Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 46

Using No-Importance in article tagging
Please see the discussion here regarding the usefulness of No-importance in article assessment. 84.92.54.229 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

John Wagner
I've given John Wagner's article a thorough rewrite - perhaps someone from the project could have a look, check if there's any outstanding deficiences, and reassess it? Thanks. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reprising a role
Should we generally be noting if a voice actor is "reprising" a role from either one form of media to another, or from one example in the same media to another? 64.134.164.2 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the Punisher a superhero?
Discuss per at: Talk:Punisher 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Asking a couple of WPC admins to weigh in
WikiProject Comics Manual of Style is silent on this, but countless examples exist of comics features, such as "Tales of Asgard" in Journey into Mystery or "Iron Man" in Tales of Suspense, being in quote marks, while the title of the comic-book itself is in italics. This follows the format of songs being in quote marks and albums in italics, or short stories being in quote marks and novels or collections being in italics.

There's a conversation going on at Talk:Judge Dredd about whether the Judge Dredd feature in the anthology comic 2000 AD should be in quote marks or italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Magneto
Is a longer explanation of his character like this prefered in the lead, or should it more concise? Another user has been adding a more drawn-out description and I have reverted it a few times now, but I want to see what the consensus is. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Be concise. Doczilla  STOMP! 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I figured. The other user keeps lengthening the lead, but I asked them to come back here and discuss. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Heart of Hush
"Heart of Hush" is redirecting to "Batman R.I.P.", which is incorrect. I mean Heart of Hush are Detective Comics #846-847 by Paul Dini and Dustin Nguyen. It should be another new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.85.195.66 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

suggested merger... the noticeboard is outdated severely. Where to put this?

 * Before Watchmen: Minutemen, Before Watchmen: Silk Spectre, Before Watchmen: Comedian, Before Watchmen: Nite Owl, Before Watchmen: Ozymandias, Before Watchmen: Rorschach and Before Watchmen: Dr. Manhattan into Before Watchmen (Discuss)  D r e a m Focus  16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's pretty good for the minute. User:Jc37 used to maintain the noticeboard, I wonder if it's role can be taken over somewhat by bots or if it is even necessary anymore? Hiding T 16:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Need to use the type of bot other Wikiprojects have to automatically list any article tagged with this wikiproject's banner on it talks page, in the proper section somewhere here if it is nominated for deletion or merger. A lot of comic articles are actively being edited, and Wikipedia has a lot of them.   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I had thought that the board was doing fine due to others keeping it up to date. I haven't really looked at it since going on an extended wikibreak awhile back. - jc37 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, Jc37, I apologise if any comment I made had you feeling otherwise. :) I can certainly empathise with the extended wikibreak. @Dream Focus, I think we are using bots to tag stuff, for example at WikiProject Comics/Article alerts and User:AlexNewArtBot/ComicsSearchResult. Are there any other bots we should be looking at to get set up for WP:COMICS? Hiding T 18:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fishy behaviour at Winsor McCay page
Somebody's using a riduculous number of IP accounts to do weird things to the Winsor McCay page, including changing his birthdate multiple times and adding gibberish in Arabic. The funny thing is, some edits actually seem constructive...

Some of the edits were done within thirty seconds of each other by separate IPs. Could the page be locked down or something?  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll semi protect it. It's because of today's google doodle thing. Hiding T 12:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Placeholder images in Infobox comic
The Infobox comic series of templates will display a placeholder image if there is no image parameter set. See G-MAN for example. There is a general sentiment the placeholders should not be used. See WP:PLACEHOLDER. Can we modify the template so it does not default to a placeholder in the absence of an image? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * User:J Greb maintains the templates on behalf of the project, it's a long time since I edited templates, I'd hate to get in there and muck it up. Looking at the discussions though, it all seems to date from 2008. I've been on an extended wiki-break for two years, so I wouldn't know if consensus has changed somewhat in the mean-time. Hiding T 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that deprecating placeholder images is a wikiwide thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As Hiding said, J Greb would be the one to poke about this. - jc37 08:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Zatanna series- Featured on Spanish Wikipedia, nothing on here?
I notice that the Zatanna series was featured on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Zatanna (serie limitada) - But there is no interwiki link. Do we not have an article on this series? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Modern Age of Comic Books split
I started a discussion on whether to split Modern Age of Comic Books into two pages. The article currently says the Modern Age began in the 1980s, but the talk page (and redirects) indicate an interest in splitting it into a "Dark Age of Comics" (1980-1995ish) and a new "Modern Age" (2000ish to present). I'd appreciate some additional opinions, as this would be a significant decision either way. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1
Please participate in the discussion at Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Infobox comics characters
I proposed a change to the comics character infobox here, for characters originating in other media, if anyone would like to discuss it. --DocNox (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick check for notability concerns
I've not done much in comic articles before, but with media attention given to the first issue of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (since I'm principle on most of the articles on the fandom) I want to check before creating an article on the comic series.

There's information on the licensing, and the promo rush to the first few issues (multiple cover variants, this huge pre-order number, etc.) and as its out tomorrow there's a few RS's (not from the MLP fandom) already giving reviews of issue #1.

It seems like it is completely fair to have an article for this, with a background on its creation with Hasbro/IDW and the writers and artists, the generalized premise, a list of releases with short plot summaries, additional marketing information, and a reception section, but I just want to check before plowing ahead. --M ASEM (t) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any issue with it. You'll want to use this infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of Silver Samurai's real name
Can anyone confirm the spelling of Silver Samurai's real name? There seems to be some confusion, an on-going discussion can be found at Talk:The Wolverine (film). Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Revamp of Superhero film
There is a discussion taking place on the Wikiproject Film talk page, and input would be greatly appreciated. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hack/Slash tweethearts
The Twitter stuff at Hack/Slash looks to me like inappropriate, unsourced fan junk that has no place in that place. Because the last person who (IMHO) quite rightly deleted it all then not-so-rightly got promptly reverted for vandalism, I'd like to get some additional opinions before deleting it myself. Admittedly, I've already made my position on this clear. Doczilla STOMP! 03:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Get rid of it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to External links/Perennial websites, twitter is sometimes acceptable as a self-published, primary source, subject to the restrictions placed on primary, self-published sources. If it's just fan garbage, then nuke it.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 07:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Publication history
Do we want to include any substantial runs where a character appeared as a main character in the publication history section? That is, appearing in a dozen, 20, or more issues of a series as a regular character? Do we want to do this even if it is the second or later volume of the series, and the character appeared in an earlier version of the series? For example, if a character was a main character in the first volume of New Avengers and the second volume of New Avengers, should we mention both in the publication history or just the first volume since they were in both? I ask because I added notes about the just-ended Avengers and New Avengers series to the main characters who appeared in both, but several were reverted with the argument that they were redundant:    ; could I be doing this better, or are these efforts unappreciated in the first place? 24.12.74.21 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this could be done better. First the publication history does not state that the character first appeared in a previous volume. It states the character first appeared in the series, period. So adding that he/she appeared again in another volume of the same series is redundant. Also adding just this specific volume in this manner places undue weight on it. For example Iron Man and Thor has appeared in every volume of the Avengers, so why the need to place emphasis on this specific volume.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I only looked at the Ms. Marvel page, but I think most of the PH section for it should be rewritten. There's way too much plot info in there. A proper PH should read something like this-
 * After appearing in House of M  #1-8, the character received a second self-titles series in March of 2006, which ran for XX issues. The character also appeared in Might Avengers vol 1 #1-XX before moving to New Avengers vol 1 #XX-XX, vol 2 #xx-xx
 * and so forth. In-universe material like "Refusing to serve under Osborn, Ms. Marvel flees Avengers Tower" belongs in a Fictional Character Biography, if anywhere. Publication historys are for real world information only. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article's format goes back to a collaborative revamp of PH and biography sections that spread across many articles several years ago, this was the article before the revamp.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some discussions on the topic;, , and .--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I think the general consensus is that PH sections should be more than a bare bones prose list of appearances, and should contain relevant analysis and details from third-party sources (not saying that this was advocated by anybody here).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that the PH section should be more than just a list of appearances, but I don't think we are doing anyone a service by leaving information out. We should include any and all analysis and details from third-party sources, but we don't need to stop there. We should include observable details about significant appearances, and to my this means three things: solo or starring series primarily, then any recurring roles in a team book of any decent lenghth, and lastly any guest appearances that were particularly significant or notable to that character's development. Leaving these things out, to me, seems like skipping important information - what Argento Surfer lists above seems perfectly reasonable.
 * Let's look at just New Avengers as an example. There are three volumes - the original, vol 2 that just ended, and vol 3 that will be just starting. The first volume changed the roster steadily over the length of the series, which is common for team books: it started with Captain America, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Spider-Woman, and Luke Cage, and added characters like Wolverine, Sentry, Echo, Clint Barton as Ronin, Iron Fist, Doctor Strange, Captain America (Bucky Barnes), Ms. Marvel, and Mockingbird. The lineup in volume 2 was fairly stable, with Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel, The Thing, Wolverine, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, Spider-Man, and Mockingbird, and then adding Daredevil halfway through. Volume 3 is going to be about Iron Man, Mister Fantastic, Black Bolt, Namor, Beast and Black Panther.  OK, so which of these should get a mention of which volume in the PH?  Most of the characters from vol. 2 were also in vol. 1.  However, several of the characters from vol. 1 did not appear in vol. 2.  Iron Man was in vol. 1, but not in vol. 2, but he will be in vol. 3.  Are we truly restricted to only mentioning vol. 1 for Iron Man and all the others?  Only Thing and Daredevil get a mention of vol. 2?  If someone wants to know whether any of the other characters from vol. 1 were in vol. 2 they are going to have to guess or do their own research?  Is that helpful to a reader?  What am I missing here? If a character appeared in five volumes of an Avengers series, why would we not at least make a one-sentence mention of all of those? If a character was in vol. 1-2 and 4-5 of an Avengers series, why are we intentionally and purposefully leaving that information out? Is this written down somewhere? 24.12.74.21 (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again none of the articles in question state that a character appeared in any specific volume but states when they made their first appearance any chronicles any significant involvement they may have had in the series. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we do not want to turn the PH section into a defacto bibliography section for character appearances against our own guidelines. If the character made significant contributions to the series it will be outlined. Still I am puzzled by the need to specifically call out these latest volumes and not others unless it just simply boils down to WP:RECENTISM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a desire to put undue weight on the latest volume, but more of an editor knowing more about the recent volume, and not seeing it specifically mentioned. It seems the issue isn't including information about the lastest volume, but that it's not done consistantly. While the original editor's phrasing isn't the best way to share the information, I do think it's a good idea to specify volumes and durations for characters appearing in Avengers (but not a bibliography). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you see what I was trying to do, Argento Surfer, but maybe I was just not explaining myself clearly enough. Yes, I agree that it is a good idea to specify volumes and durations for characters appearing in Avengers and other team books. Yes, I was working with the latest volumes because those are what I had handy since I purchased them recently - I have plenty of other comics, but they are boxed up right now. :) 24.12.74.21 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I readded the volume information into the articles to match the wording and style of the present information so it wouldn't appear so jarring nor read as a bibliography.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Superman: Earth One Volume Two
Can anyone writes a plot summary for Superman: Earth One Volume Two?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice about deleted webcomics articles
I'm looking here for advice about webcomic articles that don't satisfy the notability guidelines. I'm aware that this topic has created a lot of discussion in the past, but I don't know the details and I haven't found a place that summarizes the current consensus and practice. What were the common outcomes at deletion discussions for these articles? Diego (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find some info at WP:WEB. I know there are guidelines for when a webcomic becomes notable, and I *think* it's after publishing for over a year AND over 100 installments. Web content isn't my big interest on wiki, however, so if anyone tells you different, trust them. I have no clue regarding your question about transferring old content elsewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Octopus
We really need more eyes on Doctor Octopus. First of all, we have IP users trying to do a copy and paste move to Otto Octavius. Additionally, we have people editing the article to favor the brand-new "Superior Spider-Man" material over the 50-year history of Doc Ock. We might need admin intervention after a while. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll help, but I'm not sure how their "supposed" to be. Why are the pages separate? Most of the content looks duplicated. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm seeing: one or 2 editors located to Mexico focusing on forcing a move from Doctor Octopus to Otto Octavius. They were only active yesterday, so that aspect may be done. If it starts up a gain the redirect, Otto, can be fully protected.
 * As for the POV skew... The article is already plot heavy enough to be considered a plot dump. It needs a trim and a note that the "new" stuff should not out weigh the "old". - J Greb (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Agent
Help me out here... does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Agent&diff=530859353&oldid=530831597 this series of edits need a trim, or a reversion? 24.12.74.21 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of it is unsourced, and what is sourced looks like a huge plot dump. This was definately added in good faith, but I think only the broadest strokes from this should be kept. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did some trimming and cleanup, but there is a lot to do with that one and I don't have the time to do it all myself. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

James Robinson (comics) -> James Robinson (writer)
Would it make sense to move James Robinson (comics) to James Robinson (writer)? The parenthetical disambig makes it seem as if the article refers to a comic series, or character, rather than a living person. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, (writer) is more general than (comics), and disambiguation should favour the more general option.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just did it myself.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 06:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed... it actually seems like a lot of comic authors's articles are named * (comics) ...was this decided before, or is it something that's just been going on because articles do exist where it'd conflict with pre-existing articles named * (writer)? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think people just called the articles whatever they felt like calling them. If, as an editor, you come from things from a comics fanboy direction, the most logical-seeming thing to do is label everything (comics).  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The MOS seems to recommend using "(comics)" as the basic disambiguator for people as well as publications, but in this case James Robinson is a screenwriter as well as a comics writer, so "(writer)" would be better as it covers both. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I tend to read the MoS as "comics" is the preferred if 1) the person is know for writing, art, editing, and/or publishing comics (at least 2 of the 4); 2) there are others with the same name known for a more specific are; or 3) as a limiter - (comics writer) or (comics artist) - if there are others that would use a more generic term. See Frank Miller for an example of this. - J Greb (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC: The Devastator (Magazine)
Would someone from this project like to review the AFC for this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Devastator (Magazine). Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Marvel characters being merged into Lists rather than keeping them as standalones
Why is User:Argento Surfer merging a bunch of Marvel characters into the different List of Marvel Comics characters? Just noticed he merged Cecilia Reyes into List of Marvel Comics characters: R which seemed more than fine to me as a stand-alone article. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that the character's "references" were entirely primary sources (and still are, post-move), what evidence is there of the character's notability in the first place? Most Marvel characters do not (and never will) have independent notability—the only way some of them will (or should) survive on Wikipedia in the first place is by lumping them together on a Marvel characters page (where the notability requirements will be less strict, as the notability of the overall subject is well established).   Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, this is bad. I just noticed we just don't have a policy for fictional characters and, therefore, we must go through WP:GNG which would disqualify most of these characters. It just seems so odd since other wikis tend to have extensive biographies on them; see and . I wonder if this is a case where we have failed to redact an inclusive policy or if external wikis will be the preferred source rather than Wikipedia. Do you guys at WP:COMICS think this is fine or should we be more inclusive so that Wikipedia can host this kind of articles? I mean, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IAR can override WP:NOTABILITY since WP:NOTABILITY is merely a guideline, but you guys are the experts on this subject; I'm just a passer by. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For example, look at Bishop (comics). We don't have a reliable secondary source on his biography, but it is a very well redacted document. So why is it OK to have an article on Bishop but not on Cecilia Reyes? I think we need to work together with the guys from WP:FCHAR to redact an inclusive notability guideline based on the body of work rather than on secondary sources since in these cases it would be virtually impossible to get secondary or tertiary sources for the characters. Any input from your part guys? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very short version (limited time ATM, likely to expand later): Wikipedia's use of primary sources is limited. Full stop. If all we can create for a character is a fictography based on the comics, it fails to meet the more restrictive guidelines. Bishop is a problem, Comissioner Gordon is a problem, Alfred Pennyworth is a problem. Off hand, 90%+ of the comics character articles is a problem. Right now the wikia and CBDB are being used as ELs for the entries in the character list and that is the best solution short of changing GNG. - J Greb (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to modify WP:GNG since GNG is overridden by subject-specific notability guidelines. So in this case it would better to just create a whole new policy for these cases. Perhaps Notability (fictional characters)? We can involve the guys from WP:FCHAR on its development. My main concern is losing editors to other wikis and, by consequence, donations. If we setup an inclusive, fair, and objective guideline we can retain the content on Wikipedia, the editors interested in them, and its related donations. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a specific guideline for comic book characters rather than fictional characters as a whole. because characters in other forms of media (television, film, etc.) tend to receive significantly more real world coverage than comic book characters. Also I think all we need to do is modify what WP:GNG considers to be "significant coverage" for our own guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the best would be to have a general notability guideline at Notability (fictional characters) and within that same page have a subsection for comic books characters. Modifying WP:GNG will be an uphill battle. I think this is the path of least resistance. Thoughts? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting modifying WP:GNG, but modifying the existing wording to use in a separate project specific guideline. Still, I think Notability (comic book characters) would be better, as we here don't have to try to figure out guidelines for other types of characters. If other projects wish to develop there own guidelines, then we can merge and sub-dived the contents in the manner you are suggesting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of guideline are you thinking? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it with User:Fandraltastic after this discussion. I'm trying to use good judgement on which ones I merge (as opposed to leaving a short entry and "main article" link). I merged Cecelia Reyes article in particular because it was nothing but a long FCB. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it with some real world material. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you guys hold for a few until we discuss this matter further? If we can create a policy such changes would be unnecessary and we would have to revert everything back. Can you please notify the guys in that discussion to chime in on what we are proposing here? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The GNG is too strict, we'll create our own policy instead? Will never fly, and should not be done. SNG (subject-specific notability guidelines) are intended to translate the GNG into what is and isn't acceptable for specific subjects, and under which circumstances subects are supposed to have sufiicient reliable sources available (e.g. WP:NSPORTS). It is not intended to get out from under the basic requirements of the GNG. If there are no significant reliable sources about a character (and wikia is definitely not a good source, not for notability and not for anything else on Wikipedia basically), going beyond simple database listings, forum posts, and polls, then it should not have its own page but be a redirect to a list of characters, or nothing at all. Fram (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yeah, I've been working on the merges with users like Argento Surfer and J Greb. The problem with 75% of the comic character articles is that there's no content to add beyond overly intricate, somewhat crufty plot summaries. Even the articles that do contain some real world content and reliable sources need their plot summaries trimmed significantly. Even if we create new guidelines, I don't see how you can make worthwhile, encyclopedic articles for the majority of these characters. All of the articles that were merged into the list have external links to the other marvel wikis for people who are looking for the in-depth plot stuff.
 * And yeah, I'll hold off on doing any more work on it until some sort of conclusion is reached here. Cheers.-Fandraltastic (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, we still must maintain some sort of standard of notability. The vast majority of the characters in that list should probably not have their own articles but there are cases like JGreb mentioned where major characters might fail our own guidelines. Getting these articles up to standard and/or modifying our standards to help these types of articles are our priority. For example does significant coverage for a comic book character mean the same as significant coverage for a musician, meaning do both of these things require the same amount of sources?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To add onto Fram's comment, I've tried for several years to craft some type of notability guidelines for fiction, but the line that consensus keeps coming back to is the GNG, with no special allowances for fiction. This is probably even moreso due to WP:NOT - we are not here to simply summarize primary sources. (This is both as part of being an encyclopedia, and to avoid excess retelling of copyrighted worked that can land us in copyright problem territory.) If the fictional character can't be discussed from an out-of-universe perspective, it likely shouldn't have a stand-alone article. You are likely not going to find any traction to gain more allowance for less restrictive inclusion requirements for fictional characters than the GNG.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good start: if the fictional character can't be discussed from an out-of-universe perspective, it likely shouldn't have a stand-alone article. But how do we translate that into policy evenmoreso when our main issue is the lack of reliable sources covering the character exclusively? I think if we draft something that says: "if the body of work is culturally or historically significant, or has a significant following, and the character is present throughout the body of work such than an encyclopedic article can be constructed of him, then the character is considered notable". This would cover Cecilia Reyes, for example, but exclude background characters that appear one or twice and characters of which we don't know much about them. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That kind of thing opens the door to so much POV and OR editing. How do we determine which characters are major within the context of a work, and which are insignificant, without reliable sources? How can an encyclopedic article be constructed without any out-of-universe perspective? How do you justify arguing that a character with 60 appearances in a comic (Reyes) is present "throughout" a work that ran for 500+ issues (X-Men)? What's the cutoff? etc. Seems like a very slippery slope. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree the key is significant real world context from reliable sources. But we what have to consider is how much is significant when it comes to comic book characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One yardstick I've used to judge a merge/no merge is "Has this character carried a self-titled series?" With few exceptions, most major characters have received at least one miniseries. If they have, then a review of that series probably exists, even if not currently cited in the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is those exceptions, like Bishop (comics): no secondary nor tertiary sources, no self-titled series yet we have very well redacted encyclopedic article. But how do we make sure that it doesn't get deleted nor merged into a list? What makes Bishop stands on its own that warrants that its article does not get deleted even when it is only sourced with primary sources? If we can define that we can define a policy. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bishop isn't an exception to that rule. He's had multiple self-titled series.


 * Oh, my God!!! I just took a look at Bishop (comics)—54 "references", and only two to third-party sources, one of which only briefly talks about the character, and the other is from IGN, a site whose content is based on user submissions and only just happens to name him as a playable character in a game.  This is not only totally unacceptible, but massively embarrassing!  This is the sort of thing that makes not only Wikipedia look bad, but also (and especially) comics fandom as a whole.  I don't go through superhero articles with any frequency, but if this is typical...Jesus, what can I even say?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is typical, which is why the majority of these character articles need to be merged to the list, and the rest, the ones where some real-world coverage exists, like with Bishop, need their plots trimmed in a major way, and actual real-world context and content to be added to the article. But it's a process, and in my mind step one of the process was to merge in stuff like the Reyes article, or (and by "or" I mean "especially") stuff like this. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, we don't need sources to cover a character exclusively (though this is of course a great source if such exists), but that we have enough sources that give enough significant coverage, generally read as more than just passing name dropping or plot reiteration in a source. An academic paper describing in detail the mythos of several comic superheroes would easily likely be a great source for any single hero explored even though the work isn't dedicated to that character.  The key here is we're looking for something that transforms from the original primary source (the comic book) into novel thoughts that establish context and importance that we, as WPian editors, could not do under our original research policy. In practical terms (and by no means don't quote this), if you can find 2 or 3 critical discussions - even if only a few sentences each - about a comic book character from clearly reliable sources, that's usually sufficient grounds to merit "keep" !votes at an AFD or stave off a merge request. Again, that's a rule of thumb and do not quote that as policy or guideline, just that this is sorta what editors expect to see if they are challenging a character article. --M ASEM  (t) 18:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we have characters that should be on Wikipedia but we don't have secondary nor tertiary sources to use as reference since most sources are primary. That's what we should focus on. How do we allow these characters to be on Wikipedia without a secondary or tertiary source covering them exclusively? I want to make sure that this WikiProject is well represented as a literary form, the same way that poetry and other non-fiction genre are. I mean, look at Jacob Black from Twilight. It does not have secondary nor tertiary sources that focus on Jacob exclusively yet such an article exists on Wikipedia and no one complains. Why can't comic books characters be the same? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to try to use to justify why comic book characters should be included. And importantly, we're not saying a character that can only be backed by primary sources can't be in WP, its just that if no one has given any additional comment on the character, placing the character among a list of equivalent characters from the same book/series/universe is better than nothing. --M ASEM  (t) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:OSE is just an essay plus it has been used several times to justify articles. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Without evidence, how on earth do you establish real-world notability? It's not a paper encyclopedia, agreed, but it's not a repository for fandoms. It's an encyclopedia. It is educational. The subject of the article is never the fictional character, but the fictional creation as it exists in the real world (conception, creation, execution, development, reception, impact).Zythe (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what we are trying to define. How can we establish notability when we don't have secondary nor tertiary sources covering the character exclusively. Regarding the subject of the article, I disgress, Bishop (comics) is a very well redacted article that covers both the character within the fantasy and the character from a real world perspective. Perhaps we should involve other projects such as WikiProject Pokémon to see what criteria did they use to justify an article. Or any other fictional characters based on literature that have never appeared on TV nor film nor have been a bestseller yet it is justified to have an article on them on Wikipedia. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by secondary and tertiary sources. In their absence, the character isn't notable and should be merged to some other article or list. Yes, that means several pages about characters you, I, and other people consider a favorite will be reduced and merged. Then we can cross our fingers and hope they get more attention and can be split off again later. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one applaud the work that Argento Surfer and Fandraltastic have been doing, by merging some of the lesser known Marvel characters into lists, especially when the articles are barely stubs and have no secondary sources. And I understand the question about notability, but in the meantime there are hundreds of characters that don't fall into that grey area. Bishop (comics) at least has SOME sources that are not primary, but there are over 600 articles in that show no signs of notability, and could easily be merged. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Brainstorming

 * how about this:

I think that clears our way for characters like Jacob Black, Bishop (comics), and Cecilia Reyes.

Remember, this is all brainstorming, so your input is welcome.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: I don't see any reason why the notability guidelines for this project should be significantly different from Wikipedia as a whole. I've bitched and whined here and there about the horrendous lack of references in comics articles—even core articles, like American comic book!—but I never would have imagined project members actually arguing that we should dispense with them entirely (yes, I consider relying entirely on primary sources to be identical to "deispensing with references entirely"—they should be purged from the articles, except in cases allowed in WP:PRIMARY).
 * Has Ahnoneemoos really given any better argument other than s/he really, really wants to have these articles in Wikipedia? I have absolutely no probelm with the going definition of "notability", and I have no problem with a Wikipedia with no Cecilia Reyes article (or even article subsection).  Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my earlier comments, I in no way was advocating doing away with any of our core policies including WP:GNG, just expanding on what is already there by defining what "significant coverage" means when it comes to comic book characters (i.e. how much is considered significant). All things are not equal in this matter because despite the growing interest, comics are still a niche genre medium.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Medium. Sorry to be a pedantic prick, but comics is a medium.  I thought that was settled decades ago.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I've got little problems with coming up a project level guideline as to what type and how many secondary sources we should be looking for under GNG. I've got a major problem with trying to come up with a project level guideline to subvert GNG based on editorial opinion. Our interpretation of the primary sources - the comics, films, shows, games, etc - is not grounds to determine notability. This proposal is loaded with editorial interpretation.
 * This is not DC Comics Database or Marvel Database where the mandate is to include all the characters. It's Wikipedia where we include topics that are notable based on secondary sources.
 * As hard as this may be to accept, articles like Cecilia Reyes are, at best, list fodder. And even in the list, the text needs a plot trim. As for Bishop (comics)... It needs to be tagged re Plot, trimmed, and actual secondary sources found. And it still may wind up merged into a list at some point.
 * That last bit bothers me, a lot. Bishop is one of those characters that should have secondary sources out there to find. Just like Gordon, Alfred, or Perry White. They shouldn't be massive plot dumps that barely do lip service to real world context. And we should be working to upgrade and fix the articles, not excuse them.
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that's the problem, we include fictional characters even when there are no secondary sources that cover them exclusively. This happens outside of the comics realm; I'm talking about characters from movies, TV shows, poems, literary works, etc. So why should comic characters suffer a different fate? Look at this objectively and take away all feelings you may have about this WikiProject or that one or this guideline or the other. I don't care about projects, and neither should you, I care about Wikipedia as a whole and the Wikimedia Foundation, and the fact that we are losing editors, administrators, visitors, terrain, and donations because an external source is capable of hosting well redacted content but we can't because we don't have an inclusive policy for it. That's what we are focusing on here: to remain encyclopedic while constructing a policy that protects all characters, comics or not, from predatory deletions or merges. We can maintain Wikipedia's quality and reliability; we just need to find a solution for our conundrum—we obviously have not yet; but that's why we discuss these matters publicly, to get more eyes, differing opinions and points of views, and what not. If we let this untouched I can assure you that it will spark a war of people tagging Jacob Black, pokemons, comics characters, and other fictional characters for deletion or merge into the literary work rather keeping them on their stand-alone articles. Before you continue throwing stuff around and mixing your personal feelings please remember that you should always assume good faith. This is merely a brain storming session where we are trying to figure out if we have something that we can improve and how we can improve it. Don't take it on a personal level; remember that neither you, nor I, nor anybody else WP:OWNs this WikiProject not these articles. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, don't try to rely on the statement "but other non-comic fictional characters that are based on primary sources exist!". There's 4 million pages on WP, they're all not going to be watched and tracked at the same time.  As people come onto fictional character articles that only contain primary information, they will be sent to AFD and likely deleted.  One good metric is to look through WP:DELSORT to see how these are handled in the past, and you'll see that what we're saying is true. --M ASEM  (t) 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not assuming bad faith. We're assuming you really, really like these characters, and would really, really like to find a way to keep them on Wikipedia.  J Greb's even saying he'd really, really like to keep at least some of them as well, but he knows the policies, and knows why they're there.  There are a lot of crufty articles on Wikipedia, even some that are outright fraudulent.  The fact that they exist is nothing like an argument for why they should be kept.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Aside from being subjective, this criteria is vague (is a one-shot story an arc? Is a three part story less notable than a twelve part story? If one issue of a 12 part story focuses on the character, does it count?). Any kind of criteria for notability must be based in the real world, like having a self-titled ongoing or miniseries. As I said above, the existance of a miniseries means the existance of a review is almost certain, even if it's not cited in the current article. For Bishop, I'm sure some issue of Wizard from the 90s had something to say on his then-upcoming series. A search on Comichron could easily turn up sales figures for the book. The TV show, movie, and prose character pages, they're common for two reasons. First, real-world material is more likey through interviews and DVD extras. Second, I haven't gotten around to merging them to an appropriate list yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: It still doesn't justify the character's notability as distinct from the work, even if the work is deemed notable, which is often questionable. It would also lead to a rapid of explosion of terrible articles. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, it is not a host for various plot summaries.Zythe (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This invites a nightmarish wave of AfD discussions and article deletions, and those articles will get deleted. WikiProject Comics contributors have better things to do with their time than to unite against every single deletion nomination. WikiProject Comics needs to endeavor to move closer to reaching the notability standards held throughout Wikipedia, not further and further away from them. A character lacking external sources and lacking real world notability does not need its own article. Doczilla  STOMP! 02:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up requested at Template:S.H.I.E.L.D.
Please see the discussion at Template talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. for more information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Smith (cartoonist)
Can someone answer a question for me? I'm wondering what to do if I KNOW that Jeff didn't grow up in Columbus, Ohio, but grew up in Worthington, Ohio (two different cities, but Worthington is a burb of Cbus). Every ref I can find states "grew up in Columbus, Ohio", but I lived two blocks from him and attended school with him in WORTHINGTON. Is there some other way I could get this ref? HELP, please! :) And, yes... I'm new to this, so please be as specific as possible if you can! Jenibynes (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I run into this a lot myself. I'd suggest hunting for a source that quotes Jeff directly as mentioning Worthington. You cannot insert your personal knowledge into the article without a source other people can check later on; otherwise, people who make stuff up can also insert things and say, "Prove me wrong!" Instead, use your knowledge as a guide to find sources with the correct information. A direct quote from Jeff would be good because it can trump some of these other sources you're talking about. Doczilla  STOMP! 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source in the article does say he lived / grew up in Worthington.
 * http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/worthington/news/2008/08/27/0828wocartoonists_ln.html
 * "...And on Tuesday at convocation, those two funny guys returned to be honored as 2008 distinguished alumni of the Worthington schools." - Worthington schools, meaning he went to schools in that location.
 * "...Smith, whose parents still live in Worthington, resides in Columbus." - He lived with his parents, and they 'still' live there.
 * Though, I also found this: http://www.thelantern.com/2.1347/comic-creator-comes-back-to-campus-1.83310 ("The Worthington native is the creator of the "Bone" comic strip which was first published in The Lantern.")
 * &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC at List of Avengers members
This is a neutral request for comments to a ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Avengers members.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not So Dead in the New 52
List of deceased American comic book characters is a bit of mess now that a number of the characters listed there (e.g., Golden Glider]) have shown up alive in the New 52 comics. The pre-[[Flashpoint history's versions of them did indeed stay dead, but post-Flashpoint versions of some are alive and the status of most others is simply unknown. I have no opinion except to state that article in its current form is a big puzzle. Doczilla  STOMP! 08:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the entire thing should be deleted. We might as well have a List of television characters that have sneezed. If there are some incredible cases out there, we could have a List of notable comic book deaths article, but the list as it is now is just fancruft, and it's not even interesting fancruft. I can't even imagine why someone would read it. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given how fluid comic book death is, I would tend to agree, the current list is untenable since it becomes a list of character linked by the whip of writers and publishers. From a general use encyclopedia it's trivial at best. "notable comic book deaths" isn't much better since it opens the list up to what is "notable" for inclusion - Is it in respect to a story? Real world coverage? (I think that nets 4, 5 tops) Is it based on the character being notable? The degree of potential OR makes it a non-starter for me. - J Greb (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I found Comic book death seems to cover the ones I'd consider notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then, if Comic book death can cover the notable ones, we need to delete this article. It's now meaningless. Any objections? Doczilla  STOMP! 06:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now nominated the article for deletion and linked this discussion. Feel free to weigh in, support, object, sing, dance, discuss in whatever way you see fit. Doczilla  STOMP! 07:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI
I started doing some work with this. Finding sources is proving difficult, and I'm wondering if "Cartoonist" really warrants having a separate article from "Cartoon"—if done properly (a challenge in itself), I think there will be significant overlap.

I think it might be best to merge the two (thin, weak, and poorly sourced) articles into a single "Cartooning" article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Top importance articles?
To be honest, I think the "Importance" rankings are silly and far to subjective to worry about, but I do think special attention should be given to those the Project has deemed "Top" importance—if for nothing else, then to give the Project some badly-needed focus.

Obviously, these should be considered core articles to the project: articles like Comics, Comic strip, Cartoon are no-brainers. But then we get some articles (say, Doonesbury) which are merely popular or historically significant in some way, but don't necessary define the core ideas or culture of comics—especially when taking comics' worldwide history into account. Comics Code Authority, for instance, is completely irrelevant outside of North America, almost irrelevant to American comic strips, and not even close to relevant to American gag cartoonists.

I've removed a number of articles that just made my head hurt to see listed, but I think it would be best to discuss what we mean by "Top" importance. For instance, do characters, companies, genres, or titles even belong in the "Top" importance category? If they do, how strictly should they be limited? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed list of "indisputably" Top importance articles
Please add to, strike out, or comment on the items in the following list:

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comics
 * Comic strip
 * Cartoon
 * Cartoonist
 * Speech balloon — Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comic book — Takuy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Manga
 * British comics
 * American comic book
 * Franco-Belgian comics
 * Webcomic — Takuy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comics vocabulary and Glossary of comics terminology — Takuy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Graphic novel — Takuy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * History of comics -- Odie5533 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Golden Age of Comic Books -- Odie5533 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Silver Age of Comic Books -- Odie5533 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bronze Age of Comic Books -- Odie5533 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Modern Age of Comic Books -- Odie5533 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * DC Comics, Marvel Comics, Image Comics, IDW Publishing, Dark Horse Comics - Not sure if every publisher article should be top importance, but clearly some should be. — Takuy (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This could quickly get unwieldy, and also is a problem from a worldwide perspective. Out of the publishers listed above, is there a single one which has had any sort of impact whatsoever outside the English-speaking world?  Should we be including every major publisher from every culture?  Casterman?  Shogakukan, which has comics sales that outstrip the entire American comics industry, yet for which comics is only one of their publishing lines (along with novels, nonfiction, dictionaries, etc)?  What about comic strip syndicates, like King Features, which distributes worldwide, and has carried a large number of enormously popular strips?
 * The argument could be made for the historical and larger historical importance of DC and Marvel, but Dark Horse? Image?  IDW?  Are they in any way significant outside of the niche of being fairly successful American comic book companies?  Is financial usccess alone enough to warrant being considered core articles?  What about defunct companies?  Dell Comics had sales neither Marvel nor DC have ever attained.   Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mm, I just realized that below is TOP importance is HIGH importance. I guess that would satisfy various major and indie publishers around the world better. The reason I included IDW, and DH was the fact that they hold publishing rights to major franchises which are popular around the world, I'd say. DH also has/had a role in publishing international material to an American audience. If we include Manga as a TOP importance, the equivalent of a top manga publisher should be included as well, so, Shueisha and Viz Media should probably be included there as well. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Image Comics, IDW Publishing, Dark Horse Comics should be of top importance. Mainly because i have never heard of them. I added American comic book, British comics and Franco-Belgian comics on to the top importance list because I thought they were important and Manga is on the list so why not those three. There could also be a case for comics from other countries like Manhua, Manwa and Italian Comics but I thought these had less of an impact outside their respective countries than the three I put on the list. Eopsid (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked through Category: Top-importance Comics articles and added a link to this discussion on all the pages I thought should be removed from the Top Category. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your argument for including or removing particular articles?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria for the quality scale is here. I believe most of the articles currently listed as "Top" should be changed to "High". Understanding Wonder Woman, for example, isn't vital to understanding comics. But I'm American, and my comic knowledge is limited in scope. If I marked one in error, I'd be happy to learn why. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll be the first to propose creators, works, and characters: Superman, Batman, The Adventures of Tintin, Spider-Man, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Will Eisner. More just shooting ideas around rather than pushing for anything specifically to be added. Definitely no to Image Comics, IDW Publishing, Dark Horse Comics; I'd rank EC Comics above them in importance anyway. Also, don't forget to consider Underground comix, Alternative comics, and Superhero. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Either Hergé or The Adventures of Tintin needs to be top importance, they are the kickstart of the Franco-Belgian comics, and have by far the most sources about them of any European comics series/author. From the current list of top importance, I would remove:
 * Either Archie Andrews (comics) or Archie Comics
 * Detective Comics (we have Batman and DC Comics as Top, this one as well is overkill)
 * Doonesbury
 * Justice League
 * Little Orphan Annie

Note that all of these woiuld still be of High importance obviously, but to single them out as Top seems rather arbitrary. No suggestions on things to add, although perhaps Asterix could be swapped for René Goscinny, and I agree that Franco-Belgian comics would be a nice addition as well. Fram (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO anything that warrants a workgroup should be considered Top importance. Therefore, that would include the primary articles about: Comic strip, Comic book creator, Webcomic, British comics, Canadian comics, European comics, American comic book, Manga, DC Comics, Marvel Comics, Batman, Spider-Man and Superman. After that, the articles above that are about comics in general, would probably be of more importance than articles about specific comic books or strips that were influential (which could still be considered "High" importance). Of course it's all completely arbitrary, but that's my 2 cents. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For years now it has bothered me that the people who rank comics related articles usually rate superheroes much higher than comic strips, even if the superhero has, maybe 100,000 readers and the comic strip has 10,000,000 readers. Is Aquaman really more important than Alley Oop, outside of superhero fandom? Is Deadman really more important than Buz Sawyer? But I haven't tried to do anything about it because I don't think the ratings matter that much, and people like what they like, so I'm not apt to change any minds. However, since the subject has come up: I think clearly Doonesbury and Little Orphan Annie are of top importance, read by millions. Doonesbury has been commented on by presidents and won a Pulitzer Prize. Little Orphan Annie was popular for more than 50 years and was the subject of a Broadway play and a major film. I venture to guess that, conservatively, ten times as many people can identify Doonesbury and Little Orphan Annie than can identify Detective Comics or Justice League. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment that comic strips have been overshadowed by superhero comics at this project, and I definitely think Little Orphan Annie is of far more significance than Aquaman, but I have to object to the idea of using sales or awards as a determining factor. For instance, The Wizard of Id has run longer and in far more papers than Krazy Kat did.  Which strip has more significance?
 * Having said that, I don't think any of the strips you or I have named are of "Top" importance. All of them have had negligible impact outside of the Anglosphere, and thus are not of fundamental importance to understanding the medium.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts: ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I hope the items chosen have some interest to a worldwide audience.
 * 2) If a creator is closely associated with only one work, then I think the article on the work should take precedence over the creator (e.g. Peanuts should be given precedence over Charles Shulz, whereas Jack Kirby may (or may not) be given precedence over his many creations).
 * 3) I think franchises should be greatly downplayed. For instance, I removed Mickey Mouse from Top.  Mickey is of great cultural significance, and there have been mickey comic strips and comic books, but the character is not even remotely important to understanding the history of comics (as opposed to Uncle Scrooge, say).  Whether the character has been adapted into movies, TV, toys, trading cards, etc. should be entirely ignored, and the focus should be entirely on the character's role within the medium—which would give great precedence to Maus over the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
 * Something to discuss—Batman is well known in Japan, but through movies and not through comics (despite the country's famous insatiable appetite for comics). I live here, and have yet to meet anyone who has read and Batman (or Superman, or Spider-Man) comics.  These characters are certainly of prime importance within the Anglosphere, but what is the argument that they are significant to comics as a whole?
 * On the topic of Batman, I'd also argue for influence, as the character has become an immensely influential character archetype in the medium. Plus the fact that while he's been certainly popular in other media, the character was borne of comic books and to this day he remains closely tied to his roots (virtually ever piece of Batman media takes its main queues from the DC stories). WesleyDodds (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I think sales and other number games should be downplayed. Plenty of things that were hugely popular in the past have vanished nearly without a trace from the culture (not just in comics).


 * I think all individual series/characters/companies should be removed. Instead, add History of comics and other history related articles such as Golden Age of Comic Books, which then cover the individual companies/characters/series in a broader perspective. Also, I noticed the history of comics is barely even an article; that should really be fixed. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: the "Anglosphere". Comics, like Jazz, are primarily an American medium. This is not to downplay Manga or Tin Tin, both are of top importance, but rather to suggest that being primarily American does not mean a comic is not of top importance, just as Louis Armstrong is of top importance in Jazz. I agree that the number of readers is not the primary criteria. Neither is artistic value alone enough; if it were Hejji by Dr. Seuss would be of top importance, and it isn't. Krazy Kat is. Blondie is. Bringing Up Father is. And Peanuts is such a cultural icon that both the strip and the artist are. As for Mickey Mouse, sorry to disagree. You may not like Floyd Gottfredson. I am not that fond of the Mickey Mouse strip myself. But it is iconic, and that makes Mickey of top importance, along with Superman, Spider-man, and Batman. I would add Wonder Woman. Also, while I understand the topic under discussion is what is of top importance, I wish someone would upgrade Buz Sawyer from "Low Importance". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comics are not "primarily an American medium", although it might sometimes seem that way because comics fandom is primarily an American phenomenon. But fandom, as has been pointed out, is very narrow in its focus and doesn't always reflect historical or artistic significance. I'd concur with Peanuts as a top level article, and I'd agree that British comics is top level, although it's currently not a very good article. I'm in the process of rewriting it in my sandbox - any comments would be appreciated. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr Norwood, with all due respect, your assertion that comics is primarily an American phenomenon shows an assounding level of ignorance. The comic strip and comic book forms are certainly primarily American, but "comics" is much broader in scope than that, and the Franco-Belgian and Japanese traditions are of far broader cultural significance than you appear to understand.  The insularity of American comics fandom that Nicknack009 mentions above is widespread in this WikiProject, and is frustrating to deal with.
 * As a matter of of fact, I happen to love Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse strip, and have the Fantagraphics volumes on my shelf (and created the article on the series). Gottfredson was a wonderful cartoonist, but the fact is that if there were never a Mickey Mouse strip, the history of American comic strips would pretty much look the same.  You could not say that about Little Nemo, Krazy Kat, Thimble Theater, Little Orphan Annie, Pogo, or Peanuts—strips whose impact within comics goes far, far beyond merely the number of readers they attained or the number of movies made from their franchises (in other words, take away all the money and all the adaptations, and you are still left with important comics).  Mickey Mouse is of top significance to animation and pop culture, and as a fictional character, but within comics as comics?  That's impossible to swallow.  Mickey Mouse will get all the attention he needs from the projects to whom he is properly important.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

May I propose that "cultural phenomenon" not be allowed as an argument for "Top" imortance within WikiProject Comics? I think we should be limiting "Top" importance articles to articles which have considerable significance within the medium of comics. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I've only been reading and studying comics for sixty years, I suppose I'll have to work a little harder to overcome my "assounding level of ignorance". However, please note that I did mention Manga and Tin Tin in my comment, agree that they are of top importance, and never claimed that comics were exclusively an American artform.


 * You don't think Mickey Mouse was of top importance in comics. Read one of Bill Blackbeard's articles on the influence of Gottfredson in turning comics from pure humor to a medium for adventure stories.  Others might have done the same, Roy Crane or even Herge, but Gottfredson made major innovations.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I say top importance should not only be limited to "articles which have considerable significance within the medium of comics" but also ones that are essential to understanding the subject, ie. the sort of articles you'd direct a person to on Wikipedia if they knew nothing about comics and wanted to learn. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Astounding level of ignorance" referred specifically to your claim that comics is an American medium—a claim that has been blown apart numerous times in the last several decades, often by your own publisher. I also didn't claim Gottfredson wasn't innovative, but that his work's impact is not one that is of prime importance to the medium as a whole.  You're not claiming that his impact was on the level of the six strips I listed above, are you?   Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please watch the name calling; the outcome of this discussion is largely irrelevant—no one will ever even know our decision, or that this discussion even took place, so no need to get too hot over it. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit I was less than tactful in my choice of words. For this, I apologize.
 * Having said that, I do feel the need to emphasize that Mr Norwood's assertion that comics is "primarily an American medium" is completely without foundation and has been debunked so many times that I am astounded that someone would push such a claim in 2013 on an internationally-focused site like Wikipedia.  It's not being politically correct to give Franco-Belgian and Japanese comics at least equal footing with American comics—it's historically correct.  Many of the most important American comics have had negligible impact outside their culture.  Both the Franco-Belgian and (especially) the Japanese comics traditions have achieved market and cultural penetration over the last several generations that American comics could only dream of.
 * So, it appears we have quickly brought out some polarizing ideas about what should be considered "Top" importance article: Odie5533, on the one hand, believes that "all individual series/characters/companies should be removed".  Rick Norwood, on the other hand, believes Blondie, Wonder Woman, and Mickey Mouse should be included.
 * Personally, I think certain fundamental creators and creations should be included, as per WesleyDodds's statement that the Top imortance articles should include articles "that are essential to understanding the subject, ie. the sort of articles you'd direct a person to on Wikipedia if they knew nothing about comics and wanted to learn." I imagine Osamu Tezuka, The Adventures of Tintin, Shigeru Mizuki, Winsor McCay, Jean Giraud, Jack Kirby, Asterix, Superman, and Peanuts would be amongst them.  Where do we draw the line?  At what level of success/innovation/influence do we include/exclude an article for "Top" importance?
 * The main comics traditions (American, Franco-Begian, and Japanese) have been pretty isolated from each other until recent decades, so I think it's inevitable that certain creators' and creations' influence is more-or-less limited to being within their respective cultures. I also believe we should avoid getting carried away with adding too many of these to "Top" (core, fundamental) importance (there's nothing shameful about "High" importance).  Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. I am hardly the first person to observe that jazz and comics are the two art forms created in America.  Many of my favorite artists: Moebius. Hugo Pratt, and Milo Minara to mention just three, are not American.  I think that, because of your impatience with people who only know American comics, you overstate the need for a comic not to be confined to "the Anglosphere" to be of fundamental importance.  Certainly the six strips you name are of Top Importance.  I would add Prince Valiant, Terry and the Pirates, Captain Easy, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Tarzan, plus more recent strips: Doonesbury, Bloom County, The Far Side, and Calvin & Hobbes.


 * You say the main comic traditions have been pretty isolated from each other until recent decades. On the contrary, I see the influence of American comics, especially comic strips, having a huge impact on comics in Britain, France, Belgium, and Japan.  Some of that influence has been traced in publications such as Hop and Comicguia.  It is true it was only in the 1980s that the European and Japanese artists began to have a large impact on American comics, particularly in the work of Frank Miller.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're certainly not "the first person to observe that jazz and comics are the two art forms created in America", but all that means is you're not the first person to be wrong - about comics anyway, I wouldn't dispute jazz, or for that matter most forms of popular music from the 20th century on. But Rodolphe Töpffer was drawing comics in Switzerland in the 1830s, and Germany's Max and Moritz and the UK's Ally Sloper predate the Yellow Kid by a couple of decades. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A big difference between comics and jazz: there were proto-comics and not-so-proto-comics appearing in many countries on different continents before the form came into its own and spread in the 20th century—comics was clearly a medium waiting to happen (and, to a degree, was happening).  Jazz, on the other hand, was never going to happen anywhere else than in the States—there was no European or African proto-jazz.  Even today, jazz musicians from Hong Kong or Geneva learn jazz from the examples of the (Afro-)American masters—there is no non-American jazz tradition without its feet firmly planted in the forms and idioms of the American traditions.  Now compare that to the Japanese comics tradition, whose idioms and forms are so thoroughly Japanese that most of its practioners often can't even name a work of American comics they have read, let alone claim an American influence.  I've met more Japanese who have read Tintin comics than have read any American comics, and Tintin itself is pretty fringe here as well—typically stocked in the children's section rather than the comics section of bookstores.  Japanese people gobble up American movies, pop music, and novels, but the largest comics market in the world has no room for American comics.  It's hard for me to accept the primacy of American comics when the reality stares me in the face every day.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar template for comics by country
I want to add a sidebar template to the Comics by countries article. Basically to turn Template:Comics region into a sidebar to appear on each article. See Template:Islam by country for an example. WP:NAVBOX recommends, "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate." --Odie5533 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe Comics region could be combined with Infobox comics nationality, like this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that Template:Infobox comics nationality should be deleted. It seems very strange to me to have an infobox about a nation's comics since it's more an abstract idea than like a concrete comic book or film. Compare to like History of biology which has the History of Science series template or Liberalism in the United States which has the Liberalism series template. Some topics are suited for infoboxes, but I don't think comic book nationalities are. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2-ish¢
 * The navbox is present to provide links among the entire group. IIRC 4 or 5 (US, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan I'm sure of) have other side bars. The footer avoids arguing about which sidebar(s) should be in place and in what order. - J Greb (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Template/navbox inclusion
If an article is linked inside of a Navbox, should that Navbox appear on that article? The majority of the articles linked in Template:The New 52 do not have the actual navbox on the article. I asked on the template's talk page, but no one responded. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if an article is linked to from a navbox, that article should contain the navbox. Now whether or not that navbox should include that link is another question. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The New 52 articles
Hi. I noticed there aren't many articles about the New 52. Most of the links at List of New 52 publications point to more general articles that aren't specifically about the New 52 title. A lot of sources seem to talk about specific issues, and that level of detail would often be too fine for including in those links. I created two articles, The Secret of the Cheetah and Throne of Atlantis, but I realized there is a slight complication here: (1) not all issues are part of a larger arc, but may still receive enough reviews to warrant an article per the GNG. How should these be handled? (2) some titles have two stories, like Justice League #13–14 has the "The Secret of the Cheetah" arc and it has the "Shazam" arc. I think these can be handled with two articles, one for the "The Secret of the Cheetah" and one for the "Shazam", but I would be open to other input on this.

I was thinking of creating an article at Justice League, volume 2 or Justice League (The New 52), and then that article could discuss the new series and link to individual story arcs. Does this seem to be a good level of granularity and a logical division? --Odie5533 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will agree that our standard on how to present info concerning "the new 52" is a mess. As things currently stand it's very hard as a reader to tell whether a character's history is pre crisis, post crisis, zero hour, etc. and especially the new 52.
 * I think that this should be something we prioritise in the WikiProject, to see if we can get this all cleaned up. - jc37 23:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a new article for each arc, or book volume, or event is necessarily a good idea. The current Justice League article is about the team, and it's various incarnations. Would each arc really be relevant or notable in the long run? Though, what could potentially be done, is to split the Justice League article off into Justice League, and Publication history of the Justice League. As demonstrated on Category:Comic book publication histories, some articles are fashioned in a such a way, a lot more need to. (probably a separate page for Fictional Character Biography of x in some cases). On the Batman article, under Publication History, there is a main link to List of Batman comics, which does not serve as a proper "publication history" in my eyes. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be why the list is using seealso not main...
 * Aside from that... Creating new pages just to have more room for plot dumping isn't a good thing. And in most cases, pulling out the PH also remove any real world context in the article.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, my comments above are suggesting that we need article cleanup, not supporting article splits. Whether we split articles should be per WP:SS on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Publication history sections I'm seeing don't give much in way of critical reception, or only a very general idea of it. They seem more useful for a team or character article than for a publication article. Provided it is met by the GNG, I think an article for each volume is usually warranted—a lot could be written about Justice League (The New 52). The naming conventions recommends the ", volume 2", but I think using (The New 52) is a lot clearer; it also avoids confusing the volume with the TPB volume. Which should be used? Re: the issue-level granularity, I was thinking one possibility would be dividing them by TPBs, and having separate articles for the crossover arcs. e.g. Batman & Robin, Volume 2: Pearl and "Night of the Owls". Then within the TPB article we could have a Story header and subheaders for the individual arcs. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts...
 * GNG is a biggie, but so is WP:PLOT. Creating a page that is only a massive, detail oriented, issue-by-issue plot summary bucks PLOT big-time. Taking an article like Justice League and splitting off the PH to just leave the in-story team history is a problem. Further splitting those into realities (pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, New 52, etc), eras ("Original", "Satellite", "Watchtower", "New 50", etc), and individual title variations and volumes (Justice League of America volume 1,2,&3; Justice League volume 1 & 2; JLA; etc) extends the problem since becomes less and less real world context for the articles and more and more a push to add every plot point.
 * Naming conventions for publications should be followed. Full stop. "The New 52" is a marketing slogan and not preferable to "volume 2, 3, 8, or what ever". TPB or story arc title, if they meet GNG for article creation, can side step the inclusoin of ", Volume #" in the article title while retaining that information in the lead or PH under a "Reprinted in..." line. "Pearl" would, again if it passes GNG and isn't solely a plot dump, would be an article on a story arc, so it would likely be dabbed a "Pearl" (story) or "Pearl" (Batman story).
 * - J Greb (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I only mentioned the idea of using "(The New 52)" to disambiguate naming because using the ", volume #" method is confusing since volume numbers are not always consistent between sources and volumes can also refer to TPB volumes, whereas "(The New 52)" makes it clear what is being referred to, even if it is a marketing slogan. There is not consensus to use my proposed method, so I would of course employ the general naming conventions. Re: the issue-level granularity, what method would you suggest for organization? At this point, I am thinking a TPB-level granularity with additional pages for crossover arcs seems logical (e.g. having Batman & Robin, Volume 2: Pearl and "Night of the Owls", with the former being the TPB-level covering the TPB's issues and the latter being a crossover arc covering the arc itself as well as the issues that comprise it, written in the context of the larger arc). --Odie5533 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing... not every Batman publication, issue, story, arc, trade, etc is going to be notable. "Patch" trades, and it looks like Pearl is going to be one since it includes, by DC's solicit, 4 stand alone stories (1 that is part of "Night of the Owls" and one that is purely flashback) and 1 3 issue arc ("Terminus"). are a tougher sell based on GNG. There has to be something, other than completeness and/or a need to dump the plot into Wikipedia, to make the article(s). And then it needs to be specific to the TPB instead of one issue or story it contains. - J Greb (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what type of division you are suggesting. My thinking is that if a TPB has 7 issues and each issue has received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it might make sense to group them together into an article about the TPB that discusses the individual issues. Alternatively we could have articles for every issue, or we could have articles for every arc. What division would you suggest? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * "Significant coverage" shouldn't be just one or two reviews or multiple reviews that just regurgitate the plot. And promotional pieces - solicits and "read the issue and find out" interviews - aren't even considered.
 * If an individual issue or a story arc have "significant coverage", there can be justification for separate articles. Those articles need to include the real world context though, not just dump detailed plot summaries into the page. If the story is reprinted, that would be part of its real world context, but not a reason to give the reprint its own article.
 * A filler or patch trade can be more notable than the individual stories it contains. But again, this needs more than just solicits for the trade or adding up the not-quite-significant/non-significant coverage of the material it reprints.
 * I'll repeat: Not every story, issue, arc, title, trade, or character associated with Batman (or DC or comics in general) meets GNG. A lot of what has been published in comics won't meet inclusion criteria on Wikipedia, and there is a general, project level push to redirect those to places like DC Database, Marvel Database, Batman Wikia, and similar.
 * - J Greb (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. You said significant coverage of individual issues or a story arc would justify an article, but that would be a lot of articles. Wouldn't it be better to group them together by Trade paperbacks if all 7 issues received significant coverage, even if the TPB itself didn't? Also, what is a "filler or patch" trade? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A "filler" or "patch" trade is one that covers a run of issues that aren't a single story arc.

As for the number of articles... IF there is significant coverage, the number of articles generated isn't an issue. General practice would be that an article on a story or issue would focus on the publication, critical response, and real-world impact of it. NOT just a synopsis of the story.

- J Greb (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of workgroups
I've noticed that the workgroups are pretty inactive. What exactly is their current purpose? Are they obsolete?

The WikiProject Comics/Superman work group hasn't seen much discussion or anything. There is a to-do list, in which most of the items seem completed. The same goes for WikiProject Comics/Batman work group. What's the point of keeping the workgroups around, if they're never actually used to enhance article quality? The concept of them sure sounds great - and lots of things could have workgroups (Green Lantern, New 52, Marvel Now, etc), but why do people never actually contribute to the groups? --&#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if the Project were as active as other Projects. I think an insufficient number of active & motivated editors is part of the problem—it seems like a lot of editors have jumped ship, and have had few replacements.
 * You won't see any discussions at WikiProject Comics/Canadian comics work group, but I personally use the project for tracking statistics and for taking care of categorization, etc. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say they're fairly obsolete at this point, there's such disorganization there and I think the subjects are too broad (Marvel Comics and DC Comics should almost be their own wikiprojects). I think people just edit the comics articles here and there where they see fit for now, and the project has kind of fallen out of use. It could do with some sense of direction, but it's hard to figure out where to start and if many editors would really contribute. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and no... WP:Superman was converted to a WG was mainly 1) it wasn't really active and 2) to keep the comics articles consistent. Splitting of DC and/or Marvel IMO would open that second aspect up again.
 * - J Greb (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the comics workgroups as a useful tool, for classifying groups of articles about specific comics subjects. Sure, some of them are more active than others, but some of them cover larger subjects than others too. Having them all be part of the same WikiProject, helps to keep comics articles consistent. But, if you want to update a group of articles that specifically deals with creators, or Marvel Comics, or Batman, the workgroups make it easier to do that. As for the lack of participation, maybe the criteria for joining a workgroup should be stricter, so that any editor who adds their name to the "Participants" section of a workgroup, knows that more will be expected of them. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than making htings "stricter" (and frightening away potential supporters), maybe just split the list into "Active participants" and "Supporters". As someone who lurked around Wikipedia making infrequent edits for years before growing some balls and becoming an active editor, I'm in favour of keeping barriers low.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, the idea is definitely to encourage participation. I just meant that it should be clearer what is expected of joining a workgroup, because so many editors simply sign their name, with no intention of doing anything more. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In other media
I propose that Category:Comics characters in other media and all its sub-cats should follow the pattern "Works based on Foo" rather than "Foo in other media". This should go all the way; we already have, so should change to. This would be consistent with various CfD outcomes in 2012. Would these renames have the support of this WikiProject? – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links to any of the relevant CfDs? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm consulting here first – I'll only start CfDs if WP Comics editors are not opposed to the suggestion.
 * Also, could we drop the word "characters" from all those categories? The categories by medium are Category:Films based on DC comics rather than Category:Films based on DC comics characters. The connection to  should be by "see also" links rather than parent-child as at present. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see...
 * You stated "This would be consistent with various CfD outcomes in 2012." I'll ask the same thing Odie5533 asked, which CfDs? Consulting here is fine, but if you are going to frame the request as there is a wider consensus for the change, provide the link.
 * I agree the "See also" should be used to tie the base AV and IoM categories since the article structure that spawned these differentiate between adaptations/alternate versions in comics and adaptations to other media.
 * I can also see changing the "Foo (media)" titles to "(Media) based on Foo".
 * As for the base "Foo in other media" title, those are consistent with the Project level MoS for the articles.
 * "Characters" in the case of the base categories is consistent with their content.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pardon my being thick there. The main CfD that I had in mind was Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 24, but there were others along similar lines e.g. Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 1.
 * As I read your comments, you would support what I have suggested at the lower levels. Perhaps I should start there. Once those have been renamed e.g. "Films based on Foo", then this project may consider changing its MoS from "Category:Foo in other media" to "Category:Works based on Foo" to match other subject areas.
 * Likewise, we would be able to consider later whether to keep the word "characters" in the higher category names. If we do so, we could have e.g. Category:Works based on comics characters and Category:Works based on DC Comics characters. The latter could have a new parent Category:Works based on DC Comics, which would also hold the existing Category:Films based on DC comics. I'm not certain whether the extra level for "characters" is necessary, but if this Project wants to keep it, then that is one way in which it could work. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam Warlock
Is this OK? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The original version was correct. I reverted it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no article for Green Lantern/Green Arrow
I'm flabbergasted by this, but the seminal series Green Lantern/Green Arrow does not seem to have its own article. Is this right? I turned it into a redirect to the section of the Neal Adams article that discusses it, but unless there's been a discussion on this that determined otherwise, someone should add it to the list of articles that the Project needs to create. I don't know how to add it myself. Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the redirect, I think it should point to Green Arrow
 * though, wasn't that title just the cover title for Green Lantern volume 2? The actual series GL/GA was just reprints? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just realized we had a Green Lantern book article. Redirect should point to Green Lantern (comic book), probably.&#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As Takuy points out, it's part of Green Lantern volume 2. IIRC it was just the cover title from the series return from hiatus through c 1980. That said, the O'Neil/Adams run should be covered there with the real-world context it has garned for the GL series. - J Greb (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"List of New 52 DC Characters"
There apparently exists an article, List of New 52 DC Characters, which has no real purpose. It's unmaintainable and not realistic to have a list of every character that has appeared in The New 52. Especially when there is already lists for Superheroes and villains in DC Comics, or whatever. The reason I'm posting this here, is that I don't know how to tag it for deletion. Speedy deletion? AfD? What kind? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely not speedy. AFD it in this case if you want. And if you are ever not sure, AFD is the way to go. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not WP:PROD? The deletion seems to be uncontroversial. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the PROD first. It's an unreferenced, fan-centric, un-encyclopedic, arbitrary list. - J Greb (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not speedy, but otherwise AfD is appropriate. Doczilla  STOMP! 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently, there was no rationale provided for the PROD (though, a reason was provided in the edit summary, and J Greb endorsed it giving a proper rationale, just not in the 'concern' parameter), this has to be AfD'd now. Would anyone mind setting up the AfD? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think the article should be deleted, can't you AfD it yourself? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that I 'think' it should be deleted, it SHOULD be deleted. And yes, I'm able to, but I'd rather have someone else do it properly. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

SSDI
I have been going through the articles on American comics creators, and adding links to the SSDI for all who have passed away. I have been having trouble with Gordon Bess, as he does not seem to come up in the index. His DoB was given as 1929 and the dates were unsourced; I was able to find a picture of his tombstone online so I could fill in the full date. Any idea why I could not find him in the SSDI? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Same issue with George Caragonne, Sid Couchey, and Charles Crumb - can't find them in SSDI, and don't know why. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Social Security Death Index, the SSDI includes 93 percent to 96 percent of deaths of individuals aged 65 or older for years after 1973. Of the ones you're searching for, only Sid Couchey lived to be over 65. I guess you found one of the 4 percenters. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, OK, I didn’t realize that. I know that Social Security hasn't been around forever, and most people who died in the first half of the 20th century may not have even been on it, and a lot of elderly people who died in (let's say) 1950-1975 may not have had an SSN either.  In my experience, I'd say most people – or maybe all people – born after 1940 probably have an SSN.  And just about everyone who died after 1980 is in the SSDI regardless of age – I had an uncle who died last year in his 50s and he is in there.  I have found a lot of people by searching alternate names and playing with the dates and such, but no luck for any of these guys. If someone isn't American, I know they won't be in there either. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dennis and Gnasher
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Dennis_and_Gnasher, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Tyrol5   [Talk]  01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography questions
Something I've noticed in a number of articles on comics creators is that their bibliography section lists all the other members of the creative team for each issue. Is this correct, or should I be removing such details where I see them? It just doesn't seem to fit with how other biographical articles are done; an article on a musician doesn't list all the other musicians for each album he or she appears on, an article on a video game developer doesn't list the staff for each game he worked on, an article on an actor doesn't list his co-stars for each film, etc.

Another point I'm unsure on is trade paperback collections where some but not all of the stories reprinted feature contributions from the article's subject. Say a collection reprints Recorder Man #78-97 and 102-104, and the creator in question worked on issues #82-97 and 102. One thing I've seen done is to note simply "reprints #82-97 and 102" in the listing, just as though those were the only ones included. Other articles I've seen would write "includes #82-97 and 102". Still others would make no note of which issues are reprinted in the collection, and though I haven't seen any, I imagine some go the whole hog with something like "reprints Recorder Man #78-97 and 102-104, Creator A penciled issues #82-97 and inked issues #95-97 and 102". Which is the way to go?--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from with the first point: the bibliography is Joe Doe's body of work, they should be the only one mentioned. At least on Joe Doe's bio.
 * As for the second... Unless the trade is title something like Joe Doe's Best Stuperman Stories, there really is no reason for the trades to be listed. As a body of work, the important thing is to lay out when the person wrote/drew/inked the work. Not how often the work has been reprinted.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Green Lantern Corps
I opened up a discussion at Talk:Green Lantern Corps, about the main topic of the article, but no response so far. Just want to bring some notice to it, so, comment if you have any ideas or something to say, if you have the time, please. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

More eyes needed at BoP navbox talk
Project-wise more eyes could be pointed at Template talk:Birds of Prey and Template talk:Birds of Prey.

Small bullet-point history: Given that it's a comic book related template, eyes from here seems to make sense.
 * Birds of Prey was originally created under the title of Black Canary February 24, 2011.
 * It was moved to the broader topic March 19, 2011. (talkpage note at Re-purposing}
 * The BC template went through an attempted recreations June 22-23, 2011, August 8, 2011 (discussion at the time under Separating}, and February 22-23 2013 ("Splitting").
 * At this point it has had a turn at WP:ANEW and a post has been made at WP:THIRD as a result of the ANEW action.

"Splitting" is with regard to splitting off/recreating the Black Canary-centric template.

"Supporting Characters" is with regard to an alternate method of including team mebers other than the originals as per general project level consensus.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is a Q&A session on Reddit reliable?
This is a general question, but I'm specifically asking about this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked this at WP:RS recently and I think the answer was yes, but should be considered a self-published source, thus carrying the appropriate hazards with that. --M ASEM  (t) 14:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Green Goblin
Is this edit OK? It seems fairly problematic to me, poorly formatted, poorly cited, overdetailed, and often out of chronological order. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. There may be something in there of value, but it is definitely taking the article in the wrong direction. - J Greb (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Matt Fox (comics)
I think that this is him, but I need some additional verification. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on how we can confirm this? I will try to find something today. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I stay away from using such records, precisely because it's impossible to know if that person and the subject of the article are one and the same. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I want to find other sources, to see if those dates are correct. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

George Herriman FAC
I've nominated the George Herriman article for FAC, with the hope of having it appear as Today's Featured Article on 13 October 2013, which is the 100th anniversary of his signature work, Krazy Kat. Any attention, feedback, and support would be greatly appreciated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Character disambiguation
Please consider joining the discussion here on how to properly disambiguate the article Nemesis (Marvel Comics). Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Scott Allie
Hi. Can as many editors as possible offer their opinions on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed template change
Can we please make two modifications to the comic citation template to make it clearer and more in line with how the industry treats issue and page numbers?
 * First, can we change it so that the number sign (#) appears before the issue number in the saved article? I think I recall someone telling me somewhere on WP that this is not how publications generally write out issue numbers, but I think it is how the comic industry writes it. It would make it much clearer and more easily recognizable to those familiar with reading comics.
 * Second, can we add the word page, or pages or even p. or pp. in front of the page number, when applicable? I know that most comic cites don't include a page number, but I just added a citation to two articles that did include a page number, here and here, and the problem with it is that in the saved article, the citation reads like this:


 * Vaughan, Brian K. (w), Staples, Fiona (a). "Chapter Ten" Saga 10: 23 (February 2013), Image Comics

Notice that after the issue number is a colon, followed by the page number. Do you think this is clear to a reader? What it should look like is something like this:


 * Vaughan, Brian K. (w), Staples, Fiona (a). "Chapter Ten" Saga #10, pg 23 (February 2013), Image Comics

Any thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with both of those. The # for comics is an explicitly stated exception in the MoS, and the page number is definately not clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just some points...
 * The current format is based on standard magazine citing. The only tweak being to get "v3, 66" instead of "3 (6)".
 * A hard coded "#" does have a problem in cases where it isn't normally used or shouldn't be used. 2000 AD, Deathmate, and 52 come to mind.
 * Pages and panels (if we're going to do one, we should do the other as well) would require extra coding and parameters to deal with multiples. "(s)" is more or less fine in the infoboxes, but not in the footnotes.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just a matter of having |panel and |panels parameters, as the cite book family have |page and |pages parameters? It sounds almost like a copy & paste job to me.
 * The MoS used to recommend using the Abbr template for #; there were technical problems with Abbr using #, though, so I created the # template, which I've been using in comics articles (for instance, " Yummy Fur #32 " [used to produce] "Yummy Fur #26").
 * Just curious: what is the issue with 2000 AD, Deathmate, and 52?
 * ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-standard issue numbers. 2000 AD, from what I've seen, is rendered "prog ####", 52 by indicia used "Week ##", and Deatmate used colors. And those are the ones that are clear the "#" shouldn't be included. There are also a number of α and Ω issues.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Standard magazine citing With all due respect to the magazine industry, comics are not magazines (they are rarely if at all, referred to as such), and they're not a part of the journalism industry (except for things like Comics Journal, and even then that's an industry-specific journalistic publication). I believe what is more important is that the information in the citations be clear to those acquainted with comics, and also to newcomers. Even someone who doesn't know about comics, in looking for a book to buy as a gift, might research the book on Wikipedia, and will need the issue number in order to go looking for it. The lack of the number sign just plain looks bad.
 * Non-standard issue numbers Things like Deathmate and 52 are clearly exceptions. With Deathmate, you could just put "Yellow" or "Blue" or "Black" in the title value. You could do the same with 52, perhaps putting the week in parenthesis.
 * Requiring extra coding and parameters So be it. Already now there are templates that have many values that often go unused, and which I often delete from the articles in which it is not used. If necessary, we can do the same with these new ones. Hell, most of the comic citation templates I use do not make use of the page value. But it does come in handy on those occasions where it's necessary.
 * "(s)" is more or less fine in the infoboxes, but not in the footnotes. What do you mean by "(s)"? Nightscream (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the infobox of, oh, Louis Riel (comics), where it tells it the "creator(s)" is/are Chester Brown. Personally, I think it's a clutterful eyesore, and don't understand why it has been considered "acceptable", especially in something as prominently in-your-face as an infobox.  Of course, that applies to Infobox novel (e.g. Dubliners) as well, so it's not just an issue with this project.
 * Re: unusual numbering: the sfn template allows for |page=, |pages=, and |loc= parameters. |loc= is used when conventional page numbering doesn't apply (e.g. "back cover").  I'm sure something like that could be whipped up to handle things like 2000 AD, Deathmate, and 52.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

An attempt at redoing the cite comic template
In the interest of maximum flexibility, I've whipped up a new citation template for comics. This works for both issues and bound volumes (graphic novels, graphic albums, whatever). You can see it in my sandbox at.

Here's a standard example:



And one for funny page numbers (there are |issue-prefix= and |issue-postfix= parameters):



I wnet and changed the formatting to whatever I felt was best: I moved the date to after the creators, as other Citation/core templates; I dropped the |format= parameter (why would it be necessary?); I dropped the |cartoonist= parameter; the |creator= parameter takes its place, and doesn't display anything in parentheses, which I think is more flexible, as it includes fumetti creators, as well as creators like Harvey Kurtzman who, while they usually don't produce the final artwork, are hardly merely "writers"; I changed the page/panel format to page:panel, as the slash can be interpreted so many ways (and Chester Brown uses the page:panel format); etc etc etc.

It's totally incompatible with cite comic, so it's not intended be be a direct replacement; if people are interested in using it, I'd probably move it to cite comics.

Would someone like to give it a test run and provide feedback? I think it solves Nightscream's issue at the very least, and also takes into account JGreb's issue with...uh...issues? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your hard work, but that seems way too complicated, and it's not clear to me how to use the "ref" value. Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I based much of the template on the code of Citation/core templates like citation book, and like those templates, the |ref= parameter is not necessary (I should have left it out of the examples). Citation/core templates are used on close to two million articles—one of the most popular families of templates.  I couldn't base it directly on Citation/core, like citation book is, because of the complications of the different types of comics creators.  The |ref= parameter allows editors to make use of citation templates like harvnb or sfn, if they so choose.


 * A minimal example:




 * A less minimal example:




 * Nightscream's example:




 * Even simpler:




 * You can see that the template allows for a great degree of flexibility—only two parameters are mandatory, but a wide array is available for different needs. It's only as complicated as you want to make it.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW (And given my track record over the past week...)
 * I don't see a need to relocate a heavily used template.
 * No relocation has been proposed. It would be another option for those who want/need it.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having imbedded creates a wholly mess with multiple references of comics in the footnotes. If we are going to go from the perspective that conventional citing uses the format, then we can also go with the conventional formatting not needing to be explained.
 * There's no template included, just  tags.  Either way, it's easily removed if that's the consensus.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding the given/surname split and creator parameters does not seem necessary. What's currently there works well enough and does not mandate a third parameter - joblink - to wikilink the person in the ref.
 * It ensures consistent formatting, is consistent with the far-more-widely-used Citation/core family of templates, and is optional, as is plain from the last example. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "pages" Looks like it would be an easy-ish go - the parameter is already looked for. It's just adding the "p" and "pp" options.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are there ellipses under the number signs? And why are the (w) and (a) descriptions italicized? Also, can we put the date after the issue number? Nightscream (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "ellipses" are put there by your browser when something is surrounded by tags; they signal to the reader that, if you mouse-over the item, you'll get more information about it: for example, if you mouseover CCA, it should tell you that CCA stnads for Comics Code Authority.  It's easily removed from the code if that's not what people want.
 * (w) and (a) are italicized because I felt like they should be distinguished from the date in some fashion. It's something that's easily changed if it bothers people.
 * I put the date after the creators because that is the standard for templates, and I couldn't see any reason why one for comics should be different; this is consistent with the short citation standard SURNAME YEAR, and makes it easier to find the correct citation.  Again, it could be changed if that's the consensus, but I think it would be a bad idea.
 * ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all your hard work, Curly. :-) I would favor removing the ellipsis and italics on the creator credit descriptions. Since the comic book industry tends to emphasize issue number over date (in contrast to other types of publications), I would think moving it to after the issue number or publisher would be a good idea. What does everyone else think? Nightscream (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the s, but I'll wait for more feedback on the rest.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the date after the issue number, but I have no reason beyond aesthetics. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems this template solves
——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It allows for an anchor, as in Harvard-style referencing, which is becoming quite common all over Wikipedia (see Template:Citation/doc). I've been using cite journal instead of  because of this lack.
 * 2) It allows for funny page numbering while maintaining the standard "#" numbering that is overwhelmingly the standard in comics
 * 3) It allows editors to choose not to specify the rôle a creator played, in cases where the rôle is ambiguous, unknown, or better categorized under "other", or if the editor feels it's just unnecessary clutter to include such information.
 * 4) It handles bound volumes like graphic novels, graphic albums, TPBs, whatever, which neither nor  really handle adequately ( doesn't handle panels or the different creative rôles,  doesn't handle anchors, which I refuse to do without).
 * 5) It formats panels in an easier-to-intuit way (seriously, a slash could mean anything—I've been collecting comics for thirty years, and it wasn't in the least obvious to me).


 * FYI: I added ref to cite comic back in July. I don't think it would be that difficult to update this to — I have done a number of such conversions. And panel can be easily supported; see cite map which supports fields such as scale, series, version and cartography. And there is work in progress to update the CS1 templates to Lua to improve performance. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ref= is there in the source, isn't it? Any other undocumented parameters?
 * Any comments on #2–4? I find #3 particularly desirable (I've been extensively editing Harvey Kurtzman-related articles, and specifying Kurtzman as "writer" or "writer-atist" is simply wrong).  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ref is documented at the end of 'Description of parameters'. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I was thrown off by it not being used in any of the examples, and there being no full parameter set (as Zoli79 noted). Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions - "Code Name (character Name)" vs "Character Name"
I've been noticing that there is a huge inconsistency in article naming. I've looked through old article moves, and discussions, and there are some pretty contradictory things going on. Firstly, lets examine some shared codenames and related articles:

Sandman
 * Sandman (disambiguation) -- Okay, a dab page for the usage of 'Sandman' anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * Sandman (comics) -- Comic related. This is fine.
 * Sandman (DC Comics) -- Here, we reach DC Comics' characters with the Sandman. This is fine.
 * Sandy Hawkins -- A previous holder of the identity. This, to me, is fine.
 * Sandman (Wesley Dodds) -- The original and current holder of the Identity. This is off to me. Why isn't the article just named Wesley Dodds?

Flash
 * Flash -- Dab page
 * Flash (comics) -- DC comics Flash stuff, acts as a Dab page for the identity holders, and discussion on the Flash.
 * Flash (Jay Garrick) -- Why is the article not just titled Jay Garrick?
 * Flash (Barry Allen) -- Why is the article not titled Barry Allen (comics)?
 * Wally West -- Just his name.
 * Bart Allen -- Just his name.

I know that according to the naming conventions for articles, we should use Flash (Barry Allen) for example. But, Barry Allen is known well enough that the article should just be titled that.

According to the naming conventions - we titled various Green Lantern articles with the codename way, though they were changed later on, they are still used as the exemplar. Are the naming conventions out of date? Should they be changed? Or are we as editors just inconsistent with the naming of articles? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the prefered way is to title it by how they're best known. That's why Carol Danvers redirects to Ms. Marvel, even though she's had several different codenames. Wally West and Bart Allen had other codenames besides "Flash", and are best known by their regular identies. Of course, "best known" is subjective, so there will always be some disagreement. Overall, I wouldn't worry about it unless it's something which actually seems wrong, not just inconsistant. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Comic Book DB a WP:RS?
I’m sorry if this has been discussed before, but is Comic Book DB a reliable source? Its content appears to be user-contributed, like WIkipedia or IMDB, so I would think no. (And it doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article.) —Frungi (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Content is user-generated, so no, not a reliable source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested
Please weigh in on a merge discussion here. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Examiner online articles
The online Examiner newspaper (I guess that's what it would be called), under its various titles like New York Examiner, Sioux Falls Examiner, and god knows how many others, seems to have a number of articles about comics in general, including fairly regularly reviews of individual issues. I was wondering whether any of the rest of you have access to it, and, if you don't if you might want me to do what I can to maybe help some of you get access to them. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A Contract with God
An editor has recently contacted WikiProject Judaism regarding some material he recently added to the above article relating to the Jewish aspects of the work. I have made some comments on the articles talk page, but would also welcome input from others who know the work better than I do and who might know better how much of the material being discussed might actually be based on people Eisner knew, and how much might reflect his own knowledge or lack of same regarding Jewish religious culture. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchmen
A little bit of a edit dispute is going on in this page. There is also a request for more opinions on the talk page. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Heroes - Voice Actors
I recently attempted to update several Marvel character pages with their voice actors for Marvel Heroes, first cited using an official video featurette put out by the developers, then using a secondary source reporting on the same video. However, my edits have been repeatedly undone, with very little explanation other than "it's against the guidelines" (though not linking me to whatever guideline it supposedly violates). My own research indicates the opposite, as according to WP:VIDEOLINK, "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable secondary sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted. Content from Vevo is an example of a primary source that might be used." Call me naive, but I would think an official video featurette posted by the developers on the official Marvel Heroes channel featuring all the actors saying "yes I voice this character; here are clips of me performing the voice" would fall under this rule. What do you think? -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they should be ok. Do you have a link to the edits? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also feel this is perfectly fine, because it is the official YouTube channel for the game/developer. However, just make sure you are correctly using the info.  Looking at your edits from The Thing page, here are a few observations: In this edit, you would have needed to use a tag with the actual YouTube link, not just adding it to the edit summary.  I did see later that you eventually did this. Finally, I would not use the Den of Geek site as you mentioned or did here, as I'm not sure the type of site it is, but just looking it over quickly and by the name, it would appear to not be a reliable one.  I think your edits were warranted, and I'm not sure what the editor SleepingSandman was doing reverting you, because they should have examined the video to see that it came from a legitimate account, which would be fine per WP:VIDEOLINK as you stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"That" vs. "who" in opening
Anybody remember when and where we had the extended discussions over the need to avoid language that treats fictional characters like real world human beings? We emphasized the need to depersonalize the characters in the opening sentences by doing things like avoiding personal pronouns and saying "fictional character that" rather than "fictional character who." It's been a while since we had those discussions, and I can't for the life of me recall where to look for them. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * an particular why? Im new to this wikiproject.Lucia Black (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is such a subtle change that I'd consider it personal preference rather than something to actually aim for. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing subtle about that. One approach treats a character as an object of fiction while the other treats the character as a person. Back to the question: Who remembers where we held those discussions? Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Im new here, but if "who" vs "that" i would assume "who" would be referring to the characters fictional aspects. For example "X is a character who is in love with the main character". And "that" would be used for real world aspects. For example "X is a character that has been controversial among LGBT audience". Of course all hypothetical. Idk if i helped. Also one way is avoiding sentence structures that force "who" or "that". I think using "that" is just bad grammar.Lucia Black (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Characters' creators
Ever since I started editing Comics-related articles on WP, something has been troubling me: Whenever information on who created a character is lacking (which it is in 99% of cases), WP lists a character as having been created by whoever wrote and drew the story in which the character first appeared. This is not necessarily true, and indeed I would go so far as to say that before the 1980s, it was a rarity that this was so. The groundless assumption that debut creative team=creators is so prevalent on WP that I considered posting here just to advise the WikiProject editors about this. Though I concluded this would be preaching to the choir and settled for just correcting the article whenever I had citeable information on a character's creators, I just discovered that the problem may go beyond simply assuming information.

While reviewing Talk: Wolverine (comics), I saw a post from a couple months ago which declared that the "creator(s)"/"created by" field in Template: Infobox comics character should list whoever wrote and drew the character's first appearance, even if they had nothing to do with creating the character. I checked the template documentation, and it gives no clarification whatsoever on what "created by" should contain. So I don't know whether the aforementioned poster is right or wrong, but either way, there's a clear problem here:
 * A) If he's right, then this field is hopelessly misleading. To most readers, a character's creator(s) are a character's creator(s), and "created by" means created by. I suggest that this field be renamed to fit what it actually means, perhaps to "debut creative team".
 * B) If he's wrong, then the template documentation should state that "creator(s)" is not necessarily whoever wrote and drew the first story the character appeared in, since clearly many people are unaware of this and will even argue to the contrary.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So, no info or opinions? Given the editing conflict referred to on Talk: Wolverine (comics), I would have thought this was something more editors cared about.--NukeofEarl (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * it seems odd....i personally never seen where the creator isnt part of the creative team. The one who "wrote" seems like the one who created him. Can you give an example where the creator is separate from writer and illustrator?Lucia Black (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's very often true of TV shows if not of comics (e.g. Buffy and Doctor Who), and some characters are created by editorial mandate rather than particular writers (characters which spring forth from DC reboots, sometimes). However, it is only in very rare cases where an editor will want to say they insisted a writer introduce character XYZ into an ongoing narrative (e.g. I suspect the premise for Simon Baz may well be the brainchild of Dan Didio, even if Geoff Johns designed and characterized him, but there is no source which substantiates this view).Zythe (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt its as common for comics as it is TV shows. Sometimes editorial may influence a character type but they still leave room for the writer and artist. We could say the editorial gave the original concept, but thats about it.Lucia Black (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many situations which may result in a character's creator(s) not being the same as his original creative team. Here are the major ones I'm familiar with, though I'm sure there are more:
 * 1.As already mentioned, prior to the 1980s it was typical for a comic's editor or publisher to call for a specific character to be introduced. Sometimes this was a basic request to fill market demands, and couldn't be called even co-creation; Marty Goodman tells Stan Lee "I need another team book", and he and Jack Kirby come up with the X-Men. But sometimes the editor or publisher would come up with a fully realized character, such as how Julius Schwartz created Adam Strange, or how Mark Gruenwald came up with Daddy Longlegs.
 * 2.Prior to the 1980s, it was also commonplace for a comics company to rely on either an art director or top notch freelancers to come up with the visual design for a character. John Romita, Sr. and Marie Severin (and others, I'm sure) designed dozens of characters which they never drew in published comics. These include not only headlining characters, but even supporting cast and villains, e.g. Bullseye and Doctor Bong.
 * 3.Just because someone is solely the writer of a comic book doesn't mean they can't draw. Even renowned artists like Frank Miller and John Byrne have taken turns as scribe alone. Dennis Mallonee has never drawn a single panel in any comic book, yet he nonetheless created the characters Liberty Girl, the Black Enchantress, and Doctor Arcane by himself. Indeed, there's a letters page in an issue of Liberty Girl which shows his original drawing of the character.
 * 4.Similarly, just because an artist doesn't write a comic book doesn't mean they can't come up with personality and backstory for a character. For example, Dave Cockrum came with a detailed history and personae for Nightcrawler. They weren't used for the character who we see on the printed page, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where they had been.
 * 5.Sometimes a character is created for a cancelled publication, or for no specific publication at all, but makes it into print in the end. For example, the five characters comprising Skylark's "Crew" first appeared in Eternity Smith, a series by Dennis Mallonee and Rick Hoberg, but they were actually created years earlier by Rick and Aleta Hoberg.
 * 6.Two people may have a stable working relationship, and such a relationship of course does not enforce that they create all their characters jointly. For example, Roy and Dann Thomas wrote Captain Thunder and Blue Bolt #1 - indeed, they wrote the entire run of the series together - but the concept of the characters came solely from Dann, with artist Dell Barras doing the visual design.
 * I'm rather confused by your comment, Lucia Black. I thought coming up with the original concept was the definition of creating a character?--NukeofEarl (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

what you describe is basically my understanding, that either the writer or the artist are part of being known as original creator. Despite that, original concept may differ from creator. While one merely gives the ideas, the technical creators are the ones who mannually write/alter and draw/alter. If the idea of the character original revision or the revision of the original concept creator, then the credit isnt fully due. What the opening post suggest that there are situations that neither the artist nor the writer are actually the original creator. Now dont get me wrong, im not denying this, but i just wanted to know how often the situation would appear in wp:comics related articles.Lucia Black (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I hate to say this, but due to the bad grammar, I can't understand the above post at all. I read it over slowly a few times but still can't figure out what it is you're trying to say.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * not one sentence made sense? Im saying that writer and artist are most commonly known as part  creators (as some of your points suggest), the problem is when neither writer and artist are considered the original creator. The person who created this thread suggest that. Now im saying how often the situation is to enforce some change. If not that common, then we do nothing drastic.Lucia Black (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The one who made the original concept doesnt always mean the creator. It all depends on


 * I don't see why you think it's only a problem if neither writer and artist are the original creator. If someone at Wikiproject music were to say that it's okay to put in incorrect songwriting credits so long as you credit at least one of the people who actually wrote the song, they'd be laughed off. Also, I am the person who created this thread, so I can assure you that I did not suggest that. As for how common the creator discrepancy is, I could actually name more characters who I know weren't created by their debut creative team than I could ones who were.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A good example would be Judge Dredd, who was created by writer John Wagner and artist Carlos Ezquerra, but because of internal politics - their original first episode being scrapped, and both Wagner and Ezquerra temporarily falling out with the publisher - the first published episode was written by Peter Harris and Pat Mills and drawn by Mike McMahon. Similarly, most of the opening stories in Battle Picture Weekly were devised by Mills and Wagner and farmed out to other writers and artists to actually produce the episodes. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * NukeofEarl, naming them out of vthe top of your head isnt really proving anything. Nicknack009, the others are still credited as writer and artist as for the original. So it doesnt really fall in this situation that the creative team is not considered the actual creator.


 * Im curious to know when a creative team did virtually nothing at all in the creation process of the character. Thats what NukeofEarl is saying. I find it odd, as if they would have to be included as the creative team too, right? What makes them not part of it?Lucia Black (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lucia Black, I don't understand why you think I need to prove anything here, but I'm not naming things off the top of my head. All my information on character creation comes from reliable sources, which I have already been incorporating into articles.
 * As for your question, I've already posted a whole list of reasons why a character's creators would not be the creative team, along with a number of examples. Go back and read it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book
I've nominated Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book as a Featured Article. Any and all feedback would be welcome at Featured article candidates/Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Meet up suggestion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, the discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Psylocke
Do we want an image from a video game as the infobox image for a comics character? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CMOS, "It is felt that using the most universally recognizable appearance of a character... fits this purpose best." So no, as the video game is not the character's most universally recognizable appearance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the article has numerous images from the comics, so maybe one of them would be better for the infobox? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article in general however has far too many non-free images.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This costume/look is the most recognisable (iconic) alright. Proof: (most popular all time, you can also click for more). And it's not "from" a video game. --Niemti (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A fanpage isn't really proof. I do agree that this is her most recognisable look, but as the character originated in comic books and is most associated with that medium, the infobox image should come from a comic. Not from a video game adaptation, -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This image had been in use in the infobox for some time, and was moved elsewhere in the article. It could be moved back to the infobox, which would also reduce the total number of images on the article by 1. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "a fanpage", it's the art website deviantArt (the word "fan" isn't even in its article), and it's the proof of popularity. The old image was showing the version that is NOT iconic: having a "psychic katana" (not even that, just a strange katana that is empowered? weird, and I just "reduced by 1" by eliminating it) and no tattoo over her eye (and even small breasts). It's also bad quality (jpg, and also too big res for Wikipedia unfree - even after I cropped it, from this) and it's showing background and other characters (even after I cropped it). To the edit warrior: don't log out to edit, and don't obsessively remove the image. --Niemti (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And also removed 1 more, actually. --Niemti (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In truth, after I checked it, most of the most popular pics on dA are showing her without the tattoo (I myself brought up this detail). But she's almost always with the "psychic knife" (if not just a normal katana, or a mix of two), and of course in this very body (literally) and specifically this costume (and in this color, that is lighter shades of blue, instead of more recent violet or black). (The empowered katana is as rare as psychic katana, or the other versions/incarations/bodies of the character.) --Niemti (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The point that we are all trying to make here is that Psylocke's "most universally recognizable appearance" comes from comic books and as such the infobox image should be derived from a comic book not a video game. I really do not understand why you are insisting on this image when there are so many to choose from, though cover art is generally considered preferable over interior art as it less intrusive on copyrights. Also you should not be continuing to edit the disputed content while discussion is still in progress.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * An only good alternative to this early-1990s classic Jim Lee ninja Psylocke would be a good pic of the early-1990s classic Jim Lee ninja Psylocke as drawn by Jim Lee, but neither nor  (that's pretty much all of "so many") are anywhere close in quality to Bengus' rendition. It's "derived from a video game", it's derived from the comics to adapt for a video game (where only the face was changed to Bengus' style - but in the previous pic the face was also stylized and not in Lee's style, and even the hair is drawn differently there. While Bengus kept Lee's way of drawing hair, and even Lee's 'bubble'-ish way of drawing her psychic energy thing, and Lee's sketchy-shading way of drawing, and the whole character except just the face is drawn totally in Lee's style (here you can compare with Bengus' own style of drawing a female body: File:Psylocke MvC2.png vs File:Ssf2-cammy.png). These you can find elsewhere, like  are also just not good. In the meantime, it's in the vidya section of the article, but it seriously should be in the infobox. --Niemti (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this image? It is a comic book image. The character is predominately displayed, full body, facing the camera and features her classic 90's costume.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She's behind Sabretooth & Wolverine, she's on less than 50% of the image. How about stop trying hard, and just accept an excellent quality image of "the most universally recognizable appearance of a character"? --Niemti (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not obscuring her and is acceptable per WP:CMOS. Again as stated by multiple editors, the video game art is not her most universally most recognizable appearance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are obscuring her, "WP:CMOS" is redirecting to the main page of Manual of Style/Comics, and it's just trying too hard to substitute for an image that is of excellent quality on every count, and is directly based on Jim Lee's design (and even Lee's art style). --Niemti (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As of your new WP:CMOS: "The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best." And seriously, Bengus' image is just superb. So, can you just agree on that? --Niemti (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Only an elbow and a knee, but it is not the only acceptable replacement, just a suggestion. And yes the ideal image is those things but all things considered, it is better to have an image from a comic book for an article about a comic book character. Also "based on" is not the same as the original design.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an (almost) "ideal image". The only thing lacking: Lee face (and so did the image that was there since 2006, among other classic features), but it's in fact even artistically much better that pretty much anything that Lee himself officially did for Marvel ( once again, from your own selection - these feet are just really bad). It was really all "the original design", and it's the best image that is readily available, without trying too hard for no real reason. --Niemti (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw: It seems that like everyone are choosing this very cover ;) --Niemti (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, was this actually resolved in favor of using the image favored by Niemti? 24.12.74.21 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in this discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And in favor of what better image? --Niemti (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con Meetup 2013
SDCC meetup talk: Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Faust navbox
I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is Faust navbox. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at Template talk:Faust navbox and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Classcomicslogo.png
file:Classcomicslogo.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on United States propaganda comics
Hey all, while doing newpages patrol I ran across a good start of an article at United States propaganda comics. Unfortunately, there's a lot of it that's written like an essay, various parts of it have significant POV issues (viewing such comics as an unalloyed good and taking American perspectives as unchallenged) and the article's original author has repeatedly tried to revert cleanup edits and move the page back to its original title "United States PSYOPS Comics," which is not only bad style but incredibly doublespeak/POV/obfuscatory of their true nature - which is factually propaganda. I've been working to clean it up and improve it, but I have limited knowledge about the world of comics. It would be great to get some more eyes on the article to help make it a good contribution to the encyclopedia. polarscribe (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category formatting
In the newly created If This Be My Destiny...! article the categories are displaying at the top of the article. The categories are at the bottom of the article and seem to be correctly formatted, so can someone please take a look at the article and fix whatever is wrong? Thank you! Spidey 104  17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. The glitch showed up because the "sortkey" parameter was blank. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Zatanna series- Featured on Spanish Wikipedia, nothing on here?
I notice that the Zatanna series was featured on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Zatanna (serie limitada) - But there is no interwiki link. Do we not have an article on this series? 200.54.64.26 (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We just have an article about the character. Zatanna - which loosely covers her entire publication history. The series is mentioned in the last section before the New 52. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Who created the Mandarin?
Can anyone help corroborate his creator one way or the other? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the Mandarin's first appearance, the story credits Stan Lee as writer and Don Heck as writer. Kirby drew the cover, but that's not how creator credit works. Without a good, reliable external source showing that Kirby designed the character, we mustn't add him as creator. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 11:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I figured. The new user was asserting that Heck claimed Kirby as the designer, but did not have a source for this info. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised to find out that's true. We just need the specific, reliable source quoting Heck on that. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I spoke with Heck about this when he was making an appearance at Montclair State University. When asked about the Mandarin his response was that Jack designed the character and drew the cover. A similar story was related by Wally Wood concerning the Stilt-Man in Daredevil. Kirby usually desighned the characters and thier abilities with Lee, then Lee would work up the story while Jack desighned the look; then the artist doing the story would go from there. The Wood story is documented, the Heck alas, is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gartfam(M Gartland) (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but speaking with Heck does not count for Wikipedia. I know many comic book pros and I have learned so many things that I can't add to articles because I am not a linkable source. Nobody else can look up our conversations and double-check them. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "notable/reliable", not "linkable". Wikipedia accepts many information sources that are not linkable.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I said linkable. I meant linkable. I didn't say there aren't other kinds of sources out there, too, but finding the perfect way to sum up all the things we aren't really doesn't help make this point. I'm not going to say, "I'm not notable or reliable" or "You're not notable or reliable." Among other things, that sounds insulting. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have to use that exact wording - I wouldn't, either. In instances like this, I would instead say that the info falls under WP: Original research. In any case, saying it needs to be linkable severely limits the selection of sources for the editor to look through (and I do feel certain that Kirby's role in the Mandarin's creation must be documented somewhere). It could also be interpreted as saying that if you just transcribe the conversation with Don Heck into a user-edited website, it would be useable as a source.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterio merge proposal
Since January there has been a proposal to merge Mysterio (Francis Klum) into Mysterio. So far there have been only two comments, so I don't want to close the debate until a few more people chime in. Please post your opinion. Thank you. Spidey 104  12:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a clarification, as far as I understand it, it is not Echo that is supposed to somehow deal with talk pages: the current talk page format was supposed to be replaced by LiquidThreads, but that project seems to be on hold (or dead) now. Another possibility is Flow, no idea if any timeline is available for that one. Fram (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Thank you for the correction.  Talk pages are being replaced by Flow, not by Notifications/Echo.  This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over Mandarin appearance in Iron Man 3
This has been going on for probably at least a couple of weeks now, but it seems like no one can agree on what to do with Mandarin (comics), and there has been a ton of back and forth on it, with no apparent consensus on the talk page at Talk:Mandarin (comics). Please help! Maybe we need an RFC or something? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

GoldenAge navbox
Right now the Timely Comics group of characters is not showing up on the GoldenAge template, because the Navbox template only allows for 20 groups, and Timely is group number 21. However, the Navbox with collapsible groups template can apparently be nested, to get an unlimited number of groups/lists. Could someone who understands template code better than me please modify this template, so that all of the information can be shown? Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article concern
Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is currently FA, but I have my concerns over its quality. Please read this discussion for more info. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Robinson image
I'm biased, so I need to request outside opinions. The Robert Sikoryak art in artist Jerry Robinson's article is not a photo of Jerry, is not art by Jerry, and lacks any particular notability. According to the blogger who has been cited as the image source (http://pappysgoldenage.blogspot.com/2012_06_01_archive.html), it comes from The New Yorker, but we do not know if that is accurate. A blogspot page is not a reliable source when determining image usage rights. More importantly for the article itself, there are too many photos of Jerry and samples of his own artwork available for us to include this image. I removed it days ago but someone restored it, so I think that even the slightest controversy (as indicated by the single rv) means that this falls outside the simple edits that are appropriate for me to make on Jerry's article. I believe I would feel the same way even if I had not known Jerry, but I defer to your judgment. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, there's a scan of the actual TNY article here. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I'm not an expert in WP image usage myself (see "Guidance on using images" thread above), I agree that the image in question doesn't belong in that article. My understanding is that images are to be put into articles to illustrate something in the article, not just for the sake of having an image. The drawing of Jerry Robinson doesn't illustrate his work, and it's redundant to the two photos already in the article as an illustration of Robinson himself.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody else has weighed in. I removed it. For the record, in case discussion resumes, here's the version with the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Robinson&oldid=554593971. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics
Could someone from WP:COMICS please have a look at Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics, a recently moved AfC (by a user who was incorrectly accepting/declining articles). I saw the merge discussions template at the top of Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Tie-In Comics, basically this is the same concept, although more detail. Maybe the new one should be kept, or merged in as well, I will leave it in your capable hands. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect this article was created by a different user with a history of creating redundant articles under other usernames, someone who really loves developing elaborate ideas about superhero movies. (Ah, crap. I just talked myself into thinking this is probably the second most annoying user I've ever dealt with.) Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

End of Geoff John's era - perfect time to reorganize the Green Lantern related articles?
With Geoff John's near-decade run on Green Lantern era being over, I think it'd be a perfect time to reorganize the Green Lantern related articles. I brought this up on the Green Lantern Corps talk page a while back - only got two responses and not much discussion. There's really a lot we can do to improve the GLC/GL related articles.
 * Summarize and simplify the plot dump in Green Lantern Corps
 * Give it a Publication History section
 * Perhaps create an article for the Green Lantern Corps itself
 * Create an article (or section, somewhere) for the short-lived Green Lantern: Emerald Warriors book.

Anyone have any ideas or points they'd like to bring up...? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Darlene Pekul
This looks like a good hit in Google books for Darlene Pekul, but I am having a hard time getting any of the text to show in my browser; is anyone else able to view that? BOZ (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

When I click on the book source. No. Is that what you are looking for? Jhenderson 7 7 7  17:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Gertie the Dinosaur FAC
I've nominated Gertie the Dinosaur for Featured Article status. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review. All feedback is much appreciated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidance on using images
I've felt that a few of the articles I've been editing could use images at one or two specific points, but I don't have a good feel for what images are allowable in comics-related articles, and I haven't been able to find documentation with sufficient guidance on the subject. I'm wondering if you guys could give me some pointers. The foremost question on my mind is whether it is okay to use scans of a comic book's interior to illustrate an aspect of a comic book series (or a significant era of that series). I've read that a comic's interior does not fall under fair use nearly as often as its cover, which makes sense to me, since the cover is essentially advertising, whereas the interior obviously isn't. However, in some cases no cover can illustrate the aspect of the comic book series in question. What are the rules on this?

Any general hints and suggestions on using images for comics-related articles would also be much appreciated.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone?--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

From reading WikiProject_Comics/copyright, I'd think that you can use interior art (single panels, or a scene) if it is the only thing that can accurately describe the article's subject; as long as no cover portrays the subject. I guess it'd depend on how you want to use the images, how often, and why the picture should be used. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! It sounds like the image I uploaded first is safe on that count, since the usage for it definitely isn't portrayed on any cover (for starters, it shows the main character in civilian identity). I have a new question, though. Shortly after I uploaded it, the image was tagged with Template:Non-free reduce. A bot seemed to have since fixed the problem, but I'd like to be able to upload images that don't have to be fixed in the first place. After both reading over the tag and looking at the fixed version of my image, I still don't understand what the problem was. The tag says I need "a smaller version", but all that makes me think of is reducing the dimensions of the image, and I can't see how that would be a "fair use" issue.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not to sure about the legal aspects or why it wouldn't be fair use - but it's about the reproducibility of the image. Since Wikipedia doesn't own the content/copyright on images; the images that are used that are copyrighted have to be small enough that they can't be used for high-end reproduction. I guess that's the logic I got from Template:Non-free use rationale. Just resize the image, pretty much. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR on X-Men articles
It has been requested that I be blocked so that User:ChenteChaculdifornio can continue to insert WP:OR into articles because he is only answerable to an administrator, and not to someone without an account. So, please block me for removing unsourced or poorly sourced OR that other people have removed from these articles numerous times, and give this guy a medal. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't know how use Wikipedia, then let's stop your ridiculous actions. "Gice this guy a medal" you're funny. --ChenteChaculdifornio (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think you know how to use Wikipedia. From the diffs provided by IP24.12.74.21 - you seem to think only Administrators have the power to decide what can't be content of Wikipedia...? no. There's a reason IP users can edit. There's a reason all of us can edit. There is nothing that makes you special or better than an unregistered user, except for the ability to edit a larger scope of articles. Now, since the content you've added into the article seems to be controversial; I suggest you look into WP:DISPUTE and WP:DRR, rather than have an WP:EDITWAR. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits in question, and the IP user is correct. They are WP:OR, and are accompanied by poor sources, or no sources at all. I have reverted the edits, as such. However, ChenteChaculdifornio, it would be wise of you to look into the topics Tako suggested, so you have an understanding of these topics so that we can all work together to make Wikipedia better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the IP user in this case. ChenteChaculdifornio errs on several things, notably the insertion of WP:OR/mere opinion and the repeated use of incorrect verbs. ChenteChaculdifornio, please do not ask admins to block a person for correcting your errors. Wikipedia is a community working together. We all answer to each other and to the world beyond. 24.12.74.21, you are correct and I'm glad to see that you stuck up for what's right here, although the "please block me" sarcasm does not help us avoid an escalation of hostility. In a case like this, I recommend explaining what has happened and then letting the facts speak for themselves. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the snark, and agree that it was not helpful. I suppose I was offended by the outright disrespect, and got carried away. Thanks to all of you for your input. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

First San Diego Comic-Con International meetup location renewed discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said that?
Do we want to keep information like this and to explain in the text where information came from, or are we better off without? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters where it was reported. It's only relevant, I think, when it's a matter of uncertainty or controversy. Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the default is to let the footnote do the citing, but the two instances you link are a case of WP: CRYSTAL, where the editor is changing a statement of the form "So-and-so said this will happen" (which is a fact) to one of the form "This will happen" (which is Wikipedia claiming to have remarkable precognitive abilities). The same goes for subjective claims: we can say "So-and-so says the Hulk is the greatest superhero of all time", but not "The Hulk is the greatest superhero of all time".--NukeofEarl (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When we're talking about upcoming events, I think it does matter who said what because some of that information will turn out to be incorrect. Too many readers take Wikipedia content at face value because they don't realize how this works. "Entertainment Weekly reported that X will happen" and "X will happen" are both written as statements of fact, but the latter is written as a foretelling of the future. Even if it turns out that X will not happen after all, it was still true that Entertainment Weekly reported it. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So then, would it be OK for me to restore this wording? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Doczilla. "It was reported" by the original source is more reliable on something that is going on in the future. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree on using "It was reported" or "are reported to appear in X." Avoid certainty about the future in the Wikipedia voice. Related point: In the case of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch on film, the legal context is really interesting and really it should be written as a prose discussion, as if it were for a hypothetical "Quicksilver in film" FA (impossible). We shouldn't be trumpeting the scrappy bullet point format over thoughtful prose. We don't need to cite Entertainment Weekly in the prose, but it would be good if we cited Feige, Whedon, Singer and the various commentators discussing the FOX/Disney tango over these characters, especially as it might develop into either parallel actors playing the same character with constraints on the writing, or an equally-interesting intercompany collaboration.Zythe (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put that text back in, and refer interested editors back to this discussion. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin FAR
A number of editors are preparing The Adventures of Tintin for Featured Article Review. It became a Featured Article in 2006; standards have changed since then, so the article is going through a cleanup to prepare it for a re-review. It would be much appreciated if more editors could jump in and help with anything they can (even if only feedback on the talk page). Thanks! Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Jason Todd
I've been going through Wizard Magazine #72 and adding the info and citations gleaned from it to relevant articles. During this task, I found an unsourced statement in Jason Todd which directly contradicts information in the magazine. I removed the statement and put in the correct info, with citation (link to my edit). Editor Jack Sebastian reverted the edit, with the peculiar summary "w/respect, that's your opinion - the reference says nothing of the sort". I'd like to assume good faith and believe that Jack has read the article, and that we simply have a different understanding of what it says. Unfortunately, the text I'm citing leaves no room for misinterpretation: "We came up with our own origin for him - which we found out had parallels to the Jason Todd character, in that he was a street kid who came into conflict with Two-Face. When we looked at Jason Todd's origin, we were surprised there were a lot of parallels."

Needless to say, I restored my edit with a brief summary. Jack reverted again, with the following summary: "I wouldn't have said it if I had not read the article in question. Now use the talk page, and present the comment you *believe* means what you thin" [emphasis his] Well, if that doesn't make it clear that Jack is not open to reason, I don't know what does. Any suggestions on what I should do here? ("Just let it go, it's not worth the stress" is a perfectly acceptable suggestion; indeed, this is what I usually do when I confront an antagonistic editor. It's just that it's a bit harder to let it go when the editor in question is removing a good reference and reinstating outright false information.)--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd suggest talking to user:Jack Sebastian about it, he did say to discuss the quote on the talk page - I mean, this is a talk page too. I'm sure it'll do. ;) I happen to agree with you, though. The original wording implies that Tim Drake's origin was based on Jason Todd, but with this quote from a reliable source - the writers themselves - I'd say it's good to get rid of that implication and explicitly say that the similarity between the two characters was just (initially) a coincidence.&#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The trouble with that is, I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that when someone wants to discuss an editorial dispute, they just post something to a talk page and direct the opposing editor there; put more simply, when someone wants to start a discussion, they start it. Attributing the burden of starting the discussion to the opposing editor is just a fancy way of saying "I order you to stop editing this article." His follow up commentary just makes it all the more clear that he has no intention of even reading anything I might post to any talk page, much less discussing it in a constructive manner. While there was a time where I was willing to repeatedly butt heads with someone who was obviously never going to listen to me, and even enjoyed it a bit, I've matured since then, and I have better things to do with the time I set aside for Wikipedia.--NukeofEarl (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it, NukeofEarl, but your first instinct is right: "Just let it go, it's not worth the stress." The downside of Wikipedia being free for anyone to edit is that if an editor refuses to reason with his fellow editors, he can make whatever edits he wants and there's nothing you can do to stop him. Since there is no way that the article you've cited can reasonably be interpreted the way Jack Sebastian says he interprets it, he clearly is just such an editor. As the saying goes, let the baby have his bottle; it's not worth the amount of whining and screaming you'll have to listen to if you try to take it away from him.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and just in case the above hasn't convinced you, I glanced over Jack Sebastian's contributions history, and this is hardly the first time he's removed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced claims with a snide "The reference says nothing of the sort." Check out these edits from way back in 2010: Edit 1 Edit 2 So yeah, Jack Sebastian's been doing this for a long time, so don't think you're going to be able to stop him.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

new article for Batman/Superman or expansion of Superman/Batman?
Since DC Comics is going to publish a new series, Batman/Superman, would it make more sense to create a new article for it? (That title currently redirects.) Or, to re-work, cut some existing content, and add new content to the current Superman/Batman article?

The current Superman/Batman article has a lot of content - which I believe could be reduced without losing any essential value. The naming would get funky if we went for two articles, Batman/Superman and Superman/Batman - people have always interchangeably used the names for the book's title anyways. Opinions? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we can cut down the existing article and combine it in one. This one should at least have a small section now talking about the new series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎
Please comment at Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Multi-article Green Goblin move discussion
I have proposed a move for the Green Goblin and Green Goblin (set index) articles. The discussion for both moves is here. Spidey 104  14:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Trinity War
Hey everyone. I recently created an article for the upcoming "Trinity War". Any help to format it and finding any relevant sources and info (especially since this has been hinted at since Flashpoint and throughout The New 52) would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Movement - article creation help.
Okay, so. I've started to work on an article for The Movement (comics) in my userspace, User:Takuy/The Movement. I've never really created an article before. So, I'd like some input from other editors. Whether it be actual content added to the article draft, or suggestions of what to add.

Did I do the infobox correctly? There's a lot of information there to fill out and I'm not sure what's mandatory and what's not for single-volume books.

Thanks! &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have only a few small pieces of input to offer, but hopefully they help. First, the lead section should state that it is a comic book series. The (unsourced) WP article on the term ongoing series claims that it is used solely for comics, but even if this is true, the average reader can't be expected to know that. Second, the "type" field should be left blank, per infobox documentation: "type is the type of organization or business. Examples include: newspaper, manufacturing, computer software, government agency, law firm, etc. For teams of adventures, superheroes, and supervillains, leave this field blank." Finally, this probably goes without saying, but another source or two would definitely help.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've fixed what you said, and added a lot more content. Check it out, if you have the time. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article has been created, The Movement (comics)! (after being stuck in AFC for a while...maybe next time I'll just create it in the article namespace.) &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Batman
I feel like linking to this thread..because I feel that I am usually the most active on discussing on the thread and I welcome other people's opinion on the subjects. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Question on comic infobox
For the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic comic book, there are now two separate series (a main run, and a micro-set) and a third related series expected though not yet officially announced. All from the same publisher, and from the general set of writers and artists so they work well in a single article. From a notability standpoint, it makes no sense to split off the micro-series nor this upcoming series, at least at this point. Towards that, I'm trying to figure out if there is a means to show in the infobox that we have multiple separate series covered in the article. Yes, I could make a second infobox for the second (and third) series, but this seems clunky and I'm not easily seeing if there's a template for comic books that cover multiple side series in this fashion. --M ASEM (t) 01:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You could either use Template:Infobox comics meta series (example, or simply use the regular Template:infobox comic book title (example). For the latter, you'd have to format the headers in the infobox per-title. I suggest first attempting to create such an infobox in your sandbox or the article's talk page and ask for input. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 01:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sabertoothvamp.jpg
image:Sabertoothvamp.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion on tag
Whaam! got tagged with tone. Do people agree with this? Please get involved at either Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 or WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!‎ to help sort this out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images
I apologize for not getting other projects involved in this, but I thought consensus would be reached at WP:WPVA, but it has not. The debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts seems to be unresolved regarding fair use images at Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!. Please come by and comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AFDs for DC comics characters in the past
I feel some may need to be contested. I want to know you're thoughts? See here. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some what may need to be contested? It would help if you could direct us to specific AfDs. There are hundreds of open AfDs in progress. Thanks. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * They are all in the discussion page I linked but I guess I might as well because discussion is dead in the article I linked. Here is the one on Tattoed Man. He is the one I feel most strongly about. There's the Thinker. He's a maybe or maybe not. It's basically a more than character article. There also one on Shark and of Javelin that I am less worried about.   Jhenderson  7 7 7
 * Non-admin closures that defy the consensus? These AfDs' closures need to get appealed. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Of the four specific discussions linked by JHenderson, all are either admin closures, clear consensus to merge, or both. I know there are a lot more DC character AfDs than those four, but I don't feel up to checking them all.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will start with the Tattooed Man one. There was a lot more keeps than delete. I would have leaned to keep as well. Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a few Newsarama articles referencing him. I am not sure that is a better substitute than the book sources that the editors dismissed as good sources. I feel that the sources established him as a notable classic comic book villain. They just wanted the character to be proven notable in a grand scale like Darth Vader and Mickey Mouse.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (nickname)
Questioning the notability of the article The Dark Knight (nickname). Discussion can be found here. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:1941cg.jpg
File:1941cg.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated deletion at David Wright (artist)


At the article on David Wright (artist), User:Ronz has twice deleted a link to a site about his comic strip, Carol Day, on the grounds that it's "off-topic" and "this article is about the artist". Since an artist's work is the reason he is notable, and this link gives further information about and examples of his work, it seems an absurd decision. Anyway, I've reverted twice and don't want to fall foul of the three revert rule, so perhaps someone else could keep an eye. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is underway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Batman/Superman film
How has everyone read this announcement? I've looked at a few different Wikipages, and they all seem to call this something different. Is it a Man of Steel sequel, it's own independent film in the same universe, some other characterization (taking place in the MoS universe)? I think something should be determined so that there is unity across the board. I know that they have not announced a name yet, so how it is called is important too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * From http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/07/superman-and-batman-movie-comic-con/: "The movie will be titled Superman & Batman according to The Los Angeles Times; Snyder will direct the film, slated for 2015; and—according to The Hollywood Reporter—Henry Cavill will reprise the role of Clark Kent/Superman, but it's unclear who will play Batman." postdlf (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That may help with naming, but again, "Is it a Man of Steel sequel, it's own independent film in the same universe...etc."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. If the sources don't answer the question, then the question should not yet be asked or answered in a WP article. It seems clear it's part of the same continuity as Man of Steel (but not of the Nolan Batman triology), and part of the world building leading up to a Justice League film. As far as whether it's a "sequel", are sources calling it that? That doesn't seem to be how crossover films are labeled, as Avengers is not considered a "sequel" to Thor, Iron Man 2, or Captain America from what I've seen. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource
The articles: Adventures Into Darkness, America's Best Comics, Four Favorites, Punch and Judy Comics should be moved to Wikipedia.Hyju (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of the naming conventions of this WikiProject. Thanks. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  00:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

cosplay pics
Just want to know if we want to include pics of cosplayers in character articles. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should include cosplay pictures unless when discussing the cosplay itself. These are not the works of the artists but of fans and shouldn't be used to represent the character anymore than a fan sketch of the character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles on works of fiction need to establish the work's real-world impact. A photo of cosplayers influenced by the work in question helps demonstrate that. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be relevant when discussing fandom or cosplay but seems off-topic in a publication history or fictional biography section. It is better to discuss the real-world impact of the actual artwork not a fan's interpretation of the artwork. Infact without the proper context it might mislead readers on the actual impact of the character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with TriiipleThreat. Any images on character articles should be somewhat official, not just a fan's interpretation. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Add cosplay pics only if cosplay is deemed an important/major aspect of the article's topic. Sergecross73   msg me   14:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand and appreciate Nightscream's point about real-world impact, and I could perhaps see, for example, images of people on Hollywood Blvd. who make a living or part of their living dressed as a character. I'm not sure people who dress up at conventions really demonstrates real-world impact as opposed to niche impact; a photo of a child in a Spider-Man Halloween costume trick-or-treating in public would have more real-world impact, and I'm not sure we'd have photos of a Halloween costume in character articles, any more than we'd have images of mugs, backpacks, and t-shirts ... or, if we're addressing the DIY aspects of a cosplay costume, any more than we have fan-artists' drawings of a character. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, it's a niche impact, but isn't that because comics are a niche medium themselves? As for mugs, backpacks, etc. I would not oppose pics of them in articles that have sourced sections on merchandising. Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And just as mugs, backpacks, etc., might not be appropriate outside a merchandising section, cosplay images are not appropriate outside a sourced section on cosplay or fandom.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see this being a major issue of IDONTLIKEIT, OWN, etc the same as the lame article Cosplay where they insist that it is only notable in Japan. Cosplayers spend a lot of time and effort on their costumes but I guess they don't deserve free licenced images in Wikipedia articles when we have fair use copyrighted images like File:Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.jpg whose character is an ugly match to the comic compared to the one I tried to add to the article. Thanks for nothing, bye.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You say this is a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT yet you call the film version ugly, which was officially designed by Marvel. Nobody here disparaged the work of the cosplayers, but the fact is that these are works of fans. It's no different than including fan fiction amongst the actual comics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cosplay images would not be freely licensable because the images would infringe on trademarks held on the costumes. Hiding T 17:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Trademark has nothing to do with whether something is freely licensable; that's purely a matter of copyright. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm relying on deletion discussions from the commons when photos of Tintin merchandise I uploaded were deleted for something like this reason. I'm now even more lost given Godwin has weighed in to say a fan in a Spider-Man costume can be freely licensed. I'm now trying to work out if a picture I draw of Spider-Man would be freely licensable. Hiding T 19:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about File:Tintin's dog.jpg, it was deleted from Commons because the toy was a copyrighted "sculpture" and so the photograph was a nonfree derivative of a copyrighted work. Trademark didn't have anything to do with it, and Commons hosts many files of trademarks (it even has a template pointing this out for reusers to be careful). As far as your fan-drawn image of Spider-Man, I think that's a bit different than a photo of someone wearing a costume and more likely to infringe Marvel's drawings of the character and its design, though such fan art really has no encyclopedic value any more than a non-notable artist's drawing of Queen Elizabeth would belong in that article. I'd also say that I think Godwin's opinion is far too broad. Spider-Man's costume has significant graphic elements that Black Widow's lacks, for example; not all costumes are equally copyrightable. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm getting old and my memory is not as good as it used to be. I genuinely thought there were trademark issues with the Tintin stuff but I must be conflating copyright and trademark. I'm interested in the artwork to the extent that we did have that artist doing caricatures on the Wiki a few years back, um...User:Greg Williams and for example File:Chaplin caricature.JPG. So they are of some use because of the non-free replacement. I agree that Godwin's opinion is too broad to be useful, but I'm in the inferior position of not being a lawyer. ;) Hiding T 12:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A WMF lawyer, Mike Godwin, weighed in an states that they are not copyvio nor trademarked in the eyes of WMF. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan/Mike_Godwin_mail Our fair use rationale for the Marvel movie photo may not be valid because we do have an image of the character in a cosplay costume that has a free license.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have a free license nor will we ever have a free license image of the film version. And a cosplay image will never be the film version. So it is incorrect to equate the two.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO the cosplay costume is a better version of the character though. We could just have fair use images in comic character articles but letting readers see the character in costume was all I was trying to do. I don't really care one way or the other but others may wish to discuss it further and perhaps include the better images of cosplayers in the articles. These characters show up in comics, cartoons, movies, video games etc, as well as cosplay. To not show cosplay versions doesn't give readers a full grasp of the characters' impact on society. Cosplay is notable, the characters are notable so a cosplay of the character should be notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The cosplay does not show the film version, only the film version can do that. The same can be said for the comic versions. All the cosplay images can represent is the cosplay itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The cosplay image shows a version that has impact of the character on society though. Without cosplay versions it limits the article's coverage of the subject. It is the same as saying that the character is everywhere except cosplay so we won't show an image of cosplay because it doesn't exist in cosplay.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Without cited context from reliable sources, all it is shows is the impact on that particular cosplayer, which would give it WP:UNDUE weight. It might also constitute self publishing. Saying it has impact on society without verification from reliable sources, constitutes original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look for sources? This one was the top hit on Google for cosplay. should get more.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Black Widow cosplayer with 1.8mil Facebook followers, "appeared on magazine covers, billboards and commercials." I don't wish to expand your articles but they sure would look nicer to our readers if someone did.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems they have tried to delete her a few times.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe1967, I think you're missing the point. Those references are fine, for an article about Cosplay. But they do not justify using related images on, say Black Widow (Natalia Romanova), unless the references specifically mention the impact of cosplay on that character. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I think you are missing my point. The article is about Black Widow (Natalia Romanova). It contains images of most versions of the character except the cosplay character. A character can be seen in many forms including cosplay. To not mention cosplay versions would be the same as not mentioning videogame or movie versions. As I said before this is a major issue of IDONTLIKEIT, OWN, etc. We have notability and RS but editors just whine like children and refuse to let the readers get a full grasp of the character in all forms. I give up. I have wasted far too much of my time here. The article is just doomed to be incomplete it seems.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that interpretation is severely flawed. to believe that cosplay is equal to another interpretation to other official is wrong. Cosplay is interpretation of fans, all the other official appearances and portrayals are "representations". If cosplay can be seen as another form, then so can fanart, fanfiction, there would be no limit to it.

But beside the point, cosplay is a work by fans, not only isn't the most relevant subject, if sources were to be found (which there are sources). there's usually not enough to give more weight on the impact that specific character left on fans. I've made similar arguments in Lightning (Final Fantasy) article. The expansion of trivial cosplay such as cosplayers cosplaying a specific character being featured on a magazine cover only to put more weight on the image of someone cosplaying that character is also wrong.

Do i not like it? Of course i don't. But pointless images of cosplaying usually leads to whether the weight is necesary. So as much as anyone makes claims of "i dont like it" you are also falling into the similar category. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is always being tossed around when a free-image is being questioned for its relevancy.Lucia Black (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Lucia Black and others that have expressed similar statements. Cosplay costumes are fans interpretation of how the characters should be portrayed. While the portrayal may be very similar to how the character appears, even mimicking a certain look, it is still a personal interpretation. Canoe, you saying "To not mention cosplay versions would be the same as not mentioning videogame or movie versions" is very incorrect, because those are the official likenesses that have been approved by the publishers to represent their characters. So unfortunately, adding cosplay pics, such as the Black Widow one, is not proper for the individual pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree as well with Lucia Black and Favre1fan93. So long as Commons policy accepts without limitation cosplay images (however much some of us may think that's not the best copyright policy), you can upload them there, but you can't treat them in Wikipedia articles as of equal encyclopedic value to official media representations of the characters. In a very real sense, the articles are about an element of those media. If you can show secondary source coverage of substance regarding fan reception, that's one thing (and even fan fiction can become notable), but otherwise the fact that someone wore and/or made their own costume is just as irrelevant to that character's article as if I added to Pajanimals that my kid loves it. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, if you can create a section in the article about popular culture or their impact on culture, you could easily use an image of cosplay, as long as it relates to the material in the article. It's not just cosplay - anything like Ms. Marvel and the Carol Corps, or Hawkeye and the The Hawkeye Initiative (kinda disappointing that isn't mentioned in Hawkeye's article, really...). Unfortunately, a lot of editors see things that ARE real-world relevant as just fancruft that doesn't belong in the article - such as the "Over 9,000" meme being forbidden from inclusion in any Dragon Ball articles, no matter how large of a thing it is. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 02:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's notable enough to merit a separate article, then it should be linked in some way from the parent topic article, even if only under "see also". postdlf (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right (to Tako). The only instances that I can think of where any info would be warranted on the pages are more aligned with video games, as publishers have used cosplayers to be their official representations (Lara Croft, Juliet in Lollipop Chainsaw). I don't want to divert it to video games, but the same premise would/does apply to comics- Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are all still missing the point. The article is about a character that started in a comic book. The original illustrator visualized and created it for his readers as best he could with 2D and 256 colors. Other versions were created to show his character in live 3D. If you compare the three versions:


 * This is not the Black Widow. It is someone dressed as the Black Widow. Why is it not the Black Widow? Because the people who own the Black Widow have not said it is (the Black Widow is a trademarked property).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Moon and Higgs bosons exist independently of depictions of them, and no depictions of them are privileged over any other based on who authored the depiction. The Black Widow character does not exist independently of its depictions, and some depictions (those of Marvel and its licensees) are privileged over others. Though perhaps another analogy might simplify the matter even further by setting aside the copyrighted character issue for a moment. Let's say the same lovely model likes to dress as mythological subjects as well. Would you claim that a photo of her dressed as Hera would be appropriate to add to Hera? postdlf (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

NASA doesn't own the moon let alone create it. But for some reason we have one of their lame kiddy drawings of it in four of our articles. Marvel may have created Black Widow but that does not mean we should only include their versions of her.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, drawings made by astronauts from their personal observations are "lame kiddy drawings." This has just gotten stupid and tendentious, so drop the WP:STICK. No one agrees with you no matter how many times you repeat your opinion. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No one in this section agrees with me but millions of readers and tens of thousands of cosplayers may disagree with those two editors. Fine, I will just contact a few cosplay groups and see if they wish to make, yet again, Wikipedia look very foolish in the eyes of the world. Bye for now......--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Make it three editors. I also find your arguement lacking. I haven't chimed in until now because I thought they were handling it better than I could, but since you're looking for a consensus, I'm putting in my opinion. Including cosplay would open the door for, among other things, fanmade Youtube videos being listed in articles for movies. To that I say "No." Argento Surfer (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is pure BIAS. Why contact cosplayers to determine cosplay being relevant in an online free encyclopedia? They would have to be experienced editors FIRST, cosplayers SECOND. and there's not a doubt in my mind that there are several cosplayers here that are against cosplay images in wikipedia. It's just promoting images. And you don't have 2 editors, you have a handful of editors. I'm sorry if this sounds like WP:BADFAITH, but this sounds like an excuse to promote cosplayers onto wikipedia.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if there is a Guardian article (say) about that character's particularly notable popularity with cosplayers; otherwise I'd definitely omit it.Zythe (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Guardian cares about cosplay as much as they do BLP smears. I did however find a San Diego Free Press article that mentions Black Widow cosplay though. "The favorites this year were Wolverine, Thor, Black Widow, Stormtroopers and anything Star Wars (especially Slave Leia!), Captain America, Batman, Joker, Naruto and, of course, zombies." I will leave it up to the regular editors to decide whether this RS qualifies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. In that source, while reliable, is a personal opinion of the author. Still doesn't give much for any inclusion on the character pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Other media appearances
Does it count as an "appearance" in a TV episode or a video game if the character is merely mentioned by other characters, if of their costume appears without them in it? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe a mention is okay, but I don't have much experience on the matter. At the moment, the only issue I'm seeing is that none of what Dream Focus is adding, is sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Other people added it before, and he was just reverting. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that if a character doesn't actually appear, then it doesn't count as an appearance. If we start cataloging every mention of fictional characters in TV and film, the media sections of those articles would be huge! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, fair enough to remove then? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a rule I wouldn't count a mention as an appearance, but in some cases it might form part of how they chose to interpret the character in another context, e.g. tying in an unseen Ted Kord into the Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes) story in Smallville. Zythe (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender
Hi. Can available editors offer their opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

the attempted merger of DC's imprints into a single article
Apparently, user:Spshu decided to merge around 20 articles into a single list Imprints of DC Comics, without any discussion. I'd understand for having more substance about smaller articles in a List of DC Comics imprints article; and maining ones with actual substance. However, right now he has merged just about every DC Imprint that had an article - disregarding the notability and substance of the articles. I've reverted the merges of Wildstorm and Vertigo (DC Comics) into the single article, because those two are pretty big articles and undoubtedly notable enough to exist on their own.

Should each article's merger be discussed individually? (Should any of them even be merged at all?) &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 00:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe each should be discussed individually and should not have been done without some discussion. I have no knowledge of the individual page histories, but a listing page might be fine along with individual pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What a mess. This should not have happened. Period. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 04:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, none of the imprints' article meet notability. None of them meet significant coverage. They are all either unsourced, based on primary source (DC website), or covered via comic book news websites only. The comic book news webistes amount to non-signaticant coverage as they cover every thing about comics, so are similar to TV Guides for TV shows, routine coverage. So, you all would prefer to wait for some one to come along get them deleted instead? Or temporary have redirects, so if notability is established then the old article is retrievable? In a deletion argument, Takuy, Clearly notable (your underlying reversal reason) doesn't wash nor should it here. Neither should the length of the articles. Spshu (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like an improvement to me. There definitely isn't enough material in that merged article to sustain 20 separate articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Vertigo and Wildstorm have long and interesting real-life histories for which there are many sources that could be used to form a real article. They should be full articles as well as on the list.Zythe (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Same with Elseworlds, another imprint with a publication history of many years and dozens of titles, and an article that&mdash;while certainly needed improvement&mdash;was hardly worthy of blank-and-redirect. Spshu claims that the refimprove tag was justification enough to zap without any discussion before or after. I agree that an article like Imprints of DC Comics is worthwhile to have, and DC Focus or Helix (You heard of those before today? Me neither) probably don't deserve more than stub sections in said article, but the likes of Vertigo, Wildstorm, Elseworlds, and Paradox/Piranha Press&mdash;all with substantial preexisting articles&mdash;don't deserve to be summarily removed, at least not without prior discussion. Ylee (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the articles that have enough information to support a full article can be spun out into daughter articles. Its basically standard procedure per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Much better for navigation to have a central page and with links to daughter articles. from the individual sections.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned I am not opposed to a central Imprints of DC Comics article, with stub sections linking to separate articles with more detail for certain specific imprints. I linked to the Wildstorm and Elseworlds articles in said article after Spshu created it, only to have him revert my edits. Ylee (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the redirecting was poorly chosen. Mass redirecting merely because one made a list page should not have been done.


 * And simply being an imprint of DC (or and imprint of an imprint of DC) does not automatically make an imprint "not notable". Indeed, potentially not notable might be Sue Ellen's quilting bee in Nowhere, Somestate. But an imprint which sold tens of thousands (many, hundreds of thousands or more) of books doesn't sound "not notable". And just because a page doesn't have a reference, doesn't mean it couldn't have one. WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind.


 * All that said I could see some of the tertiary imprints (imprint of an imprint of an imprint) merged to the "parent" article, such as a few of the wild storm secondary imprints merged to the Wildstorm article.


 * I think, had actual analysis of each article been apparent in the action (since many of those redirected, should not have been), we probably wouldn't be here now. - jc37 14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So what if Vertigo, Wildstorm and Elseworlds have "long and interesting real-life histories", it has to do with the significate coverage test of notability. Just because I made them redirects doesn't mean that in the future that stand alone articles could not be retrieved if a significate coverage sources are found. I brought up the refimprove tag on Elseworld because notability has to do with citation, so editors have been on notice that not enough citations including to make it notable existed in the article.  Elseworld only has one "real" source, one from Newsarama.com, which as pointed out routinely covers comics so doesn't count towards significate coverage.
 * Jc37: "Mass redirecting merely because one made a list page should not have been done." False, I told you that your assumption was wrong. Notability is the issue.
 * Jc37: "And simply being an imprint of DC (or and imprint of an imprint of DC) does not automatically make an imprint 'not notable'." False, as I pointed out that I looked at the articles and the sources. If you looked you would see that CMX was not included in the Imprint article. It is a bit borderline with Publishers Weekly and The Decatur Daily serving as the significate sources as they are mainstream but not major.
 * Jc37: "But an imprint which sold tens of thousands (many, hundreds of thousands or more) of books doesn't sound "not notable". And just because a page doesn't have a reference, doesn't mean it couldn't have one. WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind." So, I did what I could, but no notability means not having a seperate articles. Just publishing however many comic books doesn't automatically make the publisher notable.  That is the Clearly notable false argument.
 * Yes, if you bother to actual look at the articles, Jc37, you would understand that none of them as source are notable as previous pointed out. So you wouldn't have reverted my redirects, so then we would be here either. But, since you didn't look you have come to the wrong conclusion. You admitted that you blindly reverted the redirects instead of looking at the articles. If you bothered to look, you would note that I attempt to bring First Wave up to WP standards, it is now fully sourced but I lacked another mainstream source to meet notability requirements. So actual analysis was done, but instead thinking that some did you incorrectly assume that to be false. You did not assume good faith. And now you are throwing a fit by continual removing our discussion from the page it began on in the middle of the discussion where he again attempts to tell me that my edit summary which summarized what the edit was, is my reason. Total uncollegiate and unpositive. Spshu (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

←So, here is the research to show that the imprints or lines don't qualify for an article:
 * So, I might have been wrong about Vertigo, but the rest clearly not. Spshu (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll skip addressing what appears to be your mistaken perception concerning references and "notability", as others would seem to be trying to convey that to you below.
 * I would like to note that there is a vast difference between a "blind revert" and a "blanket revert". I didn't do either, though I suppose it was close to a blanket revert, I do recall in at least one instance not reverting your other edits to an article, which should help indicate that this was neither blind nor un-thought through.
 * I also should note that while the topic may be comic books, this does not refer to fiction. I have a feeling (a guess) that part of the issue here is you may be conflating the ever changing guidelines concerning notability of fictional items, with the notability of non-fictional items.
 * Also, the word "imprint" is a word that has varying definitions in usage. Knowing a bit about the topic of imprints in general (and in the comic book industry in particular) might have also helped better understanding the notability of varying types of imprints. And I should note, technically, Action Comics and Detective Comics are both imprints. So trying to merge all DC-related imprints to a single list page is obviously not the way to go, especially since it violates several core policies, and several other guidelines.
 * My normal SOP might be to try to help you learn and understand these better, but honestly, your comments remind me of someone who claimed that it was possible to walk through a brick wall. They kept determinedly walking against one assuring me that their perspective was the correct one, and had a deaf ear to any words I said to try to help them to the contrary. Though please let me know once you've stopped repeatedly walking into this (metaphorical) wall, and are more open to discussion. - jc37 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So if you don't like a reliable source, you don't consider a "significant source"? If it has reliable sources covering it, it proves Wikipedia notability.  There are other ways to determine if something is notable as well.  Start a proper merge discussion but please don't waste everyone's time by trying to get rid of things that have reliable sources referenced in the article already.   D r e a m Focus  23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are making a strange distinction between "significant" and "major" (and "mainstream" versus "major") sources that the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources does not. The fact that Newsarama attempts to be a comprehensive news source covering all aspects of comic books does not make it less of a RS. And how in the world are Publishers Weekly and a daily newspaper not sources worthy of citing from? Ylee (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, Dream Focus, you are once again not assuming good faith. I have show in reference to the First Wave article that it is about me liking or not liking a source. You need to stop making assumption about people's motives. Come to argue your case, not wasting other peoples time by making unproven assumptions about others. Re: "proper merge discussion" isn't need as the DC Imprint article was written from mostly scratch from reliable sources (including atleast two notable/significant source), so I am not requesting that information from those articles to be merger to the Imprint article. Under you logic, Dream Focus, in opposing the DC Imprint article, you too are attempt to get rid of an article that has reliable sources.
 * notability and its significant coverage test is what I am discussing not reliable sources, Ylee. RS doesn't always mean it is sigificant coverage, but a significant coverage source is a RS.
 * Newsarama as you state deliveries routine coverage on the comic book industry, so it falls in with the TV Guide as a reliable but routine source, so not a significant coverage source.
 * How in the world are you, Ylee, getting that I think that Publishers Weekly and a daily newspaper are not sources worthy of citing from? Go back and read it again. Spshu (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Spshu, I've looked around (briefly) for a guideline that distinguishes between "routine" coverage and other coverage, but I can't find any. Do you have a link I can follow? It seems to me there's a difference between using TvGuide coverage where it lists everything that aired on every channel for a week and TvGuide coverage where it has an in-depth article or interview about a specific show. Most comic refs I've seen from newsarama and elsewhere are to reviews, interviews, or specific new, not blanket "This issue exists" lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a good argument for merging. Lack of content is. Any of the imprints that have sufficient reliable sources to an article can be recreated and linked from the main list article - but they should be actual articles with more information than the section in the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I 100% disagree with you. There are many subjects with lots of content but not notable enough for an article, but notable enough to be included in a different article. See pretty much any of the pages merged into List of Marvel Comics Characters lately. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your argument is in opposition to mine. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I am not saying that notability for a section and for a standalone article is the same - I agree that sometimes something is notable enough to include in a list but not to have its own article. My point is that if any of the merged articles do have sufficient sources to be notable then they can be recreated, but those that do not should just be kept in the list article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My fault. I misread your original comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ROUTINE is for determining the notability of events. These things are not events.  These are reviews and interviews, which indicate something is notable by the general notability guidelines. WP:GNG   D r e a m Focus  16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because sources only cover comic books does not make them unreliable nor inappropriate as sources counting towards notability. The comic book website do need to show editorial control and some type of reasonable fact checking, but we don't require that sources have to come from outside the comic book industry to have notable articles. (This would basically cause about 75% of the articles on WP in specialized areas to fail notability otherwise). --M ASEM  (t) 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DreamFocus! I'm still confused by Spshu distinguishing between sources as reliable and significant. Most conversations/guidelines I've seen have used "significant" to describe quantity, not quality, in the sense that one reliable source isn't enough for a subject to be notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the policy page Spshu himself linked to, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Obviously that doesn't fit at all with the way he's using the term.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please handle this type of thing at WP:AfD in the future, so the community can discuss the issue before redirecting decades worth of contributions. AfD specializes in questions of notability, which appears to be where this discussion is headed. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Spshu, it looks like most (all?) of the redirects were reverted. If you believe any should be turned back into redirects, please nominate it at AfD. You can then post a link to the AfD here. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here it is for you, Argento Surfer
 * WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:NNC: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." thus the difference between significant, or notable, source and reliable sources.
 * WP:ORGDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements.." " Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:" "..routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or.."  Thus reviews and interviews don't count towards notability.
 * Audience
 * The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.


 * Independence of sources
 * A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.

NukeofEarl, read down further on WP:SIGCOV: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Spshu (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

←Odie5533, as I have been told by an admin that admins there (AfD) will violate guidelines just because that is what they have done in the past. Spshu (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are guidelines after all. But generally AfDers and Admins follow the guidelines. One of the biggest problems at AfD is just lack of participation, so if you do AfD some of them, post a link to the AfD here. That said, I would imagine many more will survive an AfD than you'd probably like. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)