Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

I know the logic for fictional articles is "It should be in present tense, because anyone could be reading it", but it appears really sloppy and would read better in past tense. --DrBat 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not sloppy when written properly; present tense is necessary because one is not describing real events, one is describing what comic books depict, and the comic books don't stop depicting it just because more are published that depict other stories as taking place later in time. Writing in past tense slides the article into pretending that the characters and events were real. Perhaps if you could post some examples of sloppy writing, we could work on improving it. Postdlf 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor Xavier, for one, but imo it just reads better when its like an actual article, speaking about it like it already happened. --DrBat 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor X needs to be condensed quite a bit, though Magneto's worse. --Newt ΨΦ 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You just made me look at Magneto (comics). You just made me cry. This is one of those plot summaries I am afraid to touch for fear of reverts. --Chris Griswold 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Yeah. It's that article that made me scared of what the manual of style was saying. Maybe a little here... a little there... and in a couple months it will be totally condensed? --Newt ΨΦ 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been pondering jumping in and trying to trim Magneto's article with a chainsaw. CG, want to double-team it after I'm done with Darth Vader? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Magneto (comics) might inspire terror, but I now know that Superman Lives is horror. --Chris Griswold 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that past tense reads better and makes more sense. Nightscream 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the consensus across Wikipedia and the wider scholarship community is that the literary present is the correct tense. Hiding Talk 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned before in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Stylebook, you can go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for information as to why and how to use it. --Newt ΨΦ 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Present tense starts to make sense when one is writing from an "out-of-universe" perspective as discussed at WP:WAF. Looking from outside in, most plot points should be able to have the phrase "in this story" prepended onto them. For example, "In this story, Spider-Man defeats Dr. Octopus so thoroughly that he is afraid to fight him again." This underscores the idea that what is being described is a fictional creation, not an actual event. If you write with this perspective, it becomes easier to use the present tense. Admitedly, this guideline depressed me when I first discovered it. I was so used to writing from an "in-universe" perspective that I wasn't sure that I could change. But, I've started to get the hang of it. Also, I was concerned that having to write from "out-of-universe" would take the fun out it. Sometimes, I still feel that way. But, I understand the reasoning, having recently read an article on an unfamiliar subject which was littered with so much "in-universe" jargon as to be incomprehensible to non-fans. Still, I can understand the desire to treat comic book universes as real and to write about them that way. At the risk of losing editors, there are other wikis where the "in-universe" perspective is preferred. Marvel Comics has one on its website [1] and there are two unofficial wikis, run by the same people, for DC [2] and Marvel [3]. (The latter two links were not working when I last checked, but I expect that they will be back online eventually.) If an "in-universe" perspective is too heinous to consider, these are other options. Hopefully, that helps. --GentlemanGhost 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We also have the Comic Book Series Wiki, a place for information on the storyline and characters in any comic book title up to the last issue. Hiding Talk 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: is this being considered as an official Wikipedia policy, or as part of the Manual of Style? The latter makes more sense, as this is the kind of thing most casual editors will never bother with (they hardly pay attention to good grammar as it is.) Which is OK in my opinion, the whole point of a Wiki is that everyone contributes what they can; some people focus on content, and others in correcting errors. - Wilfredo Martinez 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the List of Marvel Comics alien races, and through my own comics collection, it seems there's nowhere near enough info for most of the races mentioned to warrant making a full page for each one. Would it be best to make one article detailing them (name, origin, appearance, notable species-wide traits, issue of first appearance, issues with important appearances, et cetera)? If so, what should the article be titled? "Marvel Comics alien races"? "Alien races of Marvel Comics"? Dr Archeville 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been meaning to do just that to the article for a while now (and to the List of DC Comics alien races as well- there's even more obscure races there) but I keep getting otherwise occupied. I hope to work on it soon. "Marvel Comics alien races" sounds like the best name, with redirects for the other ones. - Wilfredo Martinez 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, could/sholud the List page itself merely be expanded to include the description, rather than create a new article? Dr Archeville 13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the way it's done, yes. Hiding Talk 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make these, but I think they might be helpful. I would like to see a {{Cleanup-comics|date=March 2008}}template that would mark specifically comics articles for cleanup and would list them in a category, much as the comics stubs do for articles that need expansion. Additionally, template that indicates an overly detailed plot summary might be helpful, and it could also list these articles in a category. These categories can then be linked to in the Task Template, just like the comics stubs category is. It would be easy to keep track of comics articles in need of cleanup, making the coordination of editing initiatives easier. Can anyone make these? --Chris Griswold 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can create a clean up template for comics, but currently we tend to tag articles according to the problems needing fixing, not by the content. The place to suggest the template is Wikipedia talk:Cleanup. As to your second template concern, would {{fiction}} cover it:

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction, this article may require cleanup.? Hiding Talk 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's specific enough since the problem we're dealing with is so overwhelmingly focused on is overly detailed plot summaries and not how confusing the article might be. It's a start. I will work with it. --Chris Griswold 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

After no comments at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup, I created {{cleanup-comics}}. As to the plot summaries, what do you think of this?

It's in my user space, I can move it across if it meets the purpose intended. Hiding Talk 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! --Chris Griswold 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sweet, {{plot}} is now ready to go. Hiding Talk 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good gracious, thanks. -- Tenebrae 03:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As reported by Dr. Archeville on the Notice Board, a vast amount of character stubs have been created recently, and most appear to be tiny (possibly non-notable) characters. I think there's a lot of candidates for merging (possibly to new "List of" pages), any thoughts? --InShaneee 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should vote on which ones can support their own articles (and which cannot) on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board Talk page. - Wilfredo Martinez 12:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinking on it more, yes, I do see where some of the stubs I created could/should be folded into some other article. The individual Exemplars, for example, could be folded into the Exemplars article, since all but Juggernaut were (to the best of my knowledge) only seen/active during that story arc. I'm not quite sure about their patrons, the members of the Octessence, though, since all had been mentioned before that storyline (mostly in Dr. Strange's alliterative invocations).

Same with the Fear Lords (comics) and Six-Fingered Hand (comics) -- most members haven't been seen outside of those groupings.

I feel Heliopolitans (comics) should be expanded, and Seth, but don't know about the other individual members.

Don't know if some of the "lesser" Asgardians -- Hoder, Sigyn, Volla, et cetera -- should have their stubs expanded, or simply be folded into the main Asgardians article.

I'm more than happy and willing to clean up any messes I've inadvertently caused in my (overzealous?) stub-spree.

Dr Archeville 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and think for the moment the asgardians should be together until (as per WP:FICT) their individual descriptions get so unwieldly as to need a seperate article. --InShaneee 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted my votes for Marvel Comics stubs that deserve to be expanded in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board Talk page, as indicated. I also suggest a new article: Marvel Comics Magical Beings, to cover all the magical beings in Marvel who are original (that is, not based on existing myth) and relevant in some way (Ex. the beings that grant spells to Dr. Strange and other sorcerers) but who do not warrant their own separate articles. -Wilfredo Martinez 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a little simpler to first decide what to merge, and to where (though Dr Archeville has already done a bang-up job of that above). --InShaneee 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the contributions of Ed Brubaker (talk · contribs). It appears that one of my favorite comics writers is doing some editing on behalf of his new comic CRIMINAL (article created by Brubaker), even redirecting Criminal from Crime to the above article. Additionally, he has edited himself into articles. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on this, and I just want to finish going through my watchlist tonight and go to sleep. Could someone explain what the best course of action is? I'm not sure that I'm the one to approach Brubaker; as I mentioned, I am a big fan, and I also do not feel comfortable enough yet with Wikipedia to try to represent it to the subject of an article. --Chris Griswold 07:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that it really is him, WP:AUTO applies. In short, he has to abide by all the same rules that we do - NPOV, no OR, acceptance that Wikipedia is mercilessly edited, etc. As for us, we should assume good faith and not bite the newbie. --GentlemanGhost 09:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking over what he put in there, there were plenty violations of NPOV, WWIN, as well as redundant images and irrelevant material not pertinent to the series itself. I fixed it up, and tried to add more information on the series more in line with WP policy. Nightscream 12:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I am new here, but I have browsed through a lot of your discussion threads and could not find an answer to my question. Would it be wrong to have a separate page that links off from a comic series main page that would have a list of books in that series with key points that happened in each book (like an episode guide for TV)? This would not have to be a detailed word for word account, but just simple major plot points. I know there are TV sites on Wikipedia that do this, and it helps to let people remember what happened in the past. Like I said, I am new here and am not sure if this is even something anyone would want or has talked about before, but I was just curious. I think it could be useful.

I think that should only be done in cases where a series is full of noteworthy moments that would make a list too long for the parent article to hold. An example would be Superman, who has an extensive mythology full of important events that many people would be interested to know the specific issues of. However, most comic book series tend to have a status quo that is rarely disrupted for more than a year; things like changes in costume, deaths etc. tend not to last very long. In general, only iconic characters like Superman or Spider-Man would merit such an article. -Wilfredo Martinez 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be done, a la List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics. --Jamdav86 17:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We have another anon user pushing to have the stuff about Claremont being fisted into his article, and that he's into "crude bondage fantasies". Any help would be appreciated. --DrBat 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think enough eyes are watching the page to quickly revert any slander that makes its way into the article. --GentlemanGhost 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

204.69.40.7 (talk · contribs) is once more bringing up Claremont gossip, this time at Talk:Magik (comics). Because of discussions in my own user talk page, in User talk:Ekchuah and in Talk:Chris Claremont, it appears he is switching between the IP address and Ekchuah. I'm not entirely sure why. But in my conversations with him, the IP and Ekchuah have responded in conjunction with each other.--Chris Griswold 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I will address the overly detailed plot summary if someone smarter than me will fix the gallery of pictures. --Chris Griswold 00:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Does there even need to be a gallery? Looks like excessive, unnecessary use of fair use images to me... --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I needed to hear. --Chris Griswold 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That navigation menu at the bottom of member pages Is pointing to the wrong Thunderstrike, it's currently pointing at the MC2 version Thunderstrike when it should be pointing to Eric Masterson (comics). --Basique 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with SHB. Optional fields, when not filled, are leaving a blank line instead of just not showing up. I would fix it if I only knew how to. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely related, can we add a last appearance box for the lesser-used and deceased characters? --Jamdav86 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it... It looks like someone took out the comment tags which unhid things. Instead of adding in a <!--, they deleted them all. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fixed, indeed. Great job, Ipstenu! —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be another problem with the SHB now. Relatives no longer show up. Dizzy D 11:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is intentional. See the discussion below, or Template talk:Superherobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

Maus is the current Comics Collaboration, but to be honest, we're somewhat short of help for improving the article, and we could do with some of the regulars on this page giving us a hand. Cheers! Gamesmaster 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. What kind of help would you like. It looks pretty good to me, except for a more detailed explanation of the plot. Nightscream 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainly ideas on how to expand it further, while keeping a good quality to the article. Someone has already suggested a possible "Influences" section, as well as inclusion of the awards that Maus has won. Gamesmaster 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, there are only five days left on this comics collaboration! We want to get this up to featured article standard! We will need a detailed synopsis, pictures, and a critical overview at least! Come on! We can do it! --Jamdav86 10:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate is being held in the articles Young Avengers, Wiccan (comics), and Speed (comics).

Twice in the series, a character mentions that the Scarlet Witch had twins, and then a character assumes that Bill and Thomas are those twins because of the characters' powers and their resemblance to one another. Unfortunately, that's all we have had so far, and I and CovenantD do not believe that is enough to claim with certainty that it's true. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I feel that presenting this as fact is speculative and even untruthful.

The problem is that nothing is certain in comics until it is in printed text. (Even then...) When people assume about these things, they are often proved wrong. For instance, the immense Runaways plot summary once said that the character named Karolina (hinted at and later clearly shown to be a lesbian) had a crush on the character named Chase.

Please comment so we can move past this. --Chris Griswold 08:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading the explaination of how Speed is possibly the reincarnated soul is a bit widgy. I mean ... that's the same problem with Helena, daughter of Catwoman. Sure it's a MAYBE, but it's way too much spec with no evidence. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. No source, no inclusion. --InShaneee 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the speculation of who they are (i.e. Speed may be the son of ... therefore the twin of...) should be listed because it is a fact of the book. It's not that we are speculating that matters, but the fact that the characters in the book believe it which is a major factoid of the book (and probably will be for a while). I mean sure Bruce Wayne believes he knows who is parents are, but they could retcon that next week too.Silver lode 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It could certainly be mentioned that that certain characters believe this to be true. That is clearly in the text and is not disputed. The dispute is over whether or not this constitutes a "fact" within this fictional universe. Some of us are of the opinion that it is too soon to tell. For now, Ipstenu has offered a good compromise on the Speed talk page. I'm waiting to see if it stands. Cheers, --GentlemanGhost 02:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how Wiccan & Speed could be Wanda's twins re-born/re-incarnated, since the orignal sons were illusions/constructs made by Wanda's powers & housing shards of Mephisto's soul. So, what, Wanda used her new Reality Warping powers to... reclaim those pieces of Mephisto's soul in re-creating them? Created true souls from... what? Or are they soul-less beings? Guess I'll just have to wait like everyone else and see how they handle it. Dr Archeville 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We should definitely stick to what the comics say, and so far this is only believed to be true by some characters, it hasn't been proved; that's what we should report. (Personally, I suspect this is just a red herring to attract Scarlet Witch fans, and the truth will turn out to be different. Remember that Wiccan and Hulkling were originally supposed to be linked to Thor and The Hulk, respectively.) -Wilfredo Martinez 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. --Chris Griswold 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Hulk/Thor thing was just speculation on the part of fans, trying to relate the characters to potential Avengers counterparts?Darquis 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I tossed out a middle ground and cleaned up Wiccan and Speed as best I could (I'm not activly reading Young Avengers right now, sort of on a boycot of Marvel thanks to Peter coming out, you bastards), but I borrowed a lot from my friend so maybe I can come up with something better, later. I also removed the 'family' listing from the shb, since it was riddled with ?'s and frankly, it's to 'maybe' right now. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's possible the kids are reincarnated souls unless there was time travel involved. At best, 10 years has passed in Marvel time (far less since the Mephisto story), and these kids are in their midteens, it would seem. But be that as it may, I think the "this is what the book/characters says/think is the appropriate avenue at this time. Darquis 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Nightwing article recently hit a draw in the 'please merge with Dick Grayson' vote (see Dick Grayson's talk page). As a member of 'Nightwing can stand on his own!' I'd like to see if we can expand it a little more, or make it look less like 'Dick! Dick! Dick!' and respect the past more than it would as just an add on to the bottom of Dick's rather long page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that an editor has recently created a bunch of new articles to cover Ultimate characters, including Charles Xavier, Marvel Girl and Dazzler. I don't care either way, but it does seem to go against a decision that was made to keep them within the main character article. Is there a response to this? CovenantD 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they are much better suited to stay within their 616 articles. Once the page gets too big, then a split should be discussed, in my opinion. Kusonaga 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion of keeping all versions of the same character (to use Marvel as an example, 616, Ultimate, Exiles, and any other versions) all on one page, no matter how long the individual entries get. Just make sure not to repeat redundant info (or do so in a compressed/concise manner), and focus on pointing out the differences.

Though, on a somewhat related issue, are characters with the same name (like the two Novas, or the two Gorgons, or the two Hybrids) supposed to have separate pages, or their own individual ones? Dr Archeville 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, I'm strongly in support of keeping them on the same page, then splitting off when that becomes unweildly (we really should put this consensus down somewhere for future reference). As for characters with the same name, the same rule generally applies. --InShaneee 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

These need to be merged --Chris Griswold 01:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll tag 'em if somebody will leave a note for the creator. CovenantD 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See here. --Jamdav86 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the creator a line referring him here after he removed the {{mergeto}} tag from Ultimate Dazzler. Advised him to weigh in on the discussion. Also added my own creation Ultimate Rogue and another of theirs Ultimate Iceman to the list of proposed merges. --Newt ΨΦ 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd weighed in before ... I feel that if the difference between the character is notably divergant (i.e. all that's the same is code name and some powers), that an Ultimate page is sometimes appropriate. That is, if the Ultimate page would be a non-stub, decent page in and of itself, it's alright to spawn a new page for someone, but if their Ultimage page would be a paragraph, we should skip it. In general, yes, most characters fit it fine in the normal 616 page, but for ones like Ultimate Spider-Man, this is no longer the case. It's not just about making the main page too long, but about expanding what should and does need expansion. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was my thinking when I created Ultimate Rogue a couple months back. However, I went ahead and added it to the list of Ultimate character merge discussions for the community to decide. --Newt ΨΦ 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Characters like Ultimate Colossus should keep their own article, as they're fundamentally different characters in many ways. Merging him with the 616 counterpart would create a lot of removals of the LGBT characters in comics category and vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zythe (talk • contribs) 16:32 July 11, 2006

I do not want to lose the LGBT tags from the Colossus character. --Chris Griswold 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps details that do not go into the MarvelU articles can go into the article for the Ultimate title in which the character appears. --Chris Griswold 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels that characters are being added to and removed from the lists in this article without too much thought?--Chris Griswold 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I need a third party opinon on a revert war in the Wonder Woman before I take the thing to arbitration. This has been a pattern with Lesfer and my contributions and I'd like it to stop. Please see Lesfer's most recent statement here talk Nu'Bia. --Basique 04:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A pattern?? If this is a pattern I dare you to report me now to an admin. If you're so sure, stop barking and do something about it. Prove it. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Blatant copyvio-Batman! Check it out X-Man. That's just a copy-and-paste job from the UXM.net spotlight article for the most part. Can something be done, while still preserving some of the information? I was almost about to just plain remove most of the offending bits. Kusonaga 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was done by Dave37 (talk · contribs) between these two edits and looking at their contributions, that appears to be all they ever did. --Newt ΨΦ 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work Newt. But damn, way too much time has passed for a simple revert. Kusonaga 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please please please put this up for deletion and talk to the creator - it looks like he plans at least one more of these. I don't even want to think where this sort of madness could lead. CovenantD 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quiet word, and I'll let you know of any further developments. --Jamdav86 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that the mention of exactly how many days later an event takes place in articles discussing the events in 52 is awkward, unwieldy, and unnecessary? I just removed from Animal Man the phrase "A week, two days and one night later", one of a number of such price time phrases in that article's section about 52. That's going a bit far.--Chris Griswold 03:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, precise tracking of time is hard to do (and usually unnecessary) in comics (but blame DC Comics for the idea.) If needed, we can always sum the up the events in a table in the 52 article proper. -Wilfredo Martinez 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup/Expand

• Thriller (done)
• The DNAgents (pending)
• Battle Hymn (pending)
• Hero Squared (pending)
• Fightin' 5 (pending)
• Goblyn (pending)
• H.A.R.D. Corps (pending)
• Scout (comic) (pending)
• The Foot Soldiers (pending)
• Will to Power (Comics Greatest World) (pending)
• Wanderers (comics) (pending)

Build List
Working on building Skartaris, Atlantis, New Atlantis, Sun Devils, New Olympians, New Statesmen, Netherworld (from Hawkman), Recombatants, Project Youngblood, Chunk (supporting), Jack Marshall: Hacker (supporting), Thrust (supporting).

Image Assets
If anyone else is working on one of those pages, the image assets are either already uploaded or will be uploaded as: image:skartarisdcu.png, image:atlantisdcu1.png, image:newatlantisdcu.png, image:sundevils3.png, image:newolympiansdc.png, image:newstatesmen.png, image:netherworldcu0.png, image:recombatants.png, image:recombatantsdeath.png, image:projyoungblood.png, image:chunkdcu0.png, image:hackerdcu0.png, image:thrustdcu0.png, image:dnagents.png.

Consolidation Project
This special project is huge it's going to take a while. --Basique 15:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone make a new template for the promotional art of comicbook covers (ie the art released in the solicts, without the titling on it)?--DrBat 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we use this? --Iron Ghost 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a seperate tag and category specifically for comic book promo art, though. I was already thinking about going through the category to re-tag all the ones that are tagged as covers when they in fact are promo art... Guess it's a good thing I didn't do it, yet. Oh, by the way, has there ever been a decision what should be better used: Promo art or actual scans? --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Would this do? It's currently in my user space.

User:Hiding/X4

I can move it across if there's agreement, um, Template:Promocomic? Hiding Talk 22:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.--Iron Ghost 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any convention as of now as to where one should include information about a character or title? For example, Ultimate Spider-Man recieves his own page, while Ultimate Captain America is given a subsection on Captain America's page. So would one include information on the character/book's page for the 616 universe, or create an individual page for the Ultimate counterpart? Darquis 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is to merrge when it doesn't make the article too large, but split when the article gets too big. USM has a ton because he's been in a series running regularly for years, Ultimate Cap not so much, since he's only in an ensemble book that hasn't run as long and doesn't run as regularly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Information goes in the main article until it gets too big and is split out. Hiding Talk 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, can we put this rule of thumb on the main project page (or some subpage) so we don't need to explain this as much? --InShaneee 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, folks. Sorry for the repeat question, didn't note the above discussion had already occurred. Darquis 05:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we include (1) alternate-reality relatives, (2) only characters with entries, (3) clones? What about clones of alternate-future versions of children of clones?--Chris Griswold 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Or do we remove this crufty, in-universe field from the infobox entirely and leave it to the body of the article to cover this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Stryfe is a clone (from an alternate future) of the son of a magical duplicate, duh. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're tempting me with the removal thing, but I think it can be a useful navigation tool. Sadly, however, it frequently gets filled with wiki-lame. Madeleine Pryor is a magical duplicate??? WTF5000??? "It is worth noting"(ugh) that she totally did it with Jean Grey's alternate-reality son. That's pretty gross. --Chris Griswold 06:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh, no, she's a clone. I must be thinking of something else. Anyway, I'm really tempted to remove the relatives field because of this, this, this, and let's not forget this. 95% of the time, this field is listing either wholly unimportant supporting characters (huh, Wiccan's parents are named Jeff and Rebecca), is insane fanon (Vision II is Wonder Man's nephew? WTF?), or requires the article to actually explain it (making the quick reference useless and indeed often misleading or confusing - e.g. Stryfe's convoluted backstory). It also encourages that sort of nonsense in other infoboxes, since the SHB is so visible and widely used; I've seen relatives fields in everything up to and including Mega Man infoboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's also gross. I am now fully in agreement. We need to take this to the SHB talk page before someone has an argument about whether Plucky Duck is Daffy Duck's son. Oops. --Chris Griswold 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You can join in here. --Chris Griswold 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

alternate reality relavites: no. clones: yes. only characters with entries: yes. but that's just me. Exvicious 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Vision I and II essentially the same character? Look, I know they have different hardware, but they have the same operqating system and memories (files), and the personality seems similar to me. When I read it, I thought, "Oh, the Vision's back already!" not, "Who's this new guy? Whatev!!!"

In the comics, the old Vision appears to Iron Lad and is then added to Iron Lad's armor. The entry says that Iron Man finds the new Vision to be a different dude, but no issue is given, and I don't remember that from my reading. Either way, it is clear that it is the Vision's OS; the same is true for the unending variations of Vision's daddy Ultron, and they're all simply listed on Wikipedia as Ultron. Only one SHB is needed, even with all those wacky "relatives". --Chris Griswold 08:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't help that YA comes out with a new issue about biannually, but I sort of get the feeling that Vision II is sufficiently different enough that it's a separate character. It seems like other characters are treating him as a separate character; I recall Spider-Man treating him as essentially a different person (in New Avengers, probably 18-19ish), for example. Also, if there isn't a subplot about Victor and Vision interacting in CW:YA/Runaways that reveals more about Vision's nature, I'll eat my hat. I'd hold off on it for now; after all, if there's some sudden dramatic revelation that the original Vision's memories were preserved all along, it's not like we couldn't take the box down then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I really can't wait for that series. --Chris Griswold 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I know Chris has been threatening to do this for a while, but in light of the continuing Ultimate article creations, I've made a start on compiling all the issues we've discussed and agreed on a guideline for at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. Hiding Talk 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you started it; I felt uncomfortable creating an important project page like that, and I've ended up getting involved in some other things lately. I have been adding to it from my super-secret list of comics article-specific grammar and format problems. --Chris Griswold 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we settle on some sort of naming convention? I know this is mostly a headache for heros with multiple codenames and/or multiple heros PER codename. The way I see it we have the following options:

• Alter Ego (i.e. Jean Grey)
• Current Code name (Alter Ego) (i.e. Superboy (Kon-El)) The suggested style from WP:NCCom
• Code Name (Era) (i.e. Mister Terrific (Modern Age))

Personally, I like the Kon-El idea, since that might settle the people who want to name the most common hero as the page name (see Nightwing for that drama). It gives a hint to people who are looking for the hero, and allows us to differentiate between heros. The only 'gotcha' I see are for people like the new Catwoman or Jason Todd, who are kinda sorta between names and may or may not keep the ones they have. In that case, I'd say leave them as Alter Ego name, since they're in flux. But for the Blue Beetle, where we know damn well Ted's dead, we can do Blue Beetle (Ted Kord) easy as pie. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest, I really fail to understand the issue here. Policy is to use the most common name available. If Jean Grey is the most common name available, use it. If not, try Jean Grey (comics), and move on down the line. Redirects are free, it matters little where we put a page since we can redirect to it from all other likely possibilities. So I would say, try the superhero identity name, then try the superhero identity name with (comics) after it, then try the superhero name with (publisher) after it, and then try the alter ego name, and then try the alter ego with (comics) after it, and if you can't sort it out and it descends into an argument, come here and we'll discuss it here, but bear in mind it doesn't matter what a page is named, readers will be able to find it through the web. What matters is that the information the article contains is the best it can be.

• So:
  • Robin (comics)
  • Robin (comics)
  • Tim Drake
  • Jason Todd
  • Dick Grayson

If you can find a name that's common without using a disambig phrase, the policy is that we use it. Otherwise, use common sense. Where common sense fails, don't edit war, bring the issue here. I'm going to have a look at WP:NCCom if we're suggesting using Current Code name (Alter Ego). And I suggest that people who are moving pages for no other reason than to fit what they think is the right convention should consider if that's in the best interests of everyone. Hiding Talk 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'issue' is when you run into things like Mister Terrific (Modern Age) - Is that really the 'most common name'? It's the sub-name, which I agree is needed to differentiate from the original MrT, but does 'Modern Age' explain enough for someone to know what it is? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you have moved the page, further discussion of the issue is somewhat moot. Hiding Talk 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But the thrust of your point is that terms such as modern age should be avoided, yes? That certainly has been the feeling of the Project, so I'll amend the naming conventions to describe that position. Hiding Talk 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Finally! I've been advocating that for a while now[4] ;-) CovenantD 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember that, it looks like my post killed the discussion dead as a dodo, though, so sorry about that. Hiding Talk 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It eventually happened, though, so I can live with it :-) CovenantD 15:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiding! :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am having a little trouble with User:Basique, as they are upset that I removed a DC who's who image from the Vixen (comics) article. Basique believes that Who's Who images are Fair Use and that I misinterpreted the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright section 1.3 on the DC Who's Who. Was I correct in assuming that we were no longer supposed to use images from said books? NeoCoronis 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're correct. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it also violates general fair use guidelines not to use images of works in articles that do not discuss those specific works. Postdlf 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting to get some trouble when I chose to crop the Who's Who picture in the Lady Blackhawk entry, but it looks like it might have gone under the radar. Should this image be removed completely instead? I was trying to remove the text. --Chris Griswold 17:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's Who images should be listed for deletion on sight, our use is not fair as we are a competing product and our use infringes on marketable use of the image. Hiding Talk 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment in the merger section of the Power Ring talk page got me to thinking -- should there be an article for Utility Belts? While Batman is possibly the first user of one (and is almost certainly the most widely-known user of such), I'm fairly certain many other characters have made use of them. I'm also fairly certain several examples of "Utility Belts in songs/other media" could be found, too. Yay or nay? Dr Archeville 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that such an article might be interesting. --Chris Griswold 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking today that it might be a good idea to create an article telling editors what this Wikiproject considers the work and actions of an "exemplary editor". This would describe simply certain things that editor should do to improve their edits, their social interaction, and their standing within the Comics WikiProject, similar to the article exemplars page. Although Wikipedia has pages about good editing and behavior in general, I know this sort of thing would have helped me when I started out with the project; in fact, it might help me even now (I just stumbled through the IfD process for the first time). The page would, of course, link to Wikipedia's specific pages on these ideas, such as WP:Civility.

If others agree, I'll start the page, but others should join in the discussion and add to it. --Chris Griswold 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris has a good idea, and I support him and it. I'll try to contribute some suggestions -- Tenebrae 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it. I'm still learning what's good and bad. --Newt ΨΦ 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Um. I'm not keen on the idea, it smacks of instruction creep. Hiding Talk 12:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an extremely good idea, and very useful if implemented correctly. --Basique 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. OK, so I'll rephrase it: How about "Suggestions for participation in the project"? Not instructions, just an essay introducing editors to the project and suggestions of activities they might be interested in: maintaining the notice board, monitoring this talk page, etc. A more detailed project overview that would properly introduce the pages listed in {{WPCMC}}. The essay would not be about what the editor should do, but options available to them in the interest of participating in the project. --Chris Griswold 12:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Getting Involved, although that appears to have got bumped off the front page during one rearranging or another. Add what you feel is needed to that page. Hiding Talk 13:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Will do. I'll also try to make sure that this page is listed prominently. --Chris Griswold 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CmdrClow (talk · contribs) insists in using Image:JLACV1.JPG. Personally I think it's a great image but besides not being sourced, not every character portraited in there is (or ever was) a JL member. Thoughts? —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 04:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is by Ed Benes, the new regular JLA artist, and was released as an early publicity image for the new series (I think it may have appeared first in Wizard, but I'm not sure). It'll be cropped down and and was used as one of the covers to JLA #1 in August. If there is a practise of using up to date pictures then it is probably best to wait for the final version of the cover to JLA #2 - it'll feature the new roster, but some characters are currently blanked out. --Jason Kirk 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep Jimenez pic (cover to JLA-Z) until we get this cover to Justice League of America # 2 which will present the new line-up. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)