizard

Would you mind assessing Wilson of the Wizard for the comics project, obviously I don't feel comfortable doing it as I wrote it. Thanks either way, Hiding T 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Books

Oh, yes! I've enjoyed most of these at one time or another - Freaks, Urban Legends and Grimm stand out particularly, Weirdos and the Unexplained... yeah, I'll have to dig some out at some point and help out more fully. :o) ntnon (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which infobox..?! I think you're far more fluent in 'box-guage than I have any chance of being. The overarcing 'Big Books' series is a sort of hybrid company-title-series-graphic novel-anthology-type thing, so I don't know. It would be tempting to use one appropriate for an imprint, with the BB logo as it's picture, and then just list Paradox, DC, years of operation, any editor(s) who worked on more than one, any writers who worked on more than two and any artists who worked on more than 5. The titles aren't really needed in the infobox, since that's all the page really is, so it's really only Paradox/DC and the years that are 'needed'. Maybe. ;o) ntnon (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was giving this some thought today. What we need - and I'm relying on you to tell me if it's already there! - is a single infobox that can cover the following:

• Big Books
• Taboo
• A1
• Strange Killings
• Top 10 (maybe)
• Hellboy

What it needs is: Title, Publisher, Years (Start/(finish)), (Main issues?), Constituent Parts*, Main editor/writer/artist, (major contributing artist/writer/editor).

*Of which: Stories, Issues (years, tpb), GNs/books.

So then you'd have: Big Book/Hellboy; Paradox-DC/Dark Horse; 1994-2000/1993-; --/SD Comic-con Comic #2; [the range]; Vankin & Moench + Rick Geary/Mike Mignola.

...all that said, the one that's there works well enough! ;o) But for Top 10, a better hybrid would have Smax, The 49ers and Beyond.. in the infobox, which might be handy; Taboo would get Lost Girls and From Hell in the box, etc. ntnon (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

..one day I'll learn how to read. ;o) Or, better yet, and more helpfully, develop a memory/attention span longer th ntnon (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Libra (comics)

Emperor, would it be best if we were to turn this into a SIA? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - good find. I've sorted it out now. (Emperor (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Best-selling comics series

Why we do not have a list of the best-selling comics series ? There is such a list for books. I have suggested Fram to include a column in the list of Franco-Belgian comic series, but it may be a good idea to create a new list to compare both the sales of anglo-saxon comics with bandes dessinées ? The only concern is to find sources. --Pah777 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We "know" that the best-selling OGN (or, perhaps, original superhero graphic novel) is, according to it's writer Arkham Asylum. We "know" that the best-selling comic of all time is the Death of Superman. We "know" that X-Men #1, X-Force #1 and Spider-man #1 (Lee, Liefeld and McFarlane) did massive business. As did early Image. But other than that... we're reasonably confident that Watchmen is the best-selling TPB. We may assume that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is (probably) the best-selling independent comic, with Cerebus and maybe ElfQuest and Bone close behind, but it drifts into assumption and speculation quickly. We don't know newsstand figures at all, although sometimes we can guess them. For some (older) comics we can dig out "statement of circulation" figures, but there is doubt regularly cast on those. For recent comics - sometimes stretching back to the early/mid-80s, we can occasionally get print-run/initial orders or "sales" figures, but those are a) doubted, b) often vague and c) may not equal sales. But it's quite hard to get hold of TPB sales in bookshops, so without newsstand and bookshops, overall sales are tough to state with any accuracy.

Beyond the above. Which are trotted out so often as to be spurious-by-association...! ntnon (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Morbius, the Living Vampire

You know, I don't know why but I've never liked the title of this article. It's probably because it's one of those pages that combine a comic book and character into one page. What are the chances that we could split the character into its own article, Michael Morbius? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Resources

Queries and wonders... ignore me if I'm being rude/invasive! :o) Would it be fair to assume you may have some Fantasy Advertisers somewhere, and if so - are they more accessible than any of mine (not that I've got that many, oddly)..?! Also, do you have a copy of this, at all...? British Invasion (comics) might need it at some point, so I'm hunting around, but in the meantime...! ntnon (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :o) Rarely a bad idea to enquire (except when some people find it rude), so it was worth a shot. And on the other side of things, please continue to throw things my way. When I regain access to the majority of my books, etc. (long story), I should be able to track down a lot of decent stuff. (Plus, I'll probably try and hunt out as many FAs as I can, anyway, and now I'll keep an eye open for the other, too.) ntnon (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually downloaded the Gibbons Word Balloon talk yesterday, but similarly haven't listened to it yet..! And I assume you saw that Lying in the Gutters has some kind of recording of Mr Lloyd talking in Harrods. Which I'd hoped to go to, but couldn't. So that's the next best thing, at least.. ntnon (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Nothing wrong with hoarding bags & such, particularly art-encrusted ones... and finding contents lurking must be a nice surprise! The TT is a particularly admirable admission, too. ;o)

Dice Man... I only very, very vaguelly (and barely even that) knew it existed until reading Thrillpower, so: is it as good as it sounds (and you make it sound)..?! It's Choose Your Own Adventure-y, isn't it..? Does it work!? ntnon (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD notice

As per your previous request, check out CfD, going back at least to October 3rd. And there are also a couple of fiction-related DRVs as well. - jc37 01:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I think I got most of the ones I care enough about to given my opinion on (although I did have to restrain myself from suggesting keep for fictional hunchbacks just because I feel the universe needs such a category). It'd be handy of the comics-related ones were listed in the relevant area of the noticeboard when people spot them. #hint hint# (03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Rofl.

Well, I'm waiting for these discussions to be resolved (however that may be). I'm working on trying to ascertain what some editors seem to find "tolerable". Where the "keep" preference lines are apparently drawn.(Since most of the "keeps" seem to involve some version of "IWANTIT because IThinkIt'sDefining".)

We'll see, I suppose.

As for the noticeboard, I'm kinda at a loss. We have a problem in that quite a few categories which are claimed to be "fiction-related" are really "comics-related" which have a couple of characters from television or film, almost as an afterthought.

So I'm at a loss as to what qualifies as post-worthy.

Suggestions welcome : ) - jc37 04:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

European comics categories

Fellow participant to the European comics work group, I propose you to create a category for Franco-Belgian comics magazines. There are many reasons for that:

1. There is a category for comic book publishing companies of each country, it would be logical to do the same for comics magazines.
2. Titles published by comics magazines are not always the same as the titles published by the publishing house that owns the magazines. Dupuis titles are roughly the same as Spirou titles, but there are a lot of magazines, and very few are in the same case: Dupuis is almost a unique case).
3. À Suivre, Le Petit Vingtième, Spirou (magazine), Tintin (magazine) are in the Franco-Belgian comics category but this is this is not a right place to cite them, for the Franco-Belgian comics category must include articles directly linked to the subject, not titles of series nor magazines.
4. There are not categories directly linked to comics magazine, and none of the existing categories are relevant to include comics magazine. The only solution would be to create a category for these comics magazines. This new category would be very useful and convenient.
5. We cannot contenting ourselves with including magazines in the category named after their publisher, because magazines can be mistaken for titles. For example, if we include Pilote in Category:Dargaud, people can think "Pilote" is the name of a comics series. To avoid this mistake, we must create a new category.
6. Comics magazine has an essential role in the Bande Dessinée culture and history, much more than with anglo-saxon comics. Comics magazines are evn more important in French culture than publishing houses.
7. There is a distinction between graphic novels and comic strips (while there are very few French and Belgian comics strips, but if you think this category is useful, it is surely right). The distinction between comics magazines and comics publishers must be done as well.

I suggest creating the "French comics magazines" and "Belgian comics magazines" categories or something like that, and to include them in the "Belgian comics" and "French comics" categories. What do you think about ? --Pah777 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories to be rearranged

Belgian comics

Belgian comics artists

Bandes dessinées

Belgian comics characters

Belgian comic strips

Comics images from Belgium

Comics by Bob de Moor

Belgian comics adapted into films

Films based on Belgian comics

Comics by André Franquin

Belgian graphic novels

Comics by Hergé

Comics by Edgar P. Jacobs

Comics magazines published in Belgium

Comics by Morris (cartoonist)

Comics by Peyo

Comic book publishing companies of Belgium

Comics by Marc Sleen

Television series based on Belgian comics

Belgian comics titles

Comics by Jean Van Hamme

Comics by Willy Vandersteen

Belgian comics writers

French comics

Comics magazines published in France

French comics artists

French comics writers

Asterix

Bandes dessinées

Comics by Enki Bilal

French comics characters

French comic strips

Comics images from France

Films based on French comics

French comics adapted into films

French-language comics

Comics by Jean Giraud

French graphic novels

Comics by Maximilien Le Roy

Michel Vaillant

Comic book publishing companies of France

Comics by Jacques Tardi

Television series based on French comics

French comics titles

Comics by Albert Uderzo

Valérian and Laureline

French webcomics

There is some mess with categories called after comics series. In "Belgian comics", there were the subcategories "Buck Danny", "Smurfs", "Tintin". I though it was not the right place, so I deleted them. Should we include them into "Belgian comics titles" or "Dargaud/Dupuis/Le Lombard titles" ? It would be convenient to group all these categories in one category, for exemple in "Belgian comics titles" (it is the more logical solution, and it is the scheme used for the category "French comics"). The concern is that the Belgian comics titles category have already subcategories of publishers titles. What can we done ? Some of the categories named after series are Category:Smurfs, Category:Tintin,Category: Lucky Luke, Category:Blake and Mortimer, Category:Asterix. --Pah777 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder what is the point of Category: Belgian graphic novels. The presence of the subcategories is unjustified. Moreover, I really wonder what is the point of this category. What does means "graphic novel" ? What should be included in it ? Is it really different from Category:Belgian comics titles ? I demand it to be deleted, because pointless categories must be deleted. (the same remark can be done for "French" instead of "Belgian", while anglo-saxon categories are filled) --Pah777 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have understood that there are some French and Belgian comics strips and graphic novels. This distinction is relevant, but this kind of comics is not at all dominant. I suggest including the two related categories into the category "Country titles". There are two argument in favour of this move: 1) comics strips and graphic novels are comics titles, thus they should be placed in the relevant category. 2) we must not put categories of little importance into broad and non-specific categories. As for categories named after titles, my knowledge of the English language is rather limited, but I have roughly understood that the Category:Smurfs must be included in the "Dupuis titles" category, not in the "Belgian comics titles" category, while The Smurfs (comics) must be in both "Belgian comics titles" and "Dupuis titles", right ? And what do you think of a possible category for comics magazines ? --Pah777 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics and genres...

Could you take a look at User:J Greb/Reference material#Structured list for infobox use and see if I may have missed any before I go back for a final clean-up of the "genre" parameter in the comics infoboxes (and adding it to the graphic novel one...).

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exiles

Why? Why is it important to list every version of Wolverine that has appeared in the series? What's the benefit to the encyclopedia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Real Person Craziness: Help, please.

So I found this page Calum Forrester somehow and the trivia section accused the dude of starting a riot. I deleted it because it's a real person...then this and other edits got reverted soon after. I don't care that much about the other edits but I'm sure you see the problem with accusing some Joe Normal of accidentally starting a riot... without any sources. Lots42 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultron

I've started a discussion here, and would be interested in your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I thought you should know that Asgardian has continued his deletion of material in a number of edits:

• In this edit he removed an entire section, but in his Edit Summary, he claims that he "reworked" it. I have restored it.
• In this edit, despite the fact there is currently an ongoing discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page regarding the use of comic book titles in articles, Asgardian deleted a reference to the title in which an event took place. I restored it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted most of a section, calling it "fancruft". I started the discussion on that Talk Page because I think there's room to argue over this, and have not reverted it for this reason. I explained why I believe it's not "fancruft", but think we need a consensus on it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted two thirds of a section, claiming in his Edit Summary, "Not well written - just the facts." First of all, I explained to Asgardian some time ago that poor writing is not a valid rationale to delete material, in lieu of a rewrite. Second, by saying "just the facts", he implying that there was non-factual material in that section. As one of the editors who participated in the writing/editing of that section, I assure you, having read the books, that it is indeed facts. In addition, by deleting mention of Yellowjacket by name, Asgardian is deleting mention of the only appearance of someone under that identity in the Ultimate universe. I pointed this out to Asgardian on his Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I sense that you're in agreement with on all my points, albeit expressed in more provisional language. If that's the case, then perhaps you need to be more forceful in asserting this with Asgardian. I really would prefer to not have to review his contributions periodically, as some kind of second Watchlist, and if he continues to delete material without valid (or with misleading) rationale, you might want to consider that he needs to be blocked. I mean, how much walking on eggshells should be done around one editor out of thousands who refuses to follow policy and work with others? However, I have to agree with him regarding the Branagh issue. Lots of "in-development" movie info is from reliable trades, but I believe that WP:CRYSTAL prefers that development has reached the point of signed contracts and actual filming before material is added. Negotiations can simply be another part of "development hell". Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are another editor. And what's more, you seem to be one that he responds to, and even agreed to mentor him. This is why you need to weigh in in situations like this, as you have been doing occasionally. As for blocking (not "banning"), I think a pattern of behavior on his part has indeed been illustrated. Regarding discussion, I'm also wondering what's going on with the Black Bolt discussion. He told me on my Talk Page that he was going to get another opinion, and that was several days ago, with no word from him. Nightscream (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the legitimacy of Jc37's approach to this situation to be mixed. Yes, he's made some admonishments to Asgardian, but I find his statements during discussion on my Talk Page to be less constructive than they could be. Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved admin

Per this comment which Nightscream copied to me, I would like to let you know that, soon, I will impose the block discussed. Giving you a little time to respond if your opinion's changed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week and the action logged at the RFAR page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Krazy (comics)

Surely Krazy is a comic not a "comics" - you would not have "The Godfather (films)" or "Empire (magazines)" would you? I think the naming convention you cite is more to do with American comics than British (and that Comics project does not seem to cover British comics at all), and I am sorely tempted to rename it back again. Stephenb (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCC applies to all comics and is a class not a description. Hence you have both 2000 AD (comics) and Simon Davis (comics)/John Bolton (comics).

Well, I notice you added the redirect from 2000AD (comic) so not a great example. And neither Simon Davis and John Bolton are a comic, they work in the industry, so there is no comparison. Looking at Category:Fleetway and IPC Comics titles half of them follow the "rule" and half don't (several that do are as a result of you renaming). The rule itself doesn't make sense, of course (see my previous examples above) - most people looking for a British comic or adding a link to one would naturally type "name (comic)" and not the bizarre "name (comics)" no matter what some strange project decided the rule would be (for American comics, which the project might cover, but the naming convention doesn't mention British comics). Virtually no type of article with the distinguishing category in brackets uses the plural. In addition, in renaming the article, you have not changed the disambiguation page link (still reads "(comic)") or the other links I painstaking went through and updated. Basically, this naming convention is entirely wrong for British comics. Stephenb (Talk) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already raised it at the project. I did not say that because other article still use "(comic)" that this should too, but as an example of expected usage, like (film), (novel), (magazine) and so on. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles the examples for class are singular, although the subject or context are not. My argument is that the singular class is by far more preferable for examples of comics themselves, though other articles about the industry may well use the subject/context. Stephenb (Talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mark Farmer (author)

A tag has been placed on Mark Farmer (author) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Flowanda | Talk 08:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy Awards in the News

The Project Fanboy Awards have recieved attention in an article regarding the Top U.S. Comic Book Conventions,and are listed as a one of the main events for the MegaCon Convention in an article about the Top Us Comic Book Conventions found here:

Top US Comic Book Conventions

Does this article help the Project Fanboy Wikipedia entry I have saved in my sandbox at all? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input. I didn't realize it was a blog entry. Thanks anyway. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Doctor (comics)

Emperor, this "strange" edit came up on my watchlist. The editor, Marcus Brute, may be doing such changes to other SIAs. Could you look into it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to my watchlist. It seems OK as it stands. BTW, have you watchlisted all of the SIAs relating to comics? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I should have them all on my watchlist as I've worked on all of them as well as most of the remaining disambiguation pages that need converting (although I always seem to find one or two I've never seen before). That said it can't hurt to have another set of eyes on them - I have a large list and something else might blow up that distracts me. (Emperor (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me for poking my nose in... I don't understand half of this, but I get quite irritated by the removal of red links for no good reason - they are, I thought, quite an important part of Wikipedia. Designed to get people to notice what doesn't exist, and hopefully write it. Surely? In any case, if there's a massive battle at any point, I notice that this "MOSDAB" page says that a compromise solution is not to remove the text, but just to remove its linkage. So that might be appeasing in some circumstances. (Ignore me if I have the wrong end of the stick..!) ntnon (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pat Mills

Quick question - do we know why Pat Mills is thanked in the opening acknowledgements to Watchmen..? Could it be as simple as first putting Moore and Gibbons in touch on 2000AD work, or... something else. Any idea? :o) ntnon (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for me - I could have done that, and saved you some hassle..! I didn't remember anything specific, so I didn't rush to check it, and your look seems to agree with my feeling. So. A mystery! :o) It's Mills, Gaiman, <someone> and Joe Orlando: Gaiman gave quotes and support (per his blog); Orlando drew some pirates (pre TCJ #116), but the other two... hmmm.... it could just be help and advice on various aspects of the plot/quotes/backups, but I'm curious now.

I think there's a fair bit that can be added to the current re-write of Watchmen, and I'm a bit miffed that I put in a lot of effort which was essentially steamrollered twice! First because there was apparently a rewrite going on when I first re-sourced the article, and second because I again researched and sourced everything for WesleyDodds to write with, but that input has been lost because it was all copied rather than merged.... Oh well. I know what I did to help. :o) (Even if I'm still unclear why there was a wholesale rewrite undertaken, which has lost quite a bit of interesting and useful information on one of/the most important comics.) I would certainly add something approximating what you wrote though, yes. And definitely include the last quote. ntnon (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Do you read Italian..?!

Hmm...! I've just got hold of the 20th Anniversary book of Watchmen essays, but, typically, it's Italian-published and (how unreasonable!) in Italian. (I did know this beforehand, but convinced a friend to lend me it anyway.) So now I don't know what to do with it..! :o) ntnon (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was ultimately a somewhat flippant query - it would need me to guess at something that looks interesting; transcribe the whole thing, and then hope someone else can translate and re-type it..! ;o) Somewhat tough.

I'm surprised it's not made it over to the UK or US (yet), too. I might e-mail someone and ask, actually. I suppose it would be somewhat foolhardy to e-mail Titan and suggest they look into it, so I'll try and locate the publisher/editor and enquire of them. Can't imagine they haven't thought about it, though, and maybe the film will bring all kinds of things out of the woodwork. (Could be legal issues, though, I suppose.) ntnon (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What's in it...? Lots of Italian. :o) Plus some pictures by various people: OK.

Cover by Gibbons and Gabriele del'Otto; Introduction by Michael Moorcock; brief interviews (I think) with Moore, Gibbons and Higgins; 12 chapters on various things; 25-picture Gallery (inc. David Hitchcock, Eduardo Risso, Chris Weston (sure I've seen it somewhere else...), Gary Spencer Millidge, et al.; afterword(?) by Mike Carey; ~6-line biographies [Khoury interviewed Moore, Villarrubia was involved somehow] of the contributors; Watchmens publication details, in Italy; paragraph-long biographies of Moore, Gibbons and Higgins; Gibbon's cover to the Mayfair Games Taking out the Trash RPG module, in black and white. The End. :o) ntnon (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Comics

Hi! Would you pay a short visit to Talk:Hungarian_comics, and than a longer one on the article itself? :) (We had a conversation there a few months ago.) Thanks a lot! Zoli79 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Pages Section

I like to patrol the 'New Pages' section but every once in a while, the author (or someone who seems to a sockpuppet) deletes my DB-html right off the page and or blanks the page which is, of course, a breaking of the rules. I don't know how to respond to this. Lots42 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hatnote advice

I say it has to go per WP:NAMB. The film seems to already be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this seems more like a case of several characters using the same names. I guess it's ok, but if it were me, I'd trim the hatnote (like I once did for Ice and Icemaiden). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, it may be best to list the characters rather than hatnoting. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Something Comics-Related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_(film) About once a month, someone goes in and changes the gender refs to the character Gabriel. From 'he' to 'her' to nuetral-gender to back again. Big discussion in the talk pages has seemed to hit a brick wall. One person fails to understand that the gender depends on what the movie says. Lots42 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Bolt and Living Laser

Hi. Regarding Black Bolt, do you have an idea of when we will get this "other opinion" on Black Bolt that Asgardian said he would get back on September 30th? I posted a message on October 4 on the Black Bolt Talk Page and on Asgardian's Talk Page asking about this, but haven't gotten a response.

Regarding Living Laser, Asgardian deleted nearly an entire section of material, replacing it with a single line of information, and claiming in his Edit Summary that this is a "reworking", and that he retained the Lead section "through consensus". I'm not sure if that "through consensus" point was a reference only to the Lead, which I don't dispute, or the deleted section, but I asked him about where this consensus was, and on October 6, he said on my Talk Page, "I just have to backtrack and find it. I think I know where it is." That was seven days ago. And still no word from him, despite the fact that he has indeed been editing during all that time, up until now.

Please advise. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• When you say, "you've made reasonable efforts on the Black Bolt front and just ignoring requests for comments and explanation", I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean to write "Asgardian is" before the phrase "just ignoring"? If so, fine, but what do you think we should do? In my opinion, saying, "Black Bolt will face", is decontextualized, and makes no sense as it reads. Should we re-insert the title, and by extension, ignore Asgardian's "no titles in FCB" edict, since policy calls for out-universe instead of in? If so, what do you advise if he again reverts it?

• You already said the What If section belongs in the Alternate section. I don't dispute that. I dispute the manner in which he deleted most of it. I also question whether the "consensus" indeed refers to this, rather than the Lead, but again, he won't respond to messages. You say it should not have been trimmed down so much, so what do we do? Nightscream (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

S'okay, don't worry about it. Typos are the bane of all of us.

As far as your Publication History idea, I see a few problems with this. First of all, if we start that new section, who's going to write it? I have no interest in doing so, nor do I have enough knowledge of the character to do so, so how can I propose it? Second, this is not how Wikipedia prescribes its articles to be written. Policy requires that fiction be written from an out-universe perspective, and cites articles like Captain Marvel (DC Comics) as an example. If you look at that article, you see that the publication history and fictional character biography are integrated as one section, discussing both external publishing events and internal events in the life of the character. Asking me to start a PH seems like an iteration of Asgardian's viewpoint, which is to treat PH and FCB separately, with no mention of titles in FCB, which is an matter of his arbitrary whims/aesthetics, which you agreed was not supportable, and is part of the problem. Indeed, what would a Black Bolt PH section consist of? Characters like Superman and DC's Captain Marvel have gone through a lot of revamps, reboots, chaning publishers, etc., for 70 years, but isn't Black Bolt's PH pretty straightforward? What's there to say that isn't already in the article in his FCB? Lastly, even if I suggest this, what good will it do if he keeps ignoring me and/or reverting it? It's still going to come around to that, so the question has to be answered: What do we do if he continues to revert and ignore? So even if I thought that PH was a good idea, and would wish he'd compromise, you know he's not going to do so. At what point do you agree that it becomes unavoidable to make administrative decisions?

Again, same question for Living Laser.

Again, the PH idea does not address the current problem. First, that fact that we start a PH does not have anything to do with having titles in the FCB, which is what Asgardian keeps reverting. There is no reason "War of Kings" should not also be in the FCB, and you yourself agreed with this. Indeed, a PH would only mention the most notable appearances of the character, and we don't even know at this point if his appearances in WoK will qualify. By talking about a PH, you're not addressing the central problem.

The rest of my post is not a different topic, it's the same topic we've been discussing for some time now, which has not been resolved. You say that I haven't tried your suggestions. How do you figure this? You said try talking to him, didn't you? Jc37 suggested starting a discussion on the Project board, didn't he? I haven't tried these? How so? You and another admin said you'd mentor him. Has this worked to address the issue of his continued reverts and ignoring me? Don't say that I haven't tried your suggestions, because that's true, and you know it. The problem is that you seem to be going out of your way to avoid answering this issue, as if you're dead-set on walking on eggshells around him, and making everyone else do the same. There's no rule that he has to talk to me? In fact, WP policy requires editors in conflict to talk it out. That is indeed a rule. You say that if he starts renewing again he is on thin ice. He's been reverting constantly. How is he not already on thin ice? Are you saying that if I reinsert the material, and he reverts again, that then you'll do something? Where exactly is the line?

You say that I'm advocating "deciding to skip moving things forward because I've assumed what his reaction will be." First of all, I haven't "decided" anything. I've simply been asking you questions. Asking you what will happen if he continues his behavior is not an "assumption". He is exhibiting this behavior as we speak, and has been doing so for some time. Asking you what will happen if he continues the behavior he's been exhibiting up until now is not an "assumption". How is this "straight on" to sanctions? He's been thumbing his nose at WP policy left and right, and I've been taking every suggestion you've made, ever since you and the others raised the issue of my block. So where do you get "straight on" to sanctions? That's not "hypothetical", it's ongoing. Why are you so reluctant to answer the question? Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian again deleted my trimmed down version of the Living Laser material, calling it "fancruft". Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Daniel Case. Btw, does policy or MOS preclude wikilinking section headings? I've seen wikilinked headings often, and was not aware there was a problem with it. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. In the even that you missed the above message, and saw Daniel's post above as your last message, can you let me know your thoughts on section wikilinking? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Asgardian is finally discussing things with me on his Talk Page. His attitude about certain things doesn't seem to have changed, and I don't know if he's going to return to his old behavior once the block expires, and since the version of the Living Laser passage in question that he proposes leaves out the What If? title, I want to ask you something. Should we start a discussion on the Projects page to address this? The last time I tried to start a discussion there, on Jc37's suggestion, no one responded. And the last time I tried to start a consensus discussion on the Ultron Talk Page regarding the Film section, I think two people responded, despite the fact that I contacted like a dozen. I notice that you're active on the Project Talk Page. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I ensure that people will participate? Nightscream (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he and I have been discussing these issues, can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you offer your thoughts in the discussion on Asgardian's Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Asgardian removed an in-universe tag from the Living Laser article, despite the fact that that tag legitimate reflects the fact that WP requires fiction to be written about in an out-universe manner, and that article's content is largely in-universe. Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Archie

Just saw that you'd reverted some "OldSunnyGirl" deletions from various Archie/Red Circle characters. This is the several-th time that this editor has done this, almost entirely un-explained. I've wondered vaguelly and specifically (to 'her' as well) whether there is actually a technical reason that these edits are occurring, which is possible, or whether it's just random vandalism. I'd like to assume the former, but these edits keep happening, even after warnings from various people and queries from the same. Weird. ntnon (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent edits on Runaways, adding film, fixing infoboxes, and headers. Thanks! A _talk 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I truly agree, that's why I try and help whenever I can. Thanks! A _talk 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Galactus suggestions

Have a look and see if the sub-titles are what you were thinking about for the alternative universe section. There is actually quite a bit of material from the creators about Ultimate Galactus so that section can be extended quite a bit. In regards to the lead, need to find someone to do that as I'm more of an editor than a writer. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Warren Worthington III

Someone just tried to add Category:Marvel Comics supervillains to the article. While I can understand why, WP:VER requires us to source these kinds of things regardless of its obviousness. Would you happen to have a source on you? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is all in the entry under the "Archangel" section and he was a supervillain for a while (in the broad sense). This goes back to my question on the talk page - do we include those who have been brainwashed, mincontrolled, coerced, etc.? I think we need a broad consensus which we can use to arrive at a specific consensus on each page. (Emperor (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

And there's that query I left at #Doctor Druid which went unanswered. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered over there. (Emperor (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Thank you Emperor. Indeed, we need to establish some criterion on how to designate individuals as supervillains. Think you can get a discussion going at WT:CMC? I'll do it later on tonight if you're unable to. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically I have got the ball rolling - no one picked it up and ran with it. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

What do you mean? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here where I ask whether we need a stricter definition of what it takes to be classed as a supervillain. I'd suggest that (at least for the purposes of assigning categories) we should have as a basic standard that they made a choice to be a supervillain (so no mind-control and no coercion - as anyone can commit terrible acts if someone threatens to kill their family). There are clearly going to be so many exceptions it'd make your brain bleed trying to come up with the combinations and permutations so I'd keep it simple and leave the last call up to a consensus on the relevant talk page. (Emperor (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Midnight (Marvel Comics)

Hello,

I turned this one into a disambiguation page. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! That's a good one.  :) Also, I wanted to point out to you all the hard work that Scottandrewhutchins has been putting into Man-Thing. Is that good enough for a B now? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I remember thinking that Blade might have been improved enough to be a B-class article now, but I'm not altogether sure if I'm remembering correctly. Also, regarding the Marvel Universe Appendix, have we officially determined whether or not it's a fansite? I had the feeling we had determined it was a good resource, but obviously there is still some room for debate. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same way about it. I try to link any character pages on here to corresponding pages there, because that site is amazingly well referenced for one thing. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please point me in the right direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louboy14

I can't seem to find an appropiate forum to report this; basically it's someone editing and deleting and ignoring the db-tags. The forums I go to say, basically, 'This page is for this only'. Can't find, heck, I'm not even sure how to describe this oddness. Sometimes Wikipedia reporting just gets so -complicated-. I don't want to fill out a police report, I'd just like to ask 'Hey, can someone take a peek at this?'. Is there a forum for -that-? Lots42 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind sparing an eye...

I'm in a discussion at Template talk:Punisher#Header colour overriding that I think is going in circles.

I think I maybe missing something and a fresh set of eyes would be a help.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

List of comic publications...

For Image, Dark Horse and a couple of others, which do you think would be the best option.

• Create a "List of ... publications" page, populate it and then add a merge tag to the "Current publications" page.
• Rename the "Current publications" page and move the information across.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

After this I recalled that the "Current" list for Dark Horse no longer existed so I used the last version of it and the list on the DH page to create this: List of Dark Horse Comics publications, which is a rough pre-tablisation list if you want to have a look at it and help me clean up a little. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars comics

You know all the problems with the Buffy pages... every little thing getting its own stub... yeah, Boba Fett: Overkill; tradepaper backs being used to describe oneshots... check, Star Wars: The Bounty Hunters; every issue of a long running series covered on a page about the series... got one of them, Star Wars: Republic. And I'm sure that's the tip of the iceberg. That's Star Wars & Buffy... how many more fandoms are there out there with these same problems? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you may not want to see this, but I'm showing you anyway. I deleted the "Publisher Description" section from Boba Fett: Overkill[11] It's truely horrifying. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Star Wars fan. A Buffy fan. And a comics fan. Why do I get the feeling that these sort of pages are by people who are Star Wars or Buffy fans who only read Star Wars or Buffy comics (mostly in collections from bookstores) Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a big job in the future. I'll keep you updated if I find other franchises with problems and try to help with Buffy & Star Wars as much as possible. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the Star Wars comics page... I have rough knowledge of the some of the information needed, as well as an idea of the basic structure. Give me a bit of time to think about it and I'll get back to you. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox add on...

I've been tinkering with {{Infobox comics set index}} and the debut field and would like you opinion.

The new option is up on Ant-Man, Batgirl, Black Knight (comics), Blue Beetle, and Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics).

- J Greb (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pym and Ant-Man

It may be a slim hair to split, but reading the information in the articles, Pym's 1st appearance was January. Lee created the superhero persona for the character for the September issue, Pym's 2nd appearance.

I'm more of a mind to treat the heroic persona/concept separately, especially when there are the separate articles. I'd argue the same for "Giant-Man", "Goliath", and "Yellowjacket since Marvel has recycled each of those names after introing the costumes and power sets using Pym.

- J Greb (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Masking links

Concerning this change, is it ok to mask links on SIAs or does WP:MoS:DP#Individual entries still apply here? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 12:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion?

I know this is extremely random, and it was supposed to be. Mythdon and I have agreed to randomly choose an admin out of Special:Listusers and ask a third opinion of them if they would be willing. If you don't want to do this, then please don't feel forced to. The New Phobia (formerly Jonathan) 03:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan's opinion

A few days ago, I had decided to retrace Image:Hardee's.png into an SVG. Y'know, I thought about the servers, which SVG's are much lighter to use on. So I did, but I didn't do the bevel effects as it would make the file MASSIVE. I then uploaded the image, and Mythdon reverted it. I understand it isn't the exact logo, but we have to be light on the servers. Sometimes, as in this case, a company's logo is beveled, but in print it is not. Thus, I chose to go with the print version.

When I did this, Mythdon reverted it with the following summary: "Showing the SVG version is not factual. I don't even think it should be shown as a print version". I understand that this retrace isn't 100% perfect (none of them are without huge file sizes). However, Mythdon is saying I am "destroying the logo's factuality" when I had retraced the text, little node by little node, traced the star, and worked on some minor tweaks to make the lines smoother. It is the most exact as possible image that can be made while still reducing the PNG's file size. Then, I came back in the morning to find the image reverted, so I reverted the revert. He reverted my revert of his revert, making a small edit war that no one would really notice. I am asking that maybe we can get some consensus. If you agree with me, add a !vote beolow. Thank you. The New Phobia (formerly Jonathan) 03:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

!votes: 1 (Jonathan)

Mythdon's opinion

!votes: 1 (Mythdon)

!votes: 2 I'd have to agree that this shouldn't be used. It adds an extra, unneeded "layer" between the actual logo and the one presented here. You wouldn't repaint the Mona Lisa, for example, and so I feel where ever possible we should use a picture of the actual object. This is just from a practical viewpoint but it is possible there may be legal issues as a redrawing wouldn't be a true representation of the trademarked/copyright logo and I'm unsure they'd be very happy being represented here by someone's tracing of their actual logo. So this is an added complication that is not required as we have the actual logo to hand. (Emperor)

Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics)

I'm not really familiar with how comic related articles are organized on this site, but shouldn't the comic take precedent in that case? Any appearances outside of the main comic storyline should still be able to fit within the plot section or a character section if more than just the one character was focused on within the series. The character itself probably cannot establish any sort of notability separate from the series, which I imagine should have some sort of production and recption information available. TTN (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If a character has appeared in more than the single title then the article has to focus on the character.

There is the publication history for production, character development and other out-of-universe material. If you have reviews, etc. for a reception section then feel free to start one. (Emperor (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Is that a steadfast rule discussed by a number of people or just the common practice? TTN (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice - we have in the past merged eponymous series into the character page. It is a fairly common sense approach when the title and the character pretty much cover the same ground, especially where the character's appearances have been wider than the title. There are cases where the character has only appeared in their own eponymous title, that is a trickier beast and we have discussed combined character/title and team/title boxes but haven't created any yet. A recent example of a case like I describe is Simon Dark, it is currently focused on the character and, as it stands, it might be a flip of the coin on the focus but as it stands it is more flexible and the character is in the DC Universe and could appear in other titles so I suppose a good argument could be made for it to stay as it is.

That said the situation with Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics) is more clear cut as the character has appeared in various other titles outside of the Frankenstein series. There are cases where we have separate series but usually with characters with a long and complex publication history but those cases are rare (e.g. Batman/Batman (comic book) and Superman/Superman (comic book)). (Emperor (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

I guess that's an issue I can just not worry about for now. Now, with characters that don't have their own series, but appear in multiple titles, is it fine by the project to merge them into relevant lists or is it something that people will oppose based on the standard of a ton of characters having separate articles? I plan on merging the majority of the articles linked to from List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics, as they currently don't establish any sort of notability (Galactus is the only example of a notable one that I can see). Is that something that'll go by without any trouble? TTN (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt it'll go smoothly as quite a few of them are important characters. There has been some merging, for the minor members of the Octessence, so there isn't a problem with merging the minor characters but Dormammu and others (like Chthon (Marvel Comics), Beyonder, Onslaught (comics), Franklin Richards, Scarlet Witch, The Watcher (comics), etc.) are big players in a number of stories. Feel free to propose merges for those that solidly fail the grade but a better approach might be flagging the problems with the articles - I think we'd all rather they were improved rather than removed (at least without giving it our best shot first). (Emperor (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

DC Encyclopedia

Huh, very interesting, thanks. :o) And reminds me that the second edition is out, too... I don't know, though. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to put together a reasonably good article, but I would find it a little odd, personally. (No odder than a hundred other things, but still... an article on an encyclopedia, when it's contents is ultimately - or should be - lesser than this encyclopedia, seems mildly strange to me.) I'll pitch in and help, though, as and when. ntnon (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm sure it passes the Wikipedia requirements, I just think it's a little... strange! ;o) Mind you... what could work would be having some kind of "DC ENCYCLOPEDIA" page, which could cover the three Fleisher books (and mention they were reprinted); then this DC Encyclopedia, plus the Vertigo one (honorable side-mention of the DK Marvel companion); mention the Batman, Superman, Catwoman DK volumes, and then, Greenberger's Batman update and the up-coming Superman update. Or would that be a little much..?! (With a 'See also: Who's Who; Secret Files & Origins, etc.') ntnon (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure having a single page that covers all encyclopedic coverage of DC Comics would work. Sounds a little too much like OR, as to my knowledge there isn't much precedent for the topic of "DC Encyclopediae". They should probably be treated as individual volumes, no different from any other book.

At any rate, I've e-mailed the publicity department at Dorling Kindersley to see if they could put me in touch with the publicist handling the DC Encyclopedia who would (probably) have an idea of where the book's gotten press, which we could use as reliable sources to keep the article sound and deletion-proof. Ford MF (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Strange!

Ha ha! I just read your interests page - great stuff. All the best UK artists/writers, and also Jeff Noon and China Miéville! I had breakfast with Jeff a few years back - I loved 'Vurt' - as we both lived in Brighton then. Great guy. But also I worked with China Miéville on a story in 'Looking For Jake', and he not only proof read a lot of my novel, but gave me a quote for the cover. Great guy, and I'd count him a friend now. I have some of his Unberella illos for UN LUN DUN too. Very cool.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. :)

Take care!

Liam Sharp (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hot damn, Emperor is having proper comic celebs drop by - Liam - Event Horizon was great - keep up the good work. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Well U-list celebs maybe... ;)

So glad you enjoyed Event Horizon. It was a labour of love, and launched some careers, as well as getting my own back on track. I'm so proud of it.

Very best,

Liam Sharp (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

It seems to be nonsense, and could probably be speedied. You might want to check that user's other contributions as well. BOZ (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice Wanted Please

Over in Small Soldiers, is a line about Butch Meathook being 'African American'. Butch Meathook is simply an evil soldier. This doesn't make sense in any way. And calling a murderous hunk of plastic 'African American' just doesn't sit right at all. What do you think? I think an argument can be made for deleting the cast list all together, but there would be some opposed, as I have deleted the 'African-American' bit before and it has been restored. Lots42 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A talk page turns weird and angry...

Wiki talk page. Don't know what's going on (when do I ever 8-) ), really, but I figured if swears are being flung around someone nuetral should take a poke at it...Lots42 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Superheroes/villains by medium

Besides being a hindrance to navigation by splitting these from the parent (which isn't that large), what would you consider the purpose to these? - jc37 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To categorise the superheroes/villains by the medium they have appeared in. (Emperor (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Why the characters and not the comics?

Or to put it another way, these cats were merely subcats (and a list, I think), which I just upmerged to the parent. So now someone can see the media types immediately. Characters and publications side by side. The parent isn't so large as it can't handle them. And it's a help to navigation.

What do you feel that I'm missing? - jc37 16:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it slots them into the structure Category:Fictional characters by medium. I would actually support also categorising the superhero media but never really came up with a good name for it (although now I type that "superhero media" works). What that would allow us to do is separate the character structure from the actual media they appeared in. The structure was pretty messy and confusing previously and the categorising and the emptying of that category (moving articles down to more specific categories) has really helped both clarify the structure but also helped to join the structure up with other categories. (Emperor (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

I would normally agree (as I think you know : ) - But in this case, the "by medium" fiction-related cats are problematic. Take a look at the parent to Category:Fictional characters by medium: Category:Categories by medium.

To quote Sesame Street: "One of these things is not like the others. Which one is different, do ya know..."

Now look at the subcats of Category:In popular culture, like Category:Representations of people in popular culture or Category:Middle Ages in popular culture or Category:Mythology in popular culture.

There are presumably better ways to do this than "by medium" (which, as Hiding noted, is problematic anyway). - jc37 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at - "in popular culture" articles are a war zone and unless people are careful they become magnets for speculation and original research which has led to an awful lot being AfDed and a good percentage of those getting deleted. So I am unsure if you are using the "in popular culture" as a good example or a bad one.

If you think there are problems then put this up for CfD - leave the emptying of categories and their speedy deletion to general housekeeping. (Emperor (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

(confused) - I was attempting to discuss, just as we were at User talk:Hiding/X7. (Though that page is now somewhat inactive since Hiding's gone on another seeming wikibreak.)

As for the rest, it's merely bold cleanup and organisation. Something I note that you yourself are wont to do.

As for the "pop culture" cats, you may want to actually take a look at the cats, and their members. (I went several cats deep). There isn't a whole lot different in the membership between "in pop culture" and "in other media". - jc37 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I have cleanup and organised categories I have rarely )if ever) emptied and deleted categories except when there was an actual problem (like when I made a spelling mistake in the categories name) and often as a direct result of discussion - the sleanup of the superheroes categories arose after a discussion on the Comics Project talk page when it was clear there was a problem that needed fixing.

The difference between the pop culture and other media articles (in our field) is the difference between a say Magneto's appearance in the X-Men film and his appearance in some parody. Some articles have "in other media" and "homages"/"parodies" and (as I've said in B-class assessments) the latter are a real problem that drag the article down and need to either be removed or trimmed right down and policed hard. (Emperor (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

There is a difference between merely empying and UpMerging. But whatever. Besides, much of this is as a result of rather lengthy discussions. Both at Hiding's talk page, and X7, and even here on your talk page. I'm not sure (I don't remember) if you were involved in the discussion, but For one example, did you see the lengthy discussion regarding media/genre/format? (I'm not sure (I don't remember) if you were involved in the discussion.)

And again, I'm not talking about pop culture articles. I'm talking about what is currently categorised under Category:In popular culture and its subcats. (Noting also that "media" is one presenttaion type for "pop culture".)

And that aside, let me ask again, do you see a difference between Category:Fictional characters by medium and the other types of categories in Category:Categories by medium? - jc37 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But (as you suggest a few replies back) it looks like the problem is with Category:Categories by medium. Category:Fictional characters by medium is actually pretty solid and well defined (and I'd argue "Superheroes by medium" is/was perfectly fine in relation to the other categories there). Category:Categories by medium is a real mixed bag because "artists by medium" is a different beast to "Genres by medium" which is unlike "Fictional characters by medium." Looking through them they all seem OK in themselves so it seems to be the parent category that could be seen as problematic. However, it might be the whole point - such categories are by their nature going to be pretty mixed and I suppose high up in the structure things are going to be pretty broad.

So the problem seems to lie much higher up the structure and doesn't seem the kind of thing 2 or 3 editors can sort out on a page tucked away in someone's user space - despite the high regard I hold you and Hiding in (even if we do disagree from time to time - perhaps because we do ;) and definitely because we can thrash these things out, eventually). I would certainly support an effort to resolve the problems with Category:Categories by medium although I am unsure what the solution would be. It might be we'd want to CfD it with an eye to deleting it and just leave the categories as children of their main categories (like "Genre by medium") as moving up from those immediate children to that category isn't very helpful and doesn't provide any insight and doesn't really lead to other similar categories. It may be we want to add a few more categories there - actors, artists and media owners might be worth moving down to "people/occupations by medium" this may help clean-up the category or it might help make it clearer that the category could be deleted without too much trouble (as you'd be grouping more like things together which would be a useful thing to do, which would also show up how mixed the parent is). Perhaps CfDing it and seeing what emerges from the discussion might be the way forward. It'd then get plenty of ideas in that might help work out what to actually do with this category, which in turn may have an impact on the various child categories and we can take things from there. As it stands I seem to be leaning towards further categorising of some of the children but am open to suggestions. (Emperor (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Oh, there's a cfd already in the works concerning the whole "medium" schema. (For one thing, there is a problem with whether medium is a "mass media" type, or an art medium, or, or, or...)

One thing that occurred to me was that I was perhaps talking "around" something, not realising (at the time) that perhaps you and I may differ in opinion on it.

I think that, since the intent of categories is navigation, that we should be careful to strike a balance between needing to subcat in order to reduce size, and needing to not to overly sucat so as to be a hindrance to category grouping and navigation.

For example, in the case of a category with 2 or 3 members, it's often better to "upmerge" (that is, to add the parents of the category to the category's members), to allow for ease of navigation, unless the target for the upmerge is so large as to necessitate subcatting.

Do you disagree with this? - jc37 18:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

{dedent) I'm not sure I disagree - I don't think subcategorising should strictly be on the basis of the parent being too big if that leads to clunky child categories (I think, for example, that Category: DC Comics limited series works as a child but some comics companies categories are large and it'd be unwise to split them into alphabetical groupings) and it is rarely a good idea to start a category that only has the potential for ever having a couple of members.

I am unsure if the purpose of categories is purely/chiefly for navigation - it is there to help with the classification of the articles, which is why I think the structure is important as it inherits from the various parents. I think there should be a clear and consistent structure to help with navigation (a general example being a publisher's titles being a child of the publisher and the country's comics) as people then know what to expect. I am unsure how many people use the categories for navigation - I can't think I do apart from finding the right category to use to categorise something if it doesn't suggest itself. I think the important thing is the classifications they inherit from the structure.

That said, I suppose, they have to be both which is why I am unsure about the superpowers categories because there are actual two separate types: what gives people their power (telekenesis, magic, etc.) and what they do with that power (flight, e.g. control of wind can allow a character to fly), although then again how would you categorise people like Superman who can fly but the why has never been dealt with. (Emperor (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

"I don't think subcategorising should strictly be on the basis of the parent being too big if that leads to clunky child categories" - I agree. Though typically there are obvious split points. In comics, it's often by publisher or country.

And I use categories to find things all the time. For one thing, it allows me to find things of related topics.

That said, categories should not be used to replace mainspace content. At any given moment, we should be able to remove the entire category structure, and still have an encyclopedia. It's only a technical aid. (Similar to the "technical aid" in times past of having information on parchment pages which a person could then flip through. Of wait, we still have such things, we replaced parchment with paper, and now call them "books" : )

And yes, categorising based upon "in-universe" concepts should be minimised, no question. I wrote an essay to try to explain a few problems, but perhaps it wasn't clear enough. (See also its talk page.) - jc37 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

More on Project Fanboy

Well here's yet another link I found reporting that the Project Fanboy Awards will be held at MegaCon 2009. Not sure if it helps us at all since it's already on the MegaCon website but I thought I'd bring it up to you just in case. This one appears in an article on ComicNews.info Millennium Cowboy (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LOEG

Wow, what a surprise, Wikipedia has inconsistent articles. Anyways, to address your points:

1. First off, there is no consensus as to what alternate history is, and the section you referenced is cited only from someone's Geocities page, so there is no reason for LOEG to match up with that description anyways. There is no single definition for any other genre, either.
2. "diverged from the actual history of the world" - you can't argue that this isn't the case for LOEG
3. "point of divergence occurs in the past that causes human society to develop in a way that is distinct from our own" - again, this is the case with LOEG. Just because there is not a single POD does not mean that there is no difference. In LOEG, the divergence is that things such as science and steampunk technology that past authors only imagined really exist, and have caused the world to diverge. Or, if you like, the point of diverence is that people like Verne, Wells, etc are only biographers instead of fiction writers.
4. Works such as Anno Dracula or Back in the USSA also have no single point of divergence and also incorporate fictional elements into their timelines and are widely considered alternate history.
5. The LOEG timeline does not merely add in/exchange real events with fictional events. It also adds in differences such as Tesla and Edison not developing the war of currents, Britain losing the Boer War, a general European war occurring in the early 1900s, the atomic bomb being developed early, etc., which are clearly alternate history elements independent of fictional events such as Big Brother or the Martian invasion.
6. Alan Moore, America's Best Comics, and virtually every writeup, review, and ad for LOEG describe it as alternate history.

These are the general reasons I have for continuing to insist that LOEG remain in the alternate history comics area. Kuralyov (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, those are great reasons for deleting the alternate history comics category. - jc37 07:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If the criteria of inclusion are that broad then it brings in an awful lot of other comics that would diluter the category to the point of not being useful, so yes it might be something you'd want to look into. (Emperor (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Citations on "Other media" sections

Hello, can I get your opinion here please? Thanks. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian, again

After Nightscream brought this edit of Asgardian's to my attention, I decided that instead of blocking (it seemed borderline, definitely sarcastic but still content-related), I left this note. I got this response, and if that's what I get then as far as I am concerned I have tried and failed to resolve the problem. I also now feel too involved to block him for it. Nightscream is getting very impatient with this situation.

What's your advice? Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My advice, and I'll post it here so you can both read it, is to please stop attempting a witch hunt on behalf of others. There has been no real effort to rein in the uncivil comments made of late by Cameron Scott andNightscream from what I can see is fast getting himself into trouble over a number of issues. Seriously, where was the balanced objective view? An incorrect and inappropriate block from an involved user, no information on the next very questionable block, no note to the aforementioned user whose past comments are downright obnoxious then and more discussion on my conduct when there are clearly other issues at hand. Very frustrating. Did you even check to see the discussions I was involved in? Those that are trying to benefit Wikepedia?

I respect Daniel's input into Wikipedia, but I believe, and I say this in the nicest possible way, he fumbled his cards on this one.

Asgardian (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena

I have nominated Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go

I think Twilight (comics) would make a good SIA ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the SIA Aladdin (cartoon)? I'm not comfortable with the page title. In fact, I don't see a use for the page at all. Is there potential in this one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought about moving it to Aladdin (animation). Seems like the best thing to do ATPIT. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now what about the uses of redirects, hatnotes, etc.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Post apocalyptic comics

About this edit. I am not sure about the reasoning behind adding it to alternative history as almost all of them are set in the future (any exceptions, although I can't think of any at the moment, should be tagged individually). Although I may be overlooking something ;) (Emperor (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Trying to figure it out myself : )

The overlap between alternate history and parallel universe and "dimension" makes trying to cat these to be a "fun" challenge.

For one thing, I'm trying to minimise duplication.

For another, the alternative history cat is for comics publications (something I didn't spot right off : )

And trying to figure out how Earth-Two categorises was "fun" as well. (I'm really starting to think that perhaps we should remove cats from infoboxes...)

So anyway, it's still a "work-in-progress". Please feel free to jump in and help : ) - jc37 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate history needn't have anything to do with parallel universes unless it is specifically invoked as the explanation (usually in the Big Two where they are heavy continuity). There may be some post-apocalyptic alternative history works (I suspect a few Steampunky novels deal with a disaster in the past) but it is an area that isn't heavily explored, even though now I think about it there is some interesting potential (the only problem is, if you throw in an apocalypse in the past it changes history so much that it would tend to fall out of the alternative history genre - although there are ways to make this work. You could argue Scarlet Traces fits, as it is after the Martian invasion). (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm. It wouldn't take much pruning to repurpose Category:Comic book alternate futures to Category:Alternate future comics, to match Category:Alternate history comics and alternate future. What do you think? - jc37 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are very few alternate future comics (which are different from alternative history comics) as they deal with time travel to change the future - the examples listed are the only ones I can think of (outside of one off sci-fi tales with a twist). Technically the future equivalent of alternative history is probably science fiction. (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Though I see that the article alternate future says that this is limited to time travel, I don't believe that this is the case. And while I agree that some stories set in the future are science fiction, that's not always the case. (The Pelbar Cycle comes immediately to mind.)

Are there sources of scholarship on the topic? - jc37 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just 2¢ (and sorry about the dedent... I'm not sure how to fit this into the thread...) But it seems that the breakdown of "Alternate reality", "Alternate history", and "Alternate future" stems as much from the internal construction of the story as when the story was written. Scarlet Traces is a good example of the later. If Wells had written it, or something similar as a sequel to War of the Worlds it would have be strictly science fiction since he would have been using the world as know as a contemporary or near future tale. As it stands though, Scarlet Traces is an alternate history since the writer is looking back and speculating how the decades after the Martian attack would have played out differently from actual history.

Also, the more I think about it, "alt reality" and "alt future" are plot elements/devices than genres.

- J Greb (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree.

And technically, isn't every work of fiction which protrays anything relating to earth a work of "alternate history"?

And thus anything set in "the future" (either in relation to the time of the work's authorship, or in relation to a specific point in time selected by the author) would have the same issue?

We run into the same problem of "alternate as compared to what?".

And to further add complexity, there is the question of "alternate in regards to a 'mainstream' continuity".

Perhaps these should be lists in order to more clearly describe/explain the application of "alternate". - jc37 02:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid categorising themes as genres and alternative futures are specifically connected with time travel (otherwise there is no actual future to make an alternative too - those time travelling conundrums are braintwisters ;) ) so if it needed a category then "time travel in comics" might be it, although whether we need to be so fine-grained is another thing and it'd obviously fit under sci-fi. I am looking through Category:Comic book alternate futures and I am really usure about a lot of them - I am pretty familiar with Judge Dredd and, while there is time travel and the Judge Child story (and perhaps the Necropolis storyline) counts, most of it doesn't fit. I think Earth-691 might. I'd need to go through them but am dubious about most. (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

First hurdle: All works of fiction are alternatives to the world outside your window. That is a nutshell definition of "fiction".

One you start breaking the works down into genres, and the contents of the works into elements you start running into specific "alternatives".

"Alternate history" as a genre, IIUC, covers works where the writer changes events in the past and speculates how that would alter history. These may be fantasy works, science fiction, straight drama, straight action/adventure, or what have you. Most are termed science fiction, but that isn't a requirement.

Some works of science fiction could be viewed as alt history at some point well after they are published. Star Trek, Mad Max, and 2001 are examples of this. In each case, the work references a specific date after the time when the writer is working for certain events. At that time, these are just science fiction stories. But today, since we've past the"milestones" and the events in the fiction didn't happen, that could be seen as alt histories. They aren't discussed as such, but the term can be stretched that way.

Alt realities and futures are almost exclusively plot elements because the need to be viewed with in the particular work of fiction for the term "alternate" to mean anything. - J Greb (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The complexity of which essentially means that we probably shouldn't be categorising based upon this.

Do either of you oppose this being listified (or deleted)? - jc37 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine as a category and the genre is pretty clear, as outlined in the main article. I suppose the simplest ways to envision them are like "what ifs?" Obviously sci-fi set at a date in the future that is now the past don't count - it is the difference between Victorian sci-fi and Steampunk. (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

If this is kept as a category, its introduction explaining its inclusion criteria is gonna be rather complex.

And I don't think that the difference is "obvious". I'm really starting to think that the difference between "alternate future" and "alternate history" is rather subjective. How the line is drawn seems to be a question of Wikipedia editor choice, rather than source material. (I'm not positive on that, but I will admit to being rather not clear on what seems a "fuzzy" dividing line.)

Could you clarify? - jc37 03:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well both are actually pretty specific. Alternative future stories involve time travel stopping a specific future from happening and I think only a few articles in the category count. Alternative history involves some specific change to history (like the Germans winning WWII) and is better explained in alternative history than I could do it justice.

The problem isn't with the actual genres it is with what is being assigned to the categories. Going back to my original question I can't see how post apocalyptic comics fits at all but few if any of those categories should be sub-categories. Equally there are actually very few comics that should be in the category - Ministry of Space is a perfect example of alternative history fiction (and I think those that qualify include Captain Confederacy, Roswell, Templar and possibly Stickleback although I'd remove that too). I can't quite see how you can have an alternative history to a fictional history (as alternative history are based on changes to historical events, so "what if Superman landed in Russia not America" clearly doesn't count) so the Elseworlds category should be removed (although it may be specific titles might be worth including - I just can't think of any). So the problem isn't with alternative history per se but with the assignment of certain titles to that category (Category:Comic book alternate futures in particular is a mystery). Strip out those that genuinely aren't alternative history and you are left with half a dozen articles in it and no sub-categories. I don't think you can condemn a category because of misuse but I do wonder if there are enough comics to sustain the category (and I definitely doubt alternative history comics would be big enough to be sustainable). So those I'd keep the ones that are actual alternate histories:

• Captain Confederacy
• The Life Eaters
• Ministry of Space
• Roswell, Texas (graphic novel)

There are a couple I am unsure about Templar, Arizona, Arrowsmith (comics) and Stickleback (comics) and I'd be tempted to leave them in and have a think about them (I am really unsure about Watchmen but there is a reasonable argument made for it). We don't really know enough about Aetheric Mechanics or Atomika to say one way or the other. Sooooo you'd have 4 definites and 4 possible ones needing further investigation and a could that are unclear. Just about enough to justify having a category. (Emperor (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

(de-dent) Based on all of that, it's clear (unfortunately) that the inclusion criteria is confused by the general editor. (Even with the clarifying introduction.)

As such, particularly since categories can't provide supportive sources for each of their members, this probably should be a list, so that everything you just explained might be explained there, and the entries might be presented in such context.

I honestly think this would make for an interesting article (or even a set of articles). But as a category each would seem to have problems.

That said, is there something which you feel that I am not seeing? - jc37 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well all categories are open to being misused by editors who have misunderstood what the genre is - it should be our job to keep an eye on them and clean them up and I'm happy to do that (it was what sparked this discussion after all). The top category Category:Comics often needs a run through to clear out but I think keeping it as empty as possible is a worthwhile endeavour and I'd be happy to keep an eye on this category too. The link to alternative history is really all that is required as an explanation as the article is pretty clear and specific about the scope of the genre. I don't think listifying it is an option as it would make a fairly short list and given the fact that there only a handful of comics that are great examples of alternative history I don't see a decent article emerging any time soon. I will be working to improve the comics section on the article as it is currently pretty poor, including bad examples and leaving out decent ones and have started a discussion there. I am happy to clean up the category too as it is poorly categorised too - it should be a child of historical comics and possibly science fiction comics (the latter being a substitute for "speculative fiction comics." If, after being cleaned up, it looks like it isn't a viable category (it will probably have 7-8 items in it which is probably OK for a recentish category - there must be others that fit which haven't been included and I'll have a nose around for those) then we can look at deleting it and upmerging to historical comics and science fiction (where appropriate in the latter case). (Emperor (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

You aside, my experience is that the fiction-related categories aren't well-patrolled.

From everything you've written above, it seems to be that:

If you can write a good introduction to Category:Alternate history comics which clarifies its inclusion criteria, including that it's just for publications; and if you prune the cat, I have no problem with giving it a chance to see if it remains "stable". One thing that should be made clear is that this isn't a category for "What if fictional characters were 'real'?". If those are disincluded, then we'll prevent most of fiction from being added, including The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

The future one though, I simply don't think that that one will ever remain stable, especially since I highly doubt that those adding the category will ever read the introduction to note that "future" refers only to time travel. Perhaps if this was made into a list, with perhaps a different name so as to include what the groups current membership, then such a list might be worth keeping? But as you note, the category simply has problems.

What do you think? - jc37 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

On the alternative history: Yes I can write a fairly concise introduction along the lines of: "The category deals with 'What if' stories that deal with the outcome of change in real world historical events (for example, 'what if Germany won WWII')"

While the explanation for alternative future stories is consistent there seem to be no good sources and the article looks like orignal research (even if it isn't) and could be wide open to being deletion. The actual comics which meet those criteria area few (the story of Cable (comics)/Bishop (comics) is one and the Judge Child is another) and I really don't think there is enough to make a category viable and I think it should be deleted. I would like to pick over the category and see what can be saved so I can expand the comics part of the article. If at some point in the future it looks more viable we can restart the category but it is too loose at the moment (the article might not last and there are too few examples in comics). I really don't think there are enough to make a list. An alternative might be to shoot for something broader like "Time travel in comics" examining the broader theme. (Emperor (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good to me.

Please drop me a note here when you're done. - jc37 04:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just checking back to see who things are going on this. - jc37 06:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing other things. I'll let you know when I'm done. (Emperor (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

OK it should be done. The keys I've been looking for is a divergent point in actual history (and it helps if it makes its case clear), although there are a couple where there isn't enough information to tell (I will be looking for it) and I've updated the section on alternate history comics to make the examples clear. I'll now update the lead of the category. Also it may be that there are other examples to be found - the talk page suggests there are quite a few non-English titles so it is worth keping an eye out for them.

In the next day or so I'll go through the alternative future category (and might try and find some decent sources for the article) - there are good examples in comics but at the moment I am sure it is enough. (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the notice on my talk page.

My apologies. I had seen your last post above, I was merely waiting for "the next day or so", before commenting. - jc37 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh right - the alternate future issue is a separate one. The alternate history clean-up has been done. (Emperor (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure about Holy terror, Age of wonder, Watchmen, and LoEG. I think I understand the idea (that these are comics characters "set" in an historical setting), but then I'm not sure how that differs from any WWII comics (for example). Or the Earth-X stories of the 70s in which the Nazis were considered to have won WWII. - jc37 18:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically LoEG and Age of Wonder were added back in after I cleaned it up. I'm discussing the issue.

Although I was going to remove them Holy Terror and Watchmen make cases for their status as alternative history because the divergence point is actually in real history. They are both ones I'd want to return to as I think I'd be happier if there was some solid source that stated it because (especially with Watchmen) this could border on original research (as the point of divergence seems to come about because of the presence of superheroes so the cart comes before the horse there). (Emperor (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

So like the The Unknown Soldier (comics) "helping" Hitler commit suicide?

Comics are so wrapped around history, and "modifying" it, that I dunno. The "imaginary story" construct for Batman and Superman (and others), in particular.

Is it considered an "alernate history" if characters (and their histories or even just their "themes") are added (who may substitute for others in major events), or does it require something more?

As you note, we're really bordering on WP:OR here in our determinations. - jc37 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really - the definition is clear, what we need to do is see if the article makes a clear case for it being alternative history, as measured against that definition. Watchmen does lay out a case for this "The primary point of divergence is the presence of superheroes" but that clearly isn't a 'point' but more the set-up for a fictional universe (it is, of course, possible that there was a point of divergence that lead to there being superheroes but I can't think what it is) - so this might be original research, it depends on what the stated source says and I don't have the work. As I say it is something that I want to come back to when I have time and I'll raise the issue on the talk page.

With the Unknown Solider - he is in the DC Universe. It has to be a divergence point in real history not the history of a fictional universe. (Emperor (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Actually there is a bit of a problem as Category:Comic book alternate futures isn't the same as Category:Alternate future comics. The former is awfully vague and could mean anything set in the future (as how can it be an alternate to something that hasn't yet happened) whereas the latter means comics that deal with alternate future stories (which involve people travelling back in time to change the future). I can continue going through and altering the stories to meet the definition (not the vaguely named category) although it is a chicken and egg situation as some might want to change them back based on the vague name (but we can't really get an idea of whether the category is worth changing the name without cleaning it up!!). I might as well carry on so we can at least get a snapshot of what counts and take it from there. Now if the chicken could travel back in time and stop its egg from being laid.... (Emperor (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Another problem - something has come up that'll mean I'm away for the weekend so I'll probably no get to finish cleaning things up.

Another extra problem is one we discussed before - while the definition of alternate future fiction is clear enough to apply to the articles I am still unsure if it really exists and so this might be a waste of time (excuse the pun!!) and it might be better to address the problem of the article and/or rename the category to something like "time travel in comics" looking at it as a broader theme than a very specific "subgenre" (which might not exist). (Emperor (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Presumably as a child of Category:Time travel in fiction. (Emperor (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Time travel comics? If it's a genre, then sure. Would this be something that would "fit" under Category:Science fiction comics and/or Category:Science fiction by genre? - jc37 08:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was seeing it more as a broad theme, like mythology/vampires/zombies in comics. However, looking at Category:Science fiction films by genre it has an interesting structure as science fiction films is a child of Category:Films by genre so we might want to think about when Category:Science fiction comics has quite a few genres under it (which seems to parallel the films one). Having a category, like "Science fiction comics by genre" for the subgenres would then let us also link into Category:Science fiction by genre which would allow a different way of sorting things which might prove helpful for someone nosing around. Soooo perhaps "Time travel comics" would work fine as a subgenre as it seems to work for other media and it is pretty clearly defined and pretty easy to say if it meets the inclusion criteria, where alternate futures will always cause problems (even though I can see the point they are getting at).

As an aside I see there is Category:Comic science fiction, which looks like it should have some kind of note (and perhaps a hatnote on the article as "comic science fiction" and "science fiction comics" seems a little close for comfort (God knows why it isn't "science fiction comedy".

I have left a note here: Talk:Alternate future#Sources. However, I think the situation is easy enough to resolve going for "time travel comics" and if there is ever a working article there and enough examples (which we can add into the article to help flesh it out) then alternate futures would make a decent child of that category. (Emperor (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

I agree that Category:Science fiction comics by genre could be a decent point for splitting Category:Science fiction comics. (Also being a subcat of Category:Science fiction by genre.)

And Category:Time travel comics (subcat of Category:Time travel in fiction and Category:Science fiction comics - at least until the "be genre" split noted above).

And Category:Alternate history comics may need to be listified and not be a cat. (Though being "in-text" in alternate history#Comic books seems even better.) As we've seen, it's rather prone to being WP:OR-ridden. And the solution to that is sourcing. Something that the current members (and even the topic's article) seem short on.

Does that cover everything? - jc37 00:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to summarise it all. As a practical note it seems better to CfD Alternate future comics and start time travel comics from scratch (as the category has been so solidly misused just going for a rename isn't going to be practical, as it would be if they actually matched the description of what alternate future is - assuming the article is valid. Which underlines the mess that whole area is). (Emperor (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

(de-dent) Ok. then the first step would seem to be to create Category:Time travel comics. Either of us could do that, but I think I'd rather let you start on population, in order to help "define" the inclusion criteria.

Also, do we include characters such as Booster Gold? or publications like Time Masters? or both? or neither? I ask because, while I understand that the category is supposed to be a grouping of comics, in some cases the information on publications are only on a character's page. Though perhaps categorising redirects could help with that? - jc37 10:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest including characters - Booster Gold is a good example as his story has been told in various comics which themselves wouldn't fit in the category. See also the alternate future examples I give for Cable (comics)/Bishop (comics). I'll see if there are any specific titles of storylines that focus on this and, as you suggest it might work better to categorise redirects. What I'll do is add the obvious ones and then look into how we can best add others. (Emperor (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Black Cherry Bombshells

Hi, E. I thought you might want to check in on some of the continued promotional edits at The Black Cherry Bombshells. I'm watching it, but, from what I deduce, the comic's creators are determined to use the page to hype their product. It seems like an ongoing issue.

Hope things are going well. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, E....

On the reflist thing. I really appreciate your taking the time and effort to give your considered thoughts on the subject, without my even asking. What you say is evenhanded and well-thought-out.

With regards as always, -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to add to the situation there, but I thought I'd mention that I also thought that you (Emperor) explained the situation quite well. - jc37 04:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comics and animation

I proposed that as merely a way to perhaps try to find some "sense" among the fictional character feature/ability/power cats. (And remembering the discussion we had concerning merging the animation project to the comics project.) In most cases, we're talking about the superhero/villain genre, or at least science fantasy of some type. And animation seems closer to comics than to written fiction in this, as it's a visual (drawn) art.

I don't feel over strongly about it, but there is enough of an overlap that I thought it might "help", especially since most of the comics cats are small with two "big" subcats (DC and Marvel).

Would you clarify your comments as to what your main concern is about merging the two art mediums together for just these in-universe cats? - jc37 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You then end up with a confusing hybrid structure, as you'd then end up with comic characters, animation characters and comics/animation characters - it would actually make it more difficult for people to find something: they are looking for a comic character and look in that category and end up wandering around not finding it (looking in the right category would involve knowing the character had also appeared in cartoons). But why not film characters? An awful lot of superheroes have or are being adapted for film so why not have a comics/animation/film character category? It could just get messier and messier. It only works with anime/manga because all their character categories are hybrids throughout the whole structure - where do you make the split here?

I am not aware that there is actually a problem and there doesn't seem to a reason we can't just add the categories by medium? If this is a problem why not just upmerge everything to the top level powers category? After all I'm sure I can find characters who are comic/film/TV/animation/manga/radio (Batman certainly, probably Superman and most of the Marvel Mangaverse) - I don't have a problem with categorising by medium but perhaps we just need to go by power? (Emperor (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Due to Hammerspace (which I'm stunned that references couldn't be found for) and other similar issues of pseudo-reality in animation, I am hesitant to suggest in-universe animation subcats.

And you have a valid point, especially in regards to film and television. The thing with television though, it seems that we're really only seeing a couple popular television series categorised this way. (Heroes, Charmed, and Buffy/Angel seem to top the list, with the occasional addition from Dark Shadows and a couple international programs which almost qualify as live-action anime. And how do we define Power Rangers?)

That said, we still have the same problems with things like Kim Possible, the Incredibles, and even the cast of Sonic the Hedgehog. They exist in several presentation types. (I'm going to try to avoid using "medium" since it's confusing.)

So, yes, we could upmerge to the parent cat, but I'm not sure how "helpful" that is for navigation, especially when they begin to get large and sprawling for the more common ones. (For example, nearly every super strength character is also in superspeed. That seems problematic to me.)

What do you think? - jc37 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What I think is that the whole superpowers area is a giant mess.

It is something I have vaguely touched on but came up more clearly in the Hulk talk page in connection with the endless Powers and abilities discussion: Various "powers" are actually feats based on their actual powers (so the Hulks ability to leap large distances and do a thunderclap are a result of is super strength and aren't powers per se). A character with wind manipulation powers can fly but the flight is based on his powers. The same could be said, for example, for people who can move things by their mind (presumably Jean Grey might count). An even trickier problem emerges when the individual doesn't have powers but is technologically aided - Iron Man isn't listed under people who can fly and who have super strength as it is really his suit, but War Machine is (despite it being another version of the Iron Man suit (see also Abner Jenkins, who has used a range of suits to give him his abilities). However, some people seem to have such powers without any clear explanation - like Superman, for example. So we'd then have to conclude that he just has some vague power of flight and so if you have that do you have to include every single person who can move through the air, even if this isn't actually a power? Or do you only include those for whom the ability is unexplained, which would make the category pretty useless.

This also makes categorisation on such vague powers almost impossible as you aren't bringing together things of a similar type/nature.

It still strikes me this is something that needs explaining so that it gets put into context and the best place for that is actually in the article. Such vague and large categories as superspeed, super strength, flight, etc. are pretty pointless. What about a higher level but more specific set of categories based on how the character got their powers:

• Characters with sun-derived abilities: Superman, Apollo (comics), because technically Superman doesn't have innate powers - stuck him under a red sun and I could kick his ass
• Characters with technologically-enhanced abilities - Iron Man, War Machine, Abner Jenkins
• Characters with fire-manipulation abilities: Fire (comics)
• Characters with radiation-derived abilities: Hulk (comics)

As I say the whole area is a mess and that might be the only way to resolve the issue - combining media can't be a solution as some like Superman have appeared in comics, film, radio, books, TV, animation, etc., and makes that solution. If the problem is splitting it down by media then you only include the character in its original media or you do away with splitting by media entirely and if that means some categories are vast and vague then that is a sign that there is a broader problem and you are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Also as fictional characters their powers can change to suit a story but they tend to at least be consistent within their core abilities (Flash can travel in time but that is part of his superspeed) so perhaps the best bet is to try and define the core ability and/or its cause rather than broad "powers" that are almost impossible to pin down: how strong do you have to be to justify fighting into the superstrength category? Ditto superspeed? What do we define as flight?. This last one has come up before a few times and could fall into OR territory, a character who can generate tornadoes can suspend themselves in the air for a certain period of time (as can some fire-manipulators) but how long and how high does it need to be to qualify and what if it is more like a glide?

Or just do away with the lot - large numbers of specific categories to try and strictly define often vague abilities seems like the kind of endeavour for a fan site and might not be the kind of thing you'd want in an encyclopaedia.

I think I'd favour trying to come up with something that deals with their core abilities rather than trying to come up with complex categories that are almost impossible to define inclusion criteria for. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I totally agree.

Categorising in-universe features/abilities/powers of a fictional character should be disallowed. (Noting that, of all of them, I like the magic one the most - it's helpful for genre perusing. And telepath is my next favourite, for similar reasons. The rest (except the sprawling mutants/mutates) really don't have that excuse.)

nd most of it is WP:OR territory, just as you note.

So now that we agree, what now? - jc37 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure - the best bet would be to raise this on WT:CMC, if we can get a general consensus then that should bode well for getting the changes done (as this is a controversial area and we have been around the block a few times with this and without any obvious policy to point to it will be difficult, long and messy to get it done any other way).

I am still struggling to pin it all down but Batman is in fictional detectives and fictional vigilantes, which pretty much tells you all you'd need to know in category form and you'd not want to try and be more specific (also note fictional detectives is 196 pages long but seems not to have been deemed as needing splitting by medium, so we shouldn't be afraid of a big category). Sooooo I wonder if there is a way to come up with categories which help give a broad definition of the class of powers from which the other abilities flow. I also think we should avoid categorising where there is no need - Green Lantern isn't in a "Fictional character who have had their powers bestowed on them by aliens" or "Fictional characters who can turn their thoughts into actual objects" (although Hal Jordan is under "DC Comics characters who can fly" despite the fact that he can't - the power ring gives him the ability to do a range of things which include flight). (Emperor (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Well, vigilantes is just cat bloat. We could include nearly every superhero, and quite a few villains as well.

And detectives should be limited to just those who have had that as an actual profession. (Did money change hands?)

And of course, we also run into the problem of literary present tense. If at any time in their in-universe "history" a character may qualify for a category, be assured that they will be added by someone, regardless if it's just for a single panel in a single issue.

I'd like to see such in-universe cats be considered a form of WP:OC. Most have already been deleted, we're mostly down to 4 main kinds: the "appeal to emotions" at CfD ones, like veterans, HIV, Holocaust, etc; Americans (there's a surprise); fictional characters by occupation; and physical attributes/feature of a character (like hunchback, or blind).

While I can almost see a benefit from a couple, most are just WP:OR waiting to happen. (Detectives being a case-in-point.)

I think that if we can get a consensus about this at the comics project to remove at least the comics-related media characters from such cats, most of the cats would be near to completely empty.

What do you think? - jc37 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can see the point - I suppose I think the occupations can be useful but you are right that it is in-universe and there are things we can prove (their debut, the company that publishes them, etc. and some other bits and pieces) and the rest that is not "real world." Equally youa re right that there is over-catgorisation. I do think things like "Fictional detective" makes sense and you'd clear want people like Sherlock Holmes in it. That said I think there are too many (I have seen some characters with nearly a dozen "fictional" categories and that is just crazy - of course, most of these are related to powers so...) although where you draw the line is tricky (which might argue for getting rid of the lot but that might be baby/bathwater material). (Emperor (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Nice to see we're on the same page. Welcome! Nice to know that I'm not the only one to be hated as a scourge to all fan boys/girls : )

(Ironic for me, being an inclusionist myself : )

Hiding introduced me to this (issues with the in-universe cats) awhile back, and the more I've seen, the more I think he's right.

And I agree with the baby/bathwater thing.

In addition, I've discovered that some editors have a preference for keeping some of the fictional categories which match BLP categories, in order to help prevent fictional characters being categorised in BLP cats. I think it's a valid concern, but at the same time, we shouldn't keep cats merely for that reason, but it's definitely worth keeping under consideration.

So how should we start this? At WT:CMC, I presume? - jc37 18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much as going into this without a consensus (and prior discussion to knock the corners off and address any problems) could lead to it getting bogged down in "yes buts"

I can see the BLP issue and I think broad categories like "fictional police officers" and "fictional doctors" should stay as they have their uses trying to fit a complex and varied issue like superpowers into neat boxes (except in the most general fashion) is pretty much doomed to failure. (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

(Is there a missing period after "uses"?)

And I think that someone's actually started the conversation. See WT:CMC.

And yes, the "by occupation" cats are likely going to be the last to go, if at all. - jc37 20:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent} Yes there is a missing period. Here are a few spares as I'm likely to miss others: ..... ;)

Ah yes I see the discussion - fictional cheetahs? Who'd have thought it. (Emperor (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Possible potential vandalism

Wikipedia user FrancisLightHouse2 seems to be severely misunderstanding Wikipedia. Since I am one of the people seemingly threatened with vandalism, I thought it was a good idea to bring in a nuetral third party. Lots42 (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor nudge...

But you may want to take another look at Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Merge into Infobox Person - J Greb (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm hoping I've been tactfully blatant enough in my concerns there... - J Greb (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be - it is clearly no consensus so I think we need to find a way to address the concerns without merging and I think my suggestions are solid. I have had my concerns about {{writer}} as its formatting is jarringly different and I think adapting the person template to accept the basics (name, birth/deathdate/place) and then allow other custom fields and parameters to be passed through would be the ideal fix - you'd get consistent formatting as well as allowing other sub-templates to have information specific to their field. (Emperor (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

IF (big if...) {{Infobox person}} was still the table version that "Infobox comics creator", and I think {{Infobox writer}} were base on, then doing this wouldn't be as big an issue. It would be the same schema Anime/Manga uses and it would result in relatively seamless infoboxes.

However... since "Infobox person" is using {{Infobox}} it gets very, very problematic. If it is to be used as a flow through, then "Infobox person" would need to basically be set in stone as to scope of fields. If it goes into flux with more fields being added, all of the "modular" templates would need an immediate' update to correct header, label, and data numbers.

And that beyond the argument that would crop up over what the "base" should include...

- J Greb (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian comic

Hey there. I saw you moved Conan the Barbarian (comic) to Conan the Barbarian (comics). Normally, I would agree with such a move, but I fear that this may lead to confusion. There already exist a number of Conan comics articles, including Conan (comics) and Conan (Marvel Comics). I think the original writer of the article in question intended to make it specific to the 1970 Marvel title Conan the Barbarian, as opposed to all comics related to Conan. For this reason, the original title, Conan the Barbarian (comic), maybe makes more sense? Or maybe it should be called Conan the Barbarian (Marvel Comics title)? I dunno; this is a little out of my purview.

On a related note, the creation of this new article seems to necessitate a bit of a rewrite of the Conan (Marvel Comics) entry -- or a merging of that entry with this new one...

Your thoughts? -- Stoshmaster (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Twilight

Concerning this, where in Avatar Press should the red link be placed in order to support inclusion? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd put it in the list of publications, if there is one. If there isn't we probably ought to create one. :-)

On another note, should Twilight (comics) really be a set index? Granted, I knew practically nothing about them until Lord Sesshomaru pointed them out to me. However, it seems like they are meant to help differentiate between very similar items, and I'm not sure that the items we are disambiguating are all that similar. Some of the examples they give are ships that all have the same name and car models that have the same name. In this case, we are differentiating between comics characters, comic books series, and comics storylines. I tend to see that as apples and oranges. But I will defer to your judgement. Best, GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Its differentiating between things in the same class where confusion may arise (the "(comics)" disambiguation is for the class and we disambiguate accordingly, so Vertigo (DC Comics) is an imprint and Vertigo (Marvel Comics) are characters for example. Sandman (Vertigo) is a title, while Sandman (DC Comics) are characters, etc.). Also, given that a lot of characters also have eponymous series and storylines I think trying to differentiate between them is going to be a moot point (and one lost on the average user).

Anyway I have added it to the Bad Girls section (the search for the answer was... interesting). Part of the problem is that the list of titles is... non-uniform and the list of titles should be alphabetical while the sections hold a more prose overview of each of the areas they publish in. It would make updating and expanding the list easier as there are titles which don't really fit easily into the categories - it would also set the article up well for a (near?) future split of the publications and stand it in good stead for further expansion. (Emperor (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

And what about the red link? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be fine to add back in now. (Emperor (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Dr. Strange

Why is this a redirect to Doctor Strange? Shouldn't it be for Doc Strange, who predates the name? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was because Doctor Strange was moved from there. It does offer the possibility of sneaking a set index in there as I really wouldn't know which it should point to. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Although perhaps it should be at Dr Strange? (Emperor (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Dr. Strange. And we might as well throw in Hugo Strange. And I think there was a Marvel comic book publication with the same name was there not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been 3 main ongoing series called either "Doctor Strange" or "Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme." (Emperor (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I see. Should it become a SIA now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on it at some point. (Emperor (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Started Dr. Strange and redirected Dr Strange to it. (Emperor (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Oh... and if you wouldn't mind taking a look...

I've got a new infobox up and running at Spider-Woman that could use some feedback... - J Greb (talk)

Looks good - I assume this is the first attempt at a combined character/title box? My only thought is that the small cover image looks out of place and makes an already long box even longer. It might be better to have a single image for the box - in this case perhaps a cover of a Spider-Woman comic with a good view of Spider-Woman on it. (Emperor (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it is.

As for the secondary image... my thought was that for cases where the set 'box is using just art, it would be helpful to have a cover image for the series. Robin (comics) or Flash (comics) would be better examples of this. Spider-Woman is a bit of a fudge, both on length of the 'box compared to the article and since the existing image (covering all 4) was already a full cover from one of the series. - J Greb (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the main image at Spider-Woman is the ideal image for this kind of thing as it is a cover of Spider-Woman showing the various Spider-Women, I suppose it is possible that there would be times the main image wouldn't be appropriate (an internal panel scan perhaps?) but that might also be an indication that we need a better main image. Also if we do need such an image then perhaps it would look better full-size (and forget about the length) as we are more used to the larger image. (Emperor (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

That's part of the issue with articles like Flash and Robin. Those are just artwork (promotional cover art and poster respectively) and don't quite fit the topic "comic book series of which this is a representative issue." Even with Spider-Woman there is a degree of hair splitting that can be done - If a comic is going to be used as representative of a series, or grouping of series, it should be an important or notable issue. Initial issues are notable, more so for initial issues of the initial series. "Cluster" covers aren't necessarily on notable issues.

Robin is a slightly different issue since the current image is the "iconic" interpretation of Robin. Any issue cover is going to be a "Tim Drake in the modified costume" image.

As for the image size.... that's a bit of a technical issue. There are 4 or 5 ways I can think of doing it:

1. Stacking the images in the "Image" section of the box. I'm not a fan of that since the images would need to be played with so that both are given equal weight and it sets a precedent for stacking multiple costumes/versions/rosters in a 'box. Oh... and on the weight issue, based on how the articles are written, most are biased either towards the series or the character/team. The ;box should, IMO, reflect this.
2. In a header line. This has the problems of the header's color drawing attention to the image and that the caption is likely to wind up bold. I think this can be codded around, but I'm not sure.
3. The current "left side" of a "label/data" pair.
4. Flipping the image is on the right side. This would increase it's size by 1/2 (150px x 270px), but the caption would wind up in the "label" and likely bolded.
5. Forcing a span into a "label/data" pair, which would effectively create a second image section. This again brings up the weighting of the images.

There is the sixth option of just nixxing it, but I'm of a visual bent and think there should be something there, preferably what would be there if/when the series was either the ficus of the article or split off into its own article. - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Other) Bradbury

Sorry I've been so busy and distant and whatnot...

The short answer to your Bradbury/Comics International query is "not to hand," I'm afraid. My recollection is that I "might" have CI #185, but if I do, then at the moment it's not even in the same country as me, which doesn't help..! When I get a spare few minutes, though, I'll have a poke around what is with me, and see if there's anything even mildly useful. It's always possible..! :o) ntnon (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah well..! That said, my own contribution to a mooted resources page would be bizarre at the moment, since I'm without most of my things; but with them might be able to be of considerable use. (Indeed, when I'm able, naturally it is my intention to utilise my resources myself...) ntnon (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning a few moves ...

... that GentlemanGhost did, could you check if any of these would be better off as SIAs? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell he has sorted out the two likeliest candidates:

• Geist (comics)
• Fusion (comics)

Formatting is spot on too. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! I've been doing these moves as I come across them while I try to whittle down WikiProject Comics's unassessed articles backlog. Whenever I run across an article disambiguated as Foo (DC Comics) or Foo (Marvel Comics), I try to make sure that there isn't already a Foo (comics) page. In some cases, such as these, the Foo (comics) page was an article, not a set index, so I moved the original page and created a set index in its place. I've only made the most recent ones set indexes, though, because as you know, I only recently became aware that there was such a thing. :-)

Incidentally, there are two Ghost Girl articles: Ghost Girl and Ghost Girl (Marvel Comics). Ironically, both characters are Marvel Comics characters. I'm assuming that we would prefer to merge the two. But since that's kind of a pain in the neck, I've avoided doing as yet. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes neither seems substantial enough to merit their own article. If someone expands them then there are better ways to disambiguate characters of the same name, following WP:NCC. (Emperor (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

That seems to be a tricky case eh Emperor? We could create Ghost Girl (comics) as a set index article. How's that sound? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Two options:

• Merge them to Ghost Girl - not a big deal as we do have articles on characters from a single company with the same name but no continuity between them (e.g. Electro (comics) or Dark Angel (Marvel Comics)
• We move them to "Ghost Girl (NAME)" and make Ghost Girl the set index.

I suppose it depends on their potential as separate articles - might want to kick iy over to BOZ as he has one of the best overviews of Marvel Comics characters. (Emperor (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop

An article that you have been involved in editing, Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop. Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawed the AFD because of your improvements. Schuym1 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating infoboxes

Thanks for updating the infobox on the Blockbuster page. Don't forget to check the image size in the future though please. :) Rockfang (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I just reverted an edit to Rachel Pollack per the undue weight argument. Since I'm listed by my real name in the list of people, I'm obviously suspiciously non NPOV on it. I'd appreciate a papal blessing of the act on the discussion page. Anniepoo (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Per your comment on this Eunuch#The hijra of India, yes, please edit it. One of the delights of public life is the many opportunities to receive constructive, enlightened and civil commentary on the conduct of one's own life. And it's beginning to look like we're looking at a single editor using sock puppets? Anniepoo (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion on my talk page.

You may also be correct about sock puppets - that was added by a SPA. You might want to collect the difs and see if a picture emerges. Here is the one from that article: [12]. It may well be worth running it past the check user admins to see what they come up with.

Unfortunately I'm not much of a wikian, and not sure what SPA is, how to collect diffs in a reasonable manner, or so on. There is indeed a pattern - the names have a suspicious similarity, the wording of the entry about me on the Eunuch page is suspiciously similar to part of the offensive post that was posted several times on the Rachel Pollack page. Anniepoo (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism I cannot fix...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Movie

Waaay at the bottom is some confusing vadalism in the creator template box, attributing the holocaust the producers of the movie. Try as I might, I cannot figure a way to remove the vandalism. I do tend to find the weird problems... Lots42 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More nuetral help wanted

A link to some editorial changes

This kind of thing is spreading throughout some of the Family Guy articles. Not sure -what- to think or where to go and I don't want to step on any (more?) fingers. For lack of a better phrase it seems I am being accused of being a kettle by another kettle... Lots42 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You raise some good points I wasn't even considering at the time (. My concerns were two fold. One, it seemed very odd that there was the insistence on citations for the episode having Optimus Prime showing up and saying 'I am Optimus Prime'. It seemed to be a drama-magnet to insist on that policy. Secondly, I had a funny feeling about the entire thing to begin with. It made me wary so I figured discretion was the better part of valor, again to avoid drama. Partly, because I have misjudged situations before and I myself have caused drama unintentionally.

And I did try and edit the template in question, but when I got the edit screen, absolutely nothing had the relevant word at all. As you can imagine, I cannot delete what is not there.

P.S. I feel -small- cultural ref sections are cool, such as the above example with Prime.
P.P.S. The library computer, where I am now, won't let me copy and paste so I can't do reports on messed up new pages. Lauren Dewitt has some weirdness in the history pages, it seems to be a weird attack thing.Lots42 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

More disambiguation

I just noticed that we have Heat Wave (comics) and Heatwave (comics). :-P --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Something you may be interested in...

{{Comics-infobox-image-issue}}

A new way of marking the talk pages of articles with questionable infobox images...

- J Greb (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - very useful. Added to my quick reference list. (Emperor (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Fresh eyes...

Mind taking a look at Talk:Gambit (comics)#Image issues?

I'm not sure if I'm pushing etiquette yet.

- J Greb (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't help that RossF18 has reverted one of the images back in 3 times now... I'm tempted to note the 3RR on his talk pages, but... - J Greb (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cheetah

Do you think this redirect would be better off targeting Cheetah or is the character that notable? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this kind of thing the other day: The Riddler makes sense because the main article is at Riddler but we also have The Penguin and The Joker and while the naming of the actual article complies with WP:NCC/THE I was wondering if this was right. I suppose the question should be: Is there anything else more likely to be linked to like that? I'd imagine you'd expect to find The Joker at that link and someone would be unlikely to type "the Joker card..." With less well known Batman villains, where it is less clear the page becomes a disambiguation page, like The Ventriloquist. So as it stands I think it works for the Big Names (although I think {{redirect}} should be used to pick up any stragglers and direct them on their way) but The Cheetah may be a grey area. It might be because of that we need to just err on the side of caution and redirect all the "The"s to a disambiguation page but the most obvious destination for The Penguin and The Joker are the comic (and TV/film/novels/video games) characters, unless someone raises a valid objection. However, it might be worth kicking it over to the Project to chew over and see if we need a broader consensus on this. (Emperor (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Sounds like a good idea to get WP:CMC involved. Want me to initiate a thread or did you want to do something? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start it - I've been a bit scarce recently and need to do a bit of catching up. (Emperor (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Use of the COI warning template

Hello Emperor, I was looking through the discussion at Template_talk:COI, and saw that earlier this year you faced an issue that I am facing now -- intending to follow COI rules but still being seemingly penalized. I've been editing for a couple years now, so I believe I have a solid grasp of COI issues. But this one's stumped me.

Last week I created an article about Pete Snyder, who is my boss. (Previously, I had successfully created an article about the company he founded, which I work for.) Everything in it is sourced and written in a neutral tone. I posted the article to my user space, sought assistance at the Help desk, and other editors approved it for moving into the mainspace. So far so good. Shortly thereafter, another editor came along and tagged it as having COI and tone issues. I tried to discuss the page with this editor -- asking for suggestions on how to fix it -- but he soon stopped responding. Now I'm not sure how to resolve it.

I checked up on the articles you'd created or contributed to, and I see that the COI tags are no longer affixed. Would you mind sharing your insight on how to deal with this situation? NMS Bill (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Me again, just to say that another editor has offered to help. No need to reply if you're busy, but I'd still be curious to hear about your experience. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That was a very useful description of the process, and the links are especially helpful. I've edited around COI issues in the past (this is actually a secondary account for the purposes of fixing articles related to clients (here's my personal account)) and this was the first time I've had any trouble with it. Much appreciated. NMS Bill (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Locke & Key

I'm sorry you feel it unwise to make separate pages for the Locke & Key story arcs. You may wish to integrate the information I created for Locke & Key: Welcome To Lovecraft into the main article, then. In addition, after this is done, you may place the Welcome To Lovecraft page for speedy deletion. Hornoir (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In concordance with whichever method is used, I've made the main Locke & Key entry complete as a stand-alone page. Hornoir (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I—as the original and sole author—have placed a Speedy Deletion template on Locke & Key: Welcome To Lovecraft. After reading the handful of comments from those that chimed in, it is my belief that the separate story arc entries does not conform with the spirit of Wikipedia. I'll work in the future to make the main article more thorough and encompassing. Thanks to all for their shared opinions and patience with this "dispute". — Hornoir (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The5fists.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:The5fists.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

RfB

I was just looking over User:Jc37/RfA/RfB candidates, and thinking about who else I haven't yet asked, but should.

See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, for what I tend to look for in entrusting someone with more responsibility.

And based upon my past interaction with you, I think you meet these requirements. (As I think you already know : )

So is this something you might consider? - jc37 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking - it is very flattering but I suspect I shouldn't be taking on more responsibility until I know I can spare the time to do a decent job (I have been pretty busy recently and, if things go well, I don't expect this to change soon). Cheers anyway though. (Emperor (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

(Looks downcast)

I can understand that, and am actually entirely empathetic.

That said, be warned that I may ask again in the future : ) - jc37 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure feel free - it isn't from any esoteric standpoint (unless there is some scary ritual involved!!) it is just I am busy and am behind in things I already want to do here. Rest assured you needn't worry about twisting my arm into it, bring it up again will just be a handy reminder. (Emperor (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Series/Metaseries infobox

Something I'm working on here...

Comments are welcome.

- J Greb (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up... I responded over on my talk... just try and keep the thread in one place. - J Greb (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Atom Smasher (comics)

Want to make this into a SIA? Or do you think Atom smasher (disambiguation) already covers the comic characters? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a tricky one (which I'm sure we've looked at before). I'm not going to be around for a few days and will look at this when I get back. (Emperor (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Right checking back in - this is complicated by Atom Smasher (DC Comics) being redirected so there is only one article actually named Atom Smasher. As I say the situation is a bit of a mess, you could move the disambiguation page to Atom Smasher (comics) or you could move Atom Smasher (Marvel Comics) there, or you could leave it as it is. I'm not really sure I have a preference. (Emperor (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

And you know, I've always wondered why Captain Marvel was the name of a disambiguation page and not the title for the article Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Do you think we should get some page moves started or would it be wise to start a discussion? Also, Captain Marvel (comics) might make a good SIA after we sort things out. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can move Captain Marvel (DC Comics) to the top slot as Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) are a number of high profile characters too. If you want to do it then start a discussion on the Comics Project talk page but I'd imagine you'd get no consensus (I doubt I could, hand on heart, say the DC character is significantly more notable than the Marvel ones). (Emperor (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

The year cats...

Just wondering... but is the intention/intent of the "Year comics character debuts" to include teams and codename changes?

- J Greb (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (I didn't start it but have added a few) is that it definitely isn't for teams (although often the individual team members will debut at the same time as the team but the cat shouldn't be on the team page - if the character has no article then I usually categorise the redirect and if there isn't one then start one) and I don't think I'd use it for when people change aliases as it isn't a separate character, although I would use it for different characters using the same alias. Examples of both the last two points:

• Vigilante (Greg Saunders)
• Vigilante (Adrian Chase)
• Vigilante (Alan Welles)
• Vigilante (Dave Winston)
• Vigilante (Pat Trayce)
• Vigilante (Justin Powell)

It does look like the debut categories can be cleaned up from Vigilante (comics) and I suppose, if you are asking because you are thinking of automatically generating the cats, categorising redirects might make that more complicated. (Emperor (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Well... right now I'm working through the group 'box again and the team & title 'box (a working example is on that talk page) and wanted to double check that the auto catting for the team(s) first appearance(s) isn't something we don't need/want.

And the one with the characters is preparing for the run at the character articles. I've already set up the set & title 'box to allow for it, and put it into the docs that it's only for initial appearances, not catting something "and John Stewart becomes a Darkstar in Year."

Yes, that may wind up with an article and a redirect catted to the same year, but that makes a degree of sense - the category is accessible by an article and, when looking at the cat, the specific version of the character is noted. - J Greb (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking good.

I am not aware of any pressing need have "Comics team debuts" categorised, as there are probably not enough to warrant a category. You could always cat it to something like Category:1983 introductions, I just don't know how helpful/informative it would be. (Emperor (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Request for help on Rachel Pollack

We've had two more edits of Rachel Pollack by accounts that have a single edit. I'm really not technically qualified to be chasing sock puppets - this passage "You may also be correct about sock puppets - that was added by a SPA. You might want to collect the difs and see if a picture emerges. Here is the one from that article: [1]. It may well be worth running it past the check user admins to see what they come up with. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC))" is pretty much gobbledygook to me. Anniepoo (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Category: Comics creators

Just a heads-up. We deleted "Category: Comic book creators" which was started by User:Contributor777 and I notice he has been sneaking the existing category in, Category:Comics creators. As can be seen here. I've reverted those I could find and will try and clear out the category as best I can but I thought I'd let you know. I've left them a note about this asking them to stop, but that doesn't guarantee it will. (Emperor (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

If he does it again, let me know. At that point, I think it would be beyond being "confused", and would be deserving of at least a warning. - jc37 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have changed tack, instead of adding back creators he has added Alan Moore to English cartoonists [13] which is justified by the text although it only reflects a small part of his early comic career (and the article already has a lot of categories). I'll keep an eye on developments though.

Checking through Category:Comics creators it is clear the other reason articles are there when they shouldn't be is that when "Category:Indie comics creators" was deleted the category was moved/renamed to comics creators. It is pretty easy to deal with them as they are usually already properly categorised. (Emperor (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Tom Palmer (comics) bibliography

I see you added back a bibliography section to Tom Palmer's entry (which during my expansion, I had deleted). In his case, that section seems irrelevant, as he is an inker, not a writer or artist (i.e., not the "author" in the same way). Also, he has inked so many comics over the years that a complete bibliography would be unwieldy and basically unreadable. It seems to me that the succession box covers the same territory in a more contextual way; and for real completists, they can always go to his ComicBookDB entry. Thoughts? -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Watching

Thanks for that. :o) A particularly great final quote there: "I couldn’t have put it better myself. But Moore and Gibbons could, and did." Not sure how I missed it, (probably the same inordinately-busy-ness that's kept me away from here), but thanks for drawing it to my attention.
P.S. If I forget at a later date: Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year. ntnon (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Could you have a quick peer at these edits to see if a) they're vandalism, b) they're stylistically-accurate but reductionist edits, c) they're heavy-handed, d) they're absolutely sensible unditions, or e) "other", please..?! I doubt it's wise/possible for me to try and guess on Powers and Bendis. (No rush, or worries if you're otherly busy.) :o) ntnon (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at Rorschach?

Rorschach (comics). Someone's being very confusing over there, consistently deleting most of the article for reasons that just don't compute for me. Lots42 (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser advice

A bit of a broad ranging issue in which one IP and perhaps dozens of SPAs are pushing an agenda (in violation of WP:BLP and consensus on the talk page) but I am unsure if it quite ticks a checkuser box. More details here: User talk:Anniepoo#Request for help and in the section above. There are just so many accounts that it'd be wasting time to go through the process of getting all the information together only to have it rejected and I wanted to get an independent opinion before urging further action. You can answer over on the other talk page. (Emperor (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

What a mess.

And yes, I think checkuser is exactly the right course to take.

Though she appears to be on somewhat of a WikiBreak, I would ask User:Alison for her thoughts (as a second opinion) about this. - jc37 09:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK note added [14]. (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Heh. We think alike, apparently. I'm just foolish enough to try to take action on this. Yesterday, I submitted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/164.58.212.202. It's not a checkuser request, but they'll likely need to do that to verify that it's all the same person. I worry that it will be seen as a borderline case, but in at least one area there has been a direct violation of policy. This user has been trying to "out" the identity of Anniepoo by listing her supposed last name in edit summaries, which is something which is prohibited and can be subject to an immediate block. In looking for diffs, I'm a bit horrified by just how many SPAs there are and how long this has been going on. I listed most of the sock puppets from the Rachel Pollack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but I see now that there is the same problem with Zsuzsanna Budapest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It seems clear to me that there is an element of harassment involved here, but I'm not sure if others will feel the same way. Nonetheless, the ball is rolling. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ack. I just noticed the third item in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect where it says that if the accuser does not request a checkuser in 10 days, the case will be closed. I don't know if this still holds true, but that would be unfortunate. I took it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets because the way I was interpreting the instructions for WP:RFCU, I thought that they might not take the case. Given the huge backlog for Suspected Sock Puppets and the probability that they'll need to do a checkuser anyway, I'm thinking of making a checkuser request, just to be safe. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a CheckUser case as well. It's possible that they may reject it, but it seemed necessary under the circumstances. I didn't list every single SPA, but my eyes were starting to glaze over because there are so many of them. I even found an instance of low-speed edit warring on Kate Bornstein last December. Hopefully, they can work with what they've been given so far. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It turns out I didn't need to work so hard. :-) The oldest SPAs weren't checked because they were too stale. Still, it can't have hurt to have shown the persistence of this particular vandal. The IP has now been blocked for six months. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

re:Moshikal

Just hit the wall with him today between his uploading "newer" over an existing file and a "larger" (550pk) image over a FUR sized one.

I'm not sure though if I went overboard on the notes left on his talk.

- J Greb (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Brute

An add on of sorts...

Some time after you had commented to Talk:The Sandman (Vertigo)#Reorganize storylines the editor in question decided to tag Batman: Anarky, you example, as non-notable.

Is it just me or is:

1. The timeing a bit odd; and
2. The tagging a little at odds with the stubs/splits the editor has been makeing?

- J Greb (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Joker (graphic novel)

Hey, remember me. I think I got a good plot summary for Joker before it was reverted back to the original two sentences. Tell me what you think, because personally I think this is a good plot summary that should be on the page. [15]. Deavenger (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Marc Lofficier

I've redrafted the entire page according to your suggestions, but it needs some proofing. Could you take a look at it? (I also left a msg in my talk page) JMLofficier (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

An extremely worthy cause/task/etc., I'd be happy to help. :o) Implausibly busy, but when my memory kicks in, I'll be around and about. Again, my books by the Lofficiers are largely absent, although I don't recall too many major biographical bits in those, so it shouldn't be too much of a loss to this project. Just to me (temporarily, hopefully)... ntnon (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a two-person infobox, and would it apply here..? ntnon (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blitzed through the first part of the biography using the Kasterborous interview, and added in section headings. Generally I'd prefer to have continued offline for several days, but it seemed more sensible this time to just edit the main page and meander to a final draft slowly, in small parts. ntnon (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stardust (comics)

Found this one. Does it pique your interest? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find - I've updated it. (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Thank you kindly ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Animals & Men

I have nominated Animals & Men, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals & Men. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 3rd Stone

I have nominated 3rd Stone, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Stone. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena

I have nominated Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, 3rd_Stone maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd_Stone.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)