Wikipedia talk:WikiProject G.I. Joe/Archive 1

Participants
I can't figure out how to Wiki-add my name to the participants section. Also, I don't quite get the 'lucrative' description. Does it really apply to G.I.Joe that strongly? Lots42 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a work in progress that I haven't quite figured out yet. I hope more experienced wiki contributors would come help soon. Also, 'lucrative' description is just an example. Again, it's because the page is still in a work in progress state and I haven't thought of better examples yet. Hehehehehe.--Destron Commander 10:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's anything that you have to do but I just merely wikilink my user name, talk page and signed my post. That's all I did.--Destron Commander 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up
I just want to give a warning to anyone working on this project because of experiences I've had on wikipedia: make sure that all articles have as many independent sources to establish notability as possible.

For example, a very persistent deletionist has been plaguing WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (and a number of other fan-supported fiction-based wikiprojects) for the last few weeks, tagging articles with as many tags as he can think of, and nominating articles for deletion when he thinks he can get away with it. So far although he seems determined to single-handedly dismantle the project, he has been little more than an annoying hassle to the editors on that project; however if enough people begin listening to his arguments about notability, that could change. And he's not the first one to try this, just the most persistent so far; even if he fails, others will try again later.

So, to reiterate, make sure you add as many independent sources from books, magazines, TV specials, etc (preferably not from Hasbro or any licensee) to as many articles as possible to establish notability as soon as you can, to avoid this sort of unwanted scrutiny. You'll thank yourself later! BOZ 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Assistance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Lots42 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://joes.propadeutic.com/ A great Joe resource page, perfect for the linking too imho. Lots42 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Attention Please
I think the Cover Girl page could benefit from a lot more people/an expert working on it. Lots42 08:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible templates
I've found a wikia dedicated to G.I. Joe and there are templates that, I believe, we can use for the improvement of the G.I. Joe Wikipedia. The fan wikia can be located at gijoe.wikia.com. I have always envied how Transformers have articles that are more or less consistent in Wikipedia. This is one resource we can utilize. --Destron Commander (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, as is the template you made here for sending folk there for more info. I think the location of the template where you've put it in articles, so that it straddles a dividing line, looks bad tho. (I changed the one in America's Elite but don't feel like going thru and making the change everywhere.) Most of the time, that I've seen, the external-wiki link (i.e. Commons) gets placed in the external links or the see-also sections.Salamurai (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

infobox
Also, regarding templates, does anyone know of, or know how to make, a Joe-specific infobox, that would include statistical info (code name, real name, aliases, SN, specialties, year first figure released, etc) that could be included on each character's article? i.e. like the ones used for fictional characters. Salamurai (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Baroness (G.I. Joe)
Issues have been raised by more than one person regarding the length of sections of this article and the absence of citations. It would be greatly helpful if project members would pitch in and try to get this article under control. One major point is the section Marvel (Volume 1). The section should be a much briefer summary of the plot, rather than a nearly step by step retelling of the plot. Other sections need work as well. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Live-action film
Since filming has begun, per WP:NFF, I've established the film article at G.I. Joe (film). I think this titling is most appropriate because of the setup of Transformers (film) and The Transformers: The Movie. Hopefully, we don't need to rehash titling arguments, especially with hatnotes at G.I. Joe and G.I. Joe: The Movie. However, a note to all about adding production information -- movie websites that provide scoop reports are not reliable sources. If they got news publicly from filmmakers and reported it, they can be cited. See the References section at the film article to understand what's verifiable enough to use. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
I just recently joined this project an decide as my first contribution to design an Userbox for members and one to post on the talk pages of articles related to G.I. Joe. What do you think of them? Steve (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Templates
May God Bless You All Always!

I need help from some who understands HTML and web pages better than I do. The templates used for G.I. Joe Character need some maintenance and I do not understand what is wrong. Take a look at the character template for Duke.

Now look at the Template for Transformers' Character Hot Rod.

Now here is the same Transformer's Template except that I put "G.I. Joe character" where "Transformer's Character" was.

So what is the problem? Can anyone tell me and show me how to fix it? (Steve (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There's apparently something wrong with the code. Thanks for letting me know. I'm trying to figure it out, but I'm at work and can't spend much time on it right now. So, I'm adding a documentation section (stolen from the TF template) and am attempting to get the Affiliation to work. Other things can be dealt with later. Salamurai (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, affiliation now appears, and the name-bar is color coded as expected. I changed some of the colors. We need to talk about the colors. Please see talk for Template:Infobox G.I. Joe character. Salamurai (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have everything that exists in the template functioning now. I think there are some fields that could be added (serial #, for example). I'm going to look over some filecards when I get home and see what could be usefully added. Salamurai (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar?
Do we have G.I. Joe Barnstar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.116.51 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject G.I. Joe participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject G.I. Joe participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of FreeContentMeta
FreeContentMeta, which is used in the JoeWiki template, is under discussion. Please see template talk:FreeContentMeta to participate in this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of October Guard > Oktober Guard
There is a move request: Feel free to discuss it at Talk:October Guard. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment?
Hey there. Just wondering, but has this project ever thought about adding an assessment scheme? Without it, articles from this project won't be featured in Wikipedia releases, such as the upcoming 0.7 and eventual 1.0. BOZ (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added assessent capability for Wikiproject Toys, so if you want to add WP Toys with a class and importance rating to anything in this project, you can now feel free to assess them for potential inclusion in future WP releases. :) BOZ (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrordome
Terrordrome has been sent to WP:PROD by someone for deletion. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bazooka (G.I. Joe)
May God Bless You Always!

I know I have not been here for a while, but my life has gotten busy. Anyway, I have been working on a re-write for the Bazooka (G.I. Joe) article. I will try to have it up as soon as possible. (Steve (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Urgent citation revision for Action Force villians
Seems that most of them have outdated citations. Just a heads up. I'd like to do it, but my hands could be full in the next few days. Ominae (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Conventions
I believe we need to establish a Conventions page similar to what the Automobiles Project uses. We need to standardize things like how character pages are named, filenames are typed in infoboxes, etc. Thoughts?--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What conventions? Care to elucidate? Don't know where to start.  Cite examples please....Drakesketchit (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're asking. I gave examples of both what conventions are and what needs to be standardized.--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this can be very helpful. I think we need to also standardize how the pages are set up. Filenames should be typed as they appear on filecards? I like the first name, middle initial, and then last name format personally. The tricky part with serial number is there is no standardization even for the same figure. If you look at their filecards throughout the years, with the exception of a few, most get new serials each revision. Sgetz (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming Convention - Should be Name (G.I. Joe) as most already follow this pattern, makes the pages easier to organize and find. Flash, what other items need to be looked at? Sgetz (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we definitely need to standardize page layout. If we look at three popular character pages, Snake-Eyes, Hawk (G.I. Joe) and Scarlett (G.I. Joe), the layout and section titles are completely different for each page. Something like this would be very helpful IMO. Cerebellum (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, we should also standardize the External Links sections. I think that at a minimum, each character page should link to the Joepedia article, the applicable YoJoe pages, and applicable Myuselessknowledge page. Cerebellum (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea on the links. Sgetz, while I agree that it would probably be best if we added "(G.I. Joe)" to the end of page titles, I was thinking in terms of character names that have been spelled differently over the years or are just plain spelled wrong in article names. For instance, it appears that all figures have been released as Snake Eyes, yet the article is spelled as Snake-Eyes. Also, Rip Cord/Ripcord and Beach Head/Beachhead/Beach-Head.


 * The way I see it, we can choose to name articles like these by A) the first spelling used, B) the most common spelling used, or C) the latest spelling used. I prefer A because the other two options would be subject to change as more figures were released. It could also be said that a precedent for this has been established by the recent unobjected move of Ripcord back to Rip Cord, but that's by no means set in stone. Establishing a convention such as this will also protect pages from editors with good intentions who move pages to other spellings they think should be used.


 * As for the filecards/infoboxes, we do need to set a standard for them as well. Due to the military nature of GI Joe, I prefer the last name first, but it's not a big deal. We should probably establish what pay grade, MOS, etc. we'll go by if we can since some changed over the years. I was never a big fan of the serial number, do you think we should include it?--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, as Sgetz and I have discussed, we should probably make it policy to place a second infobox for characters that will be in the movie. They've changed too much stuff around to be able to neatly assimilate the new stuff into the primary infoboxes.--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Flash, we have been testing the changes to the infobox on some of the pages, take a look at Snake-Eyes and see how it is on the bottom. As for the naming, yes I agree with A, as we go along, many of the names change because of trademark losses. Speaking of which, Snake-Eyes really should be move to Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) sometime soon, and perhaps all names changed to reflect Snake Eyes being named without the dash. We can discuss their different names in the biography section, such as Scarlett being Agent Scarlett on some releases, then Scarlett, and so on. I also agree with the name convention, Last, First MI., you are right, it fits with the military nature. I really am not a fan of the Serial Number because they are so inconsistent. They keep changing them, with some figures having a new one for each release. I would say for the Pay Grade, list the original with year in parenthesis, and if it changes, list it with the year in parenthesis. For all of that information, unless it is stated in a Comic Bio, I would say the file card has to be the main source for that information. Sgetz (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, we should have a convention on what the approved artwork for the info box should be. I have tried to use a Comic Cover when it is available, if the artwork is clear and the character involved. For some, their artwork was available for a time from Hasbro on the website. Personally, I would rather not use any artwork from the Cartoon Series unless absolutely necessary. I would prefer something printed, but that is me. Thoughts? Sgetz (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Should there be a convention on how the different sizes are referred by? There is the 3 3/4" vs 3.75" thing going on in some of the pages. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always heard 3 3/4 myself. Cerebellum (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the size. 3 3/4" is, I believe, the officially given measurement. It's also what I've always seen used in the fandom.


 * I like the idea of the year in parentheses by the pay grade, that would be a big help, I think. Also agree with leaving out the serial numbers. As for the artwork, do you think we should use artwork or scans/pictures of the actual figure. They try to make a big deal out of using figures on here, but it's no different from using comic scans. As far as comic vs. cartoon goes, I think comic drawings tended to be more accurate and detailed, so yes, I would prefer that we use them unless there is a good cartoon example available.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, late to the party. I agree with choice A on the name -- redirects are always available, if needed -- and on using (G.I. Joe) after character names, to specify that it's part of GIJoe and not like Transformers or some such. Code-Name changes, ala "Agent" Scarlett, tend to be just for getting around the we-lost-the-trademark for the toy, and don't reflect a real change in the character's code name, teammates would still call her Scarlett. I would put discussion of toy name changes in a section about the released toys, not in the fictional biography, but then you get stuff where Roadblock is now called Heavy Duty in the main comic, despite there previously being two distinct characters by those names in the past.
 * For character pictures, I'd prefer (if fair use allows) that the best-known toy art be used. i.e. for Snake Eyes, use the V2 art. But, like any other fictional character, there may be better art available.Salamurai (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to grab anything useful out of this archived discussion. :) BOZ (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made a very rough draft to get the page started. Keep in mind that I just wanted to get the page started, so just because something is or isn't on there right now doesn't mean it's the law of the land.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we also work something up on article structure? (see my link two posts above) BOZ (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, BOZ, we should work on an article structure. I have been tinkering heavily with the Snake-Eyes page, and like the format I have used for that. Start with A biography section, a toy section, Comics (original continuity - Marvel/Image/DDP), Comics New Continuity (IDW), Comics - Alternate Continuity (DDP Transformer Series etc), Animated Series and Movies, Sigma 6 (LOST MISSIONS?), Video Games, Movie, and then Other Media/Parody. I tried to follow some of the other Comic articles as a theme. The main thing I tried to do is try to treat each continuity seperatly, and state that the canon of that universe is canon for that universe and that universe only. Tries to keep from having contradictions to other ones. I try to follow my structure when I make new pages, like General Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe) or Low-Light_(G.I._Joe). Thoughts? I agree with Salamurai about the box art as well, being that it usually is the best depiction of the character, but sometimes there are great comic versions that show the character even more detailed. Usually, only if it is from a cover with the main character as the central focus, or from the Devils Due bio pages, those were really nice. I was thinking, one thing that might be useful is a cartoon pic on the page ONLY if it is very different from the Comic/Character Bio, such as Hawk in Cartoon different from the Comic (hair color). I also want to say we should only put extras in if something well is shown, like Snake Eyes with his face unmasked, and the few key costume change pictures used in his article. Sgetz (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, wanted and opinion on when the Code Name is recycled. Only 2 I can think of off the top of my head, Doc_(G.I._Joe) and Dial_Tone_(G.I._Joe), is it okay to use the same page for both characters that use the name, and treat the article as 2 separate articles? Tried to follow how some of the other comic pages handle this, like Supergirl being about all of the different versions. Only difference I see, there really is not a high significance or enough information for these characters to have completely separate pages. Final thing, what should the convention of name be for Joseph Colton? Should he be G.I. Joe (G.I. Joe) or should he remain General Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe), so as not to use the G.I. Joe twice? Sgetz (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should just keep doing like we are now for reused codenames. Transformers already does it. I prefer Gen. Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe). GI Joe (GI Joe) just doesn't look right.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sgetz, sounds like you have a pretty good handle on how the articles should be structured - I can agree with that. :) One thing we need to be careful of in the "character overview" is keeping the universes separate; what applies to a character in the comics may not be the same in the cartoon, or even the toys. However, any elements common to all can and should be preserved, and any elements common to most universes can be stated as "In the comics and cartoons, this character is..."


 * And yeah, G.I. Joe (G.I. Joe) just isn't going to work. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Working on the conventions page, I just realized that we probably need to decide whether we want to classify the movie characters as the original characters or consider them new characters like the second generation Doc and Dial Tone.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this proposed page layout fit your idea?--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Only thing I would add is a separate are in comics for Alternate Continuities, which is anything that is made by a comic company that does not fit in their established continuity at that time. Such as the G.I. Joe vs. Transformers series, and Transformers/G.I. Joe books. Might be more as IDW continues. As for the Sunbow/DIC part, I think the G.I. Joe The Movie should go in there as well, as it is a Sunbow production. I like the idea of keeping everything related to Sigma Six/Lost Missions separate, since the figures were different size, and the animated series and comic were separate from all other continuities, even though there is a stretch that they follow some of the events of the previous direct to DVD movies. I would like to put the year of the G.I. JOE Rise of Cobra Movie characters first appearance as the year that they first appeared in the movie, so that if a sequel comes out with new characters, there is a way to show when they came out. One thing I wondered, how do you want to handle the people in the movie figure line that are not in the movie, but may appear in the game or toy line? And, yeah, BOZ, I think in the general character overview, can say things that are consistent for all incarnations, or the most well know, like all versions of Snake Eyes have face covered and mute, and that all versions of Scarlett have Red Hair. Sgetz (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we also set up a Category:G.I. Joe media or something similiar as a tag put on all of the pictures used in any of the G.I. Joe pages? I have seen this done like, and find it helpful to see what is in there. Also, is there a preferred size and format for the media used? JPG vs PNG, 300 PX max? EDIT: The Info Box is hard coded for a 240px image.That type of stuff. How many pictures per page? On Snake-Eyes, I have 6. One in Info Box of Comic cover of V2 uniform, One of original Box Art reproduction, one unmasked, one significant battle scene, one return to old uniform which was significant in comic of him going back to being only a commando, and one is of him in movie. Should the rule of thumb be if their uniform changes significantly (like when Scarlet was in comics in her Ninja Force uniform), or they are unmasked (if traditionally they have a mask at all times), and if there is a key battle in the description you are talking about, and then a movie one? Sgetz (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Acceptable External Links?: What other than the Joepedia should be allowed? Is My Useless Knowledge information okay? Should we link to the YoJoe! of the first figure released (this gives us a quick list of the various releases of the figure for the character)? What about Fan or Tribute sites? Sgetz (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should add a media category for images. Think it would be too much trouble to set up separate subcategories under media for comics, cartoons, and movie? Also, maybe we could tag each image of a character with a category for that character? Just a thought. I don't have an opinion either way on imposing a limit on the number of pictures used in an article.


 * Per external links, I agree with what Cerebellum said up top about linking to Joepedia, yojoe.com (I agree, just link to the first version toy and users can find their way from there), and myuselessknowledge.com. Here is Wikipedia's guidelines on linking. Rule 3 is mainly what applies to us, I think. Unless it's a huge source like yojoe or myuselessknowledge, fan pages and forums are pretty much out. The only exception I've made to this in the past is on the main page to allow links to joecustoms.com to show how big the customization aspect of Joe is and to one or two news websites that track official stuff about G.I. Joe.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been following this closely, but you don't want to stick "(G.I. Joe)" after article names unless it is necessary because something else already uses the name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you asking me why (indent is confusing)? Anyways, we used to add "(Show name episode)" to television episode articles.  The reason was that some show's episodes would almost all need the disambiguation, and it looked weird to leave it off from just a few.  Long story short, it conflicted with Disambiguation or whatever page controls that stuff, and after some of the biggest edit wars I've ever seen (in over 4 years!), the result was that we don't dab unless we have to.  User:Durova was part of it, I think, if you want to ask someone who really cared at the time.  Or you can search the tv wikiprojects talk page, I'm sure it came up there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Started Creating Categories to see how it would work. Created a Category G.I. Joe Media, with 2 Sub Categories so far, Comic and Movie. Thoughts on how this looks? Only thing I was thinking on creating a category for each figure, might get very large, and have several single file categories. Sgetz (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, we should use the IMDB link for the characters, see this Template for more info. Sgetz (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan Sites
A user keeps adding back the [Snake Eyes Tribute Site] to the Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) Page. Above the ruling seemed to be no external fan sites. Thoughts on this case? Sgetz (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That site does have a lot of pictures from the comic book and the cartoon. Just click on the few that appear, to see quite a bit more.  How many pictures do you need to see of someone who wore a mask all the time?  Not that many changes over the years.   D r e a m Focus  17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as it stays only on Snake Eyes' page, I think it's a relevant resource for the article. Wikipedia says that other sites that provide a resource that we can't (like Yojoe or My Useless Knowledge) are good to go.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters at AFD
Started with with the implication that there will be more to come. FYI 24.148.0.83 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe), then moved to
 * Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) (which includes several characters, such as Airtight and Barbecue),


 * They seem to be nominating all those that start with the letters A and B for now, in the Barbecue one. The toys are notable, and are thus going to be in books about notable toys, for collectors and whatnot.  That counts as notable coverage.  So next time this comes up, just use Google book search as I did in the AFD  for the name of the toy, the series it is from, and then see how many results you get.  Had to add in the names of two G.I.Joe characters to filter out all the unrelated results.   D r e a m Focus  21:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AfD
Barbecue (G.I. Joe) and Mainframe (G.I. Joe) have been listed at Articles for Deletion at Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) and Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe). Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to this situation, I dug up the following http://www.yojoe.com/archive/collectorbooks/ Basically, exactly what the AFD people are asking for, a bunch of third party G.I.Joe information. We need to add this in somehow, people, please. Lots42 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus said that some of these are available on Google books. I don't have the time right now to add anything. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on real people
Many heroic Joes are based on real people, like Tunnel Rat-Larry Hama. But many villains are based on real people. This -might- run afoul of Wikipedia's rules against making negative comparisons involving living people. Can't hurt to be extra careful. Lots42 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The characters may use a real person's name, or their appearance, but the characters are fictional. Even G.I. Joe's "Sgt. Slaughter", while voiced by and heavily based on the then-persona (after, he did a heel for a few years, which was bizarre) of the real-life wrestler, is fictional. Relax a little. Salamurai (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sgt. Slaughter example is just fine, because the fictional version is very heroic and decent and etc. But many of the G.I.Joe toy-line characters based on real people are evil bastards. That's where the iffy stuff comes in. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You just say the name and/or likeness was used. I don't think anyone actually believes these guys in real life were running around shooting it out or anything.   D r e a m Focus  20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Editors must take care in adding information about living people to ANY Wikipedia page. Look on the discussion page for any article about a living person and you will find out all the information you could want about Wikipedia policies concerning living people. Lots42 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Third Party Source. I love the library.

 * If I screwed up the HTML, check out Doc (G.I. Joe) for another example. Lots42 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Years to the issue references
If you want to help me add on the years to the G.I.Joe Marvel issue references, I collated a list that should be here --- > http://lots42.livejournal.com/2077906.html Enjoy. Lots42 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Joe comic articles
Sometimes it's tough to find sources for articles on G.I. Joe comics. I've put together a list of some helpful links (mostly interviews with creators) at User:Cerebellum/G.I. Joe. Please add more links if you find them. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist?

 * (a revision of Requested moves) said:-


 * I obeyed this move request; but where is the "watchlist at WikiProject G.I. Joe"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of the move. The "watchlist" that I was talking about is the Recent changes in G.I. Joe-related articles page. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

 * I thought I should bring this here as well. I thought I should let someone know about a user called Doctorfacts

He/she keeps deleting and adding wrong info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page and never gives any explanation as to why

To explain what is going on the page as best as I can... he/she keeps stating on the page that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with the character Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There's no source or episode from that cartoon show to prove that. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can on that page and I have listed which episode and have written out the scenes that explain that. But looking at that person's history page, that user goes on to remove any info that says otherwise no matter what and gives no reasons too any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there. Again I'm sorry to be a bother, but I thought someone should know of this. That person just keeps doing that.

This person is out to delete information just because he/she doesn't agree with it.

Something needs to be done. 75.60.208.208 75.60.208.208 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the only canon source that ever actually put Duke and Scarlett together was in G.I. Joe: Resolute. Otherwise, the ARAH comics are quite clear about her relationship with Snake Eyes. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:User WP GIJoe
I modified the userbox to auto-include categories, just like the ones for the Transformers project. (I happened to notice that the TF userbox on my user page added a cat but GIJoe did not.) I also created the Category:WikiProject G.I. Joe members to go with it. These aren't important, but why not afford a little more legitimacy to the project. How is the project these days, anyway? I've been doing other things. - Salamurai (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno how to fix it dreadnoks picture
There is an comicbook inbox for Dreadnoks could someone fix the picture for it I dunno how to do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AFDs
Right, sorry I didn't report this sooner, I didn't notice this WikiProject existed.

I have AFDed the following articles:

Articles for deletion/MOBAT (G.I. Joe)

Articles for deletion/ROCC

Articles for deletion/Conquest X-30

Articles for deletion/S.H.A.R.C.

Articles for deletion/Dragonfly (G.I. Joe)

Articles for deletion/F.A.N.G.

Articles for deletion/H.I.S.S.

Once again, I apologize. --Divebomb (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment!
Hey guys, I have modified the project banner to allow for article assessment by quality and added some info to the project page. If I have broken anything, please let me know. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)
In other news, I've nominated G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) for Good Article status. Please take a look and improve the page if you can. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been passed! Go us!  --Cerebellum (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think it may be best if you merge many character articles into a list of characters because they are not properley sourced. Some are fine, most are not. You also need to assess them on your own WP quality sclae and WP Fictional Character's. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 16:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your character articles.
You need to make sure all the articles in Category:G.I. Joe characters meet the notability guideline by making sure they are "significantly covered"(this means actual coverage, not just a passing mention or a spot on a list) "in third party reliable sources". If you don't, these articles may face a mass deletion, or a simple redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Predacon (G.I. Joe) is an example of a bad article. It doesn't show notability. Why does this character deserve to be in an encyclopedia? If you can't show this, then redirect it to where it is most relevant, and save yourselves the trouble of a mass deletion. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input! There is some community consensus for not deleting these articles, as was demonstrated in Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe) and Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe), but I definitely agree that some are inadequately sourced and need help.  A few may indeed need to be merged to a list.  I'll take a look.  Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No that applies for those two articles, they won't be deleted. At WP Fictional Characters, we're cleaning up. This wikiproject has had a large amount of time to get it sorted. Many have said they are notable according to their views, however have not taken the time to prove it. They'll all be merged into a list soon (Including articles housing under three references or simply primary sources alone), if the WP doesn't take the steps to show improvement. That however would not stop recreation of these if in the future someone makes a subject matter well sourced. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible Character Templates revisions
Hoping everyone on the project watches this page. I am thinking of modifying the G.I. Joe Character infobox to be consistent with other templates; please see Template talk:Infobox G.I. Joe character. Jist is, we don't match other articles, probably to our detriment, what do you think? - Salamurai (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I see no problems with the change. : ) Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe stub
There is currently a proposal at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2011/March for consolidating all the G.I.Joe stub articles into one category. Please check it out and voice your opinions! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fictional characters discussion
Hello everyone, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters which pertains to this project. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeebus, we really have over 300 articles? As much as I hate to admit it, maybe the guys calling for AfD might have something.  Perhaps we should consider a certain amount of merging, there's any number of ways we could group the character articles - year of release, sub-team, theme (nautical, aerial, etc.).  Just something we should consider. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah you have quite a lot of articles. The sourcing is a concern too, quite a few fan sites and copy vios. Your a big project though, if there is a not enough coverage, they can be merged into a list. Just think, all of the minor characters grouped in a list with OOU info, good prose and well sourced content. You could go for a featured list one day, draw something positive out of it. That's just one possiblility. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points - as an example, User:Fortdj33 recently merged three minor character articles into Lunartix Empire. Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of, Jake?  --Cerebellum (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Cerebellum - yeah, something along those lines. As I said, there's any number of ways we group them.  Merging is largely mechanical, so that's not the difficult part.  The difficult part will be reaching consensus on: 1. what articles should remain standalone (e.g. my top five would be Duke, Hawk, Snake Eyes, Scarlett, Cobra Commander), and 2. what criteria we use to group the remainder (I was thinking perhaps alphabetical?  e.g. "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (characters starting with "A")" or something like that). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons why I pushed for a way to highlight the Stub class articles. Now that all the articles have been assessed, it's clear that we have a lot of character articles that need to either be expanded, or merged into another article. And unfortunately, most of the stubs are limited to information from the character's file card, and don't have much farther to go. I think that any article assessed at C-class or higher deserves to stay, and maybe some of the Start class articles also, if they are expanded. In the meantime, I will do my best to highlight the articles that need attention. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that notability has nothing to do with the quality of an article. An article can have tons of cruft, and no sources, and look good enough for C-class. An article is notable when it has significant coverage in third party reliable sources. This means if a couple reliable(not fansites or forums) outside sources(not affiliated with the series) have coverage of the character, then it is notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of these articles use unreliable sources which is another reason I first became concerned. Some are highlighted in this discussion here . RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 16:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To address Jake's talk of a merge: I would caution against any sort of "grouping" of characters based on any kind of theme, as this may be subjective and confusing. Certain sub-teams may work well, such as the Lunartix and Sky Patrol merges. For the rest, I think a series of lists either by initial year of release, or alphabetically would work best. This would best be accomplished by coming up with a series of "skeletons" (maybe best done in user space before the merging), and then deciding what gets merged in on a case-by-case basis. I personally prefer alphabetical, although I understand that there is a good case for chronological, and the format should be decided before any action is taken.

As far as a list of "must-keeps", I'd estimate that there are at least a dozen, if not 20-30, that should absolutely be kept as articles. Some are just too popular, even with a current lack of meeting the GNG, to consider redirecting. Look at the AFD for Bumblebee (Transformers), for example; I recall it being a snow keep despite the lack of good sourcing. To add to Jake's list, I'd say that some villains such as Destro and Zartan should also be for-sure keeps, and I think it's safe to say that Baroness and Storm Shadow are good to go, and I'm sure a case could be made for characters like Dr Mindbender, Serpentor, Major Bludd, Tomax & Xamot, Zarana, and Firefly, among others. As for the Joes, I'd add Flint, Roadblock, and Shipwreck at the very least. The best way to do it might be to merge all the "low-hanging fruit" articles first, and then for the few dozen or so remaining questionable cases we could hold "merge or keep" discussions, maybe in smaller groups. BOZ (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See here is the problem BOZ. That discussion you cited, luckily for them they had a lot of votes to keep from editors who do not understand Wikipedia on a whole. They think because this character is so popular, it has to stay. Not the case. However, if they are so popular surely there are buckets of sources around the place. Just because this character is popular in the series, is it just as popular in the real world or in the case of a universal encyclopedia. It probably is the case with some. You know, for the articles you mentioned why not do a quick ref search, place them on the talk page, get the ball rolling. These things are a good way of getting people motivated to improving things again. However when nothing happens, and it stays that way when people have asked for change, I've seen articles go for deletion, mass deletion.. Which is a shame because it is preventable. The list ideas you have are just perfect, you seem to have the know how and idea how to pull it off. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Raintheone - on the issue of popularity within the fanbase versus popularity in the real world, I might make the same point about soap opera characters .... Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the soap opera articles I actually added sources to, discussed development, creation, casting, critical analysis, included OOU info and I could go on. The ones proved to be notable. Those ones? Yeah I can see the comparison you made... RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who brought up the topic of fanbase vs. real world popularity, not me. You've also got the advantage of working with characters whose fictional universes are extant, whereas for the most part the Joe Universe reached it's height 20+ years ago, when the Internet was still a glimmer in some engineer's eye. I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion if Wikipedia had been around in the 1980s. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol Boz started the popularity point before I replied to it. That is no excuse, I undertsand your frustrations but it's not impossible to find sources for an older character. Soap operas have been running for years, some for 50 years, WAY before the rise of the internet. So they don't really have the advantage. Stop trying to make excuses for poor sourcing. Instead of trying to bemoan other work, we should be discussing what sources can be used to improve these articles. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, soap operas have been around for years. But certain ones continue to run, so they unquestionably do have an advantage in having current viewership and current coverage.  I'd love to find better sources for the Joe articles, but unlike Shakespeare, once you pass the proverbial "best before date" there's not a whole lot out there once you weed out the fansites.  To use another example from popular fiction, there's a distinct and noticeable difference in the quality and quantity of sourcing between JAG and NCIS despite the fact that they belong to the same fictional universe and overlapped for a couple of years. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still you can find some. I took a fictional character from the 1980's to GA recently, using book sources, internet refs from the 90's, and newspapers refs from the 80's. There might be some in the archives on google search which is where I found them. The really notable characters in this series will be fine anyway, it's just the ones that are not that notable and do not infact have any references avaiable because they are minor characters that should be affected. Obviously I'm not going to suggest merging characters that might be salvaged with a little bit of attention. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All of BOZ's ideas seem really good. I merged some articles to Sky Patrol (G.I. Joe), but I do agree that an alphabetical list is the best way to go. Jake, you've put a whole lot of effort into List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, what do you think should be done? I'm thinking that maybe every character would be on the list, with main article links for those that have stand-alone articles as well. How about the G.I. Joe infoboxes? Should we incorporate them into the list? The same question goes for the table at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Should we keep it or not? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the main "List of ..." article as a one-stop reference containing the most common information shared between the various characters, a sort of "Tier 1" article if you will. The "List of ..." is a reasonably complete character inventory, and the table is sortable anyways, this is a good way for users to slice-and-dice, regardless of how the character articles are eventually structured.  I agree with the alphabetical listing for the "Tier 2" articles, something along the lines of "Characters A-D" through to "Characters U-Z" perhaps?  We can then merge the existing individual character articles into them - with the exception of "Tier 3" (i.e. individually notable characters like Snake Eyes etc).  I'm indifferent about the infoboxes, but given the amount of work that's already been put into them, I'd be content to include them in the Tier 2 and 3 articles. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if the Joes and Cobras should be combined for the purposes of this, or if we should at least retain the separation in this case. Thoughts? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All of that sounds good, especially the tier concept. Here is an alphabetical distribution of Joe names based on Category:G.I. Joe characters:


 * As you can see, the distribution is pretty uneven, so the lengths of the lists will be pretty inconsistent if we do 4 letters per list article (A-D etc). Is that OK?  It wouldn't bother me, but some might not like it.  As for integrating or separating the Joe and Cobra characters, I don't have any opinion.  There are comparatively few Cobra characters as opposed to the massive numbers of Joes.  --Cerebellum (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Aside: that's pretty nifty, do you have a bot/macro that does that?). I'm not wedded to A-D, that was just an example as I obviously hadn't done a breakdown like yours.  We have close to 200 character articles, if we assume about 25 that are worthy of Tier 3 status, then perhaps five Tier 2s of c.30-40 each? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone brought up Pokemon in the other thread, and I think the situation with species of Pokemon is very similar to ours. Maybe we can learn from what has been done at List of Pokémon? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Except the species of Pokémon is a set number(until a new generation comes out), and the lists are organized by number by increments of 50.(used to be 20 until recently) I am not sure why you brought up the Pokémon lists, cause the system would not work with your articles. I don't know the G.I Joe universe very well, but I don't think you would be able to make a "List of G.I. Joe characters (1-50)" like we have for Pokémon. Your lists would have to be by teams or sets or something. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to take inspiration from the "Lists of ..." for Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Star Wars as these would seem to be the most directly comparable, but in some ways they're in even worse shape than we are .... -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cerebellum good ideas, the infobox is a good idea when there is some OOU information which some may have. The link to the main article is a great idea, quite a few lists do this. Adds more notability to the list too. One thing though, Yojoe is not a reliable references and should be avoided really. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also applaud the effort that Jake has put into the List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, and I think the tables should stay as is, with the separation of the different factions. As for the character articles, now that all the articles have been assessed, members of WikiProject G.I. Joe (such as Cerebellum and myself) have started merging related articles, but a lot of the stub articles don't fall into neat little sub-groups. I think that we should come to a consensus, about which character articles are notable enough to have their own articles. And then maybe we should change the name of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero figures, making a new list of characters that contains a small paragraph for each character. The short articles could then be incorporated into the new list, and the article names redirected to their spot on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortdj33, when the consensus is reached on which stubs to keep because of future potential. Will the WP:GI Joe be adding the potential sources to the articles, or will you be aiding them in the process? RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd agree to a renaming, I'd thought about proposing that as well - since the "List of ..." is focused on the toyline rather than on the comics or cartoon (albeit granted, it's not really feasible to completely disassociate the three). Wrt the short articles you mention, wouldn't it just be easier to merge the stubs à la the "Tier 1/2/3" suggestion above, or am I misunderstanding you? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that once the "List of ...characters" has been renamed, and we've determined which characters should keep their own articles, the rest of them can be merged into a new List of G.I. Joe characters article. Each short article to be merged, would then redirect to its corresponding entry in the new article, similar to what we've done with the Sky Patrol and Ninja Force articles. The character's entry in the list of figures wouldn't have to change, and characters such as Duke and Snake Eyes could also have a small paragraph in the new article, with a link to their respective articles for more information. If necessary, there could be a separate List of Cobra characters article in the same format. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. Per the discussion above, the new characters article should probably be broken into (perhaps 5-8?) articles grouped alphabetically, to keep each article's size manageable, agree/disagree? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't ignore my questions guys. :P I'm trying to get involved and help.. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 03:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring you - I have no answer, so why would I reply? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge has begun
OK, I've created five new pages:
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: A-C
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: D-G
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: H-L
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: M-R
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: S-Z

We can start merging stuff in now, but let's try to do the low-hanging fruit first, as BOZ said above, so that we don't merge article which could be standalone. I'd recommend that any characters listed in G.I. Joe vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide be kept standalone, but we can debate that after we merge the clearly non-notable articles and see what we have left.

Right now I think a separate List of Cobra characters would be better than throwing the Cobras in with the Joes, but it's not a huge deal either way. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These articles are a great place to start. I would like to see these articles eventually become one article, if we can avoid the page becoming huge, by cleaning up the summaries. I also think that a separate List of Cobra characters would be beneficial, maybe with a link to the Viper (G.I. Joe) article to avoid redundancy. And I understand the difference between the quality of an article and the notability of a character, but I think we should start the merging with the Stub class articles. If there is any question on a particular character, we can put it to a vote here whether they deserve their own page or not. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fortdj33, the stub-class articles are probably the place to start, since the most notable characters are the ones that will likely have had the most work done on them. As for the Cobras, we may still need at least two articles, say A-K and L-Z, as there are a fair number of those guys. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are already separate articles for Dreadnoks and Iron Grenadiers, do we just merge character articles into those, similar to what Fortdj33 did for the Lunartix Empire, or do we create a separate "List of ..." for them as well? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably best to either merge them into Dreadnoks and Iron Grenadiers or into List of Cobra characters. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of specificity, shouldn't the new articles be along the lines of (for example):
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Joes A-C)
 * List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Cobras A-K) Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would work, though I'm not sure if it's necessary or not - Fortdj and Raintheone, what do you guys think? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit OCD about that sort of thing, but I won't kick up a fuss if it doesn't happen. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The other advantage of that would be the possibility of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Dreadnoks A-K) and G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Iron Grenadiers A-K). --Cerebellum (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or just List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Dreadnoks) and G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Iron Grenadiers) .... I don't think there are enough guys in either of those factions to need to split into A-K and L-Z. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the added disambiguation in parentheses is necessary. We're running the risk of creating article titles in a style that goes against WP:IN-U and WP:TITLE. For now, I think the 5 articles for the Joes are fine as is. The stand alone Cobra characters can be listed at one or more articles titled List of Cobra characters, with the others in a list similar to Viper (G.I. Joe). And any Dreadnoks or Iron Grenadiers articles that don't warrant their own articles, can be merged into the Dreadnoks and Iron Grenadiers articles respectively. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Tollbooth (G.I. Joe) being redirected? It is using fansite type references only that have been deemed unreliable. Just a heads up. :) RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Cerebellum (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work over all I have to say, it is such a heavy task merging everything. GI is lucky to have editors that do infact care enough. :) RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 00:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To Rain and Cerebellum, I thought we had decided that the stub-class articles are where we should start merging, since the most notable characters are likely the ones that have had the most work done on them. Tollbooth was marked as a Start-class article, and I agree that it probably needed to be merged, but we haven't had any consensus yet on which articles are definitely being kept. We'll get to the other articles eventually, but in the meantime, it would help to offer alternative websites that we can use as sources, rather that constantly pointing out how unreliable yojoe.com is... Fortdj33 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been looking, don't worry. Tollbooth didn't fare too well though, so this one is for the best. Instead of Yojoe for the toy ref on some of the characters, can't you cite Hasbro as the source directly? They have toys on sale still right? (You know in the articvles btw, is "toy line" the most common name it's called in in and out universe perspectives? Couldn't it say "action figure line". It's a shame Duke's article had so many fansite refs, but we both know it can stay because there are very much likley to be refs out there for him. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's toyline because the series of toys also comprises playsets and vehicles. The action figures are just one manifestation, but G.I. Joe wouldn't be the same without the rest.  Also, Hasbro still sells Joe toys, yes, but the release varies from year to year - they don't keep the same toys in production continuously although they may re-issue a particular toy later on.  Think Star Wars, Transformers, or even Barbie as other examples - toy manufacturers have to constantly update their lines to stay fresh (in the same way that soap opera characters come and go) - not everything has the staying power of Monopoly (and even Monopoly has spawned dozens of variants over the years). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then we will try and find an alternative. It might be worth looking which ones hasbro sell atm, archive the links to prevent rot and use them for now for as many as it permits. It's a start and it's okay as a primary source. Sorry I forgot about vechicles but had noticed them prior, I guess the action figure related ones could say that if they were in a particular series alone. That's probably not the case though. Edit: You just included a little more info to your reply, so why are you bringing up soap opera characters again? RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not bringing up soap opera characters in particular, but using it as a point of reference that you can relate to, seeing as how you don't seem terribly familiar with the toy industry in general, and this toyline specifically. Make sense? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. seeing as how you're British, grew up in the 90s, and male, you should at least have some familiarity with the Action Force toyline, which was the European version of G.I. Joe (the logos and back-story were changed, as obviously "A Real American Hero" would encounter some marketing issues outside of North America. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I only really played with Barbies and Action men as a young kid. Oh well. I know that soap characters change and the older ones no longer part of the series are harder to find sources for. I realise it's hard, but like I have said it's not impossible. I am still willing to help look for altertnate sources. Others at the project haven't got involved as much and want the articles all merged.. I'm trying to help atleast and offer an alternative. I can understand if you like a particular subject and it might be completley removed, how harsh it would be. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 02:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Cobra characters
The merging project seems to be moving along steadily. With the exception of any Stub-class articles that still need to be merged, the rest of the G.I. Joe characters that have their own articles should all have a link on one of the alphabetical lists that Cerebellum created. As discussed, I have also created a List of Cobra characters, and have limited it to just the the unique Cobra characters that have their own articles. There are still some Cobra stubs that need to be merged, and I propose that any Cobra-La, Dreadnok or Iron Grenadiers articles should be merged into their respective parent articles. Keep up the good work! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, even though it is marked as underconstruction, before I could even start expanding the article, someone marked it for deletion! Please visit Articles for deletion/List of Cobra characters and give your opinion as to why this article is needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, great job on the merges! Sorry I haven't helped out with that, but with the two of you on it so quickly, I figured that I'd be spoiling the proverbial soup by adding an unneeded chef. Plus I've been working on another project (Cerebellum knows about it). Let me know if there is any additional editing you need/want me to do. Cheers. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK guys, I'm really sorry to bail on you all but I have some RL deadlines coming up and my time on Wikipedia will be limited for the next few days. I wish I could help finish the merge, but I'll be back as soon as I can!  --Cerebellum (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge project continues

 * Well, hopefully Cerebellum will be back soon, but I have continued to slowly chip away at the articles needing to be merged. I'm almost done with the List of Cobra characters article, and I have also been trying to include short summary paragraphs, for those characters who have retained their own articles. In addition, I would like to get members opinions on the following suggestions, as part of the merging project:
 * Merging Lunartix Empire into Star Brigade
 * Merging Golobulus and Nemesis Enforcer into Cobra-La
 * Merging Red Star (G.I. Joe) into List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: M-R
 * Merging Darklon into Iron Grenadiers
 * Merging Monolith Base into List of fictional places in G.I. Joe
 * Merging Zanya (G.I. Joe) into Dreadnoks
 * Deleting Sky Patrol (G.I. Joe), as it's currently nothing but character summaries that can be included in the respective lists of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters
 * Please let me know what you think, and feel free to help, by adding character summaries to the A-C, D-G, H-L, M-R, S-Z and Cobra lists, for characters who have not been merged. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Comics Article
Folks:

I've been working on a rewrite of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) in the hopes of getting it from its current GA rating to an A and eventually (dare we dream!) FA rating. The draft can be found at User:Jake fuersturm/Work-in-Progress-1.

The draft has added several new sections covering plot, characters, and relation to the Sunbow cartoon, and I've also tried to find additional cite refs to support the content. The rationale for working on the draft on my userpage is that it involved a fair bit of restructuring and I didn't want to impact the existing article (and its GA rating) while its still largely a work-in-progress.

I think its in pretty good shape now, and I'd really appreciate it if you could provide some comments on the WiP and suggestions on how to make it better. In particular, if you feel inclined to copy edit and/or peer review the article, that would be super (there's quite a backlog on those requests, and it would also be nice to get someone who isn't automatically biased against the subject matter).

Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke
On Duke's page I have removed the fansite references. There are no online sources, they now are basically primary sources. Can anyone find some online ones, it would be daft to have to merge it into a list - But it has been tagged for a few years now. It just needs a little bit of work and could do with some attention from you guys. Rain the 1  BAM 20:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rain, I appreciate that you are trying to be constructive. But since all the G.I. Joe articles have now been assessed, and made part of the Fictional Characters wikiproject, it seems that all you and Harry Blue5 want to do is concentrate on disputing sources, instead of helping to find alternate ones. With all due respect, if you do not have an interest in G.I. Joe, please leave the members of this project to work on improving G.I. Joe articles, instead of opposing the notability of them as you did with Zartan. You are not being helpful by removing information, and then expecting someone else to clean up the mess. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone is free to contribute to a WikiProject, they are just as much allowed to work on improving G.I. Joe articles as much as anyone else. Opposing notability is just as much something that should be done by projects as any other action (other than adding sources that make things notable, of course). If an article does not have any sources and none can be found, then a project should help with any merging in order to make sure all neccessary and important details remain, not defend it pointlessly. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand your issues with the source thing. Remove information that is sourced with fansites, blogs, youtube and forums... find information from newpapers, reputable websites etc. It should be easy and if there is nothing and the subject is notable in your eyes.. don't support adding poor sources. They will probably stay if there was obvious notability. You could turn Zartan around completley if you concenrate on the film role first, you'd be surprised in interviews that people actually offer opinion in comparing a character from a film to their original medium. You simply cannot ask me to leave here because I have no interest in the subject matter when I have a shared interest in making sure the articles are not abusing certain guidelines and actually rules. Adding false info is that, how is anyone meant to take the articles seriously if they are researching a topic, they click for verifaction of a claim and it takes them to youtube or a fansite. Rain the 1  BAM 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not asking anyone to leave. As Harry points out, everyone is free to contribute to G.I. Joe articles as much as anyone else. But you do not seem to be interested in helping to improve these articles, so that they are notable and properly referenced. Instead, you concentrate on removing "poor sources", and then state how easy it should be to find new ones, or how "it just needs a little bit of work and attention from you guys". The members of WikiProject G.I. Joe keep telling you that we're working on it, but if cleaning up all the articles in the project was such an easy task, it would have been done already. All I'm saying, is if you want to be helpful, why not search for those sources yourself, instead of just passing the buck. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mentioned in a thread from a couple of weeks ago that you were going to help out the project by finding better sources. I haven't seen that happen yet, except for one that you mentioned (I forget who it was, Ripcord?). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you find sources for Zartan? You could turn this around hun. Rain the 1  BAM 21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rain: would you rather I work on this one, or on the Marvel Comics article, which is a higher priority? As I've said elsewhere, I don't have 24/7 to dedicate to Wikipedia, and I also do have outside interests. (Aside: And WTF are you calling me "Hun"? - and I'm assuming you're not referring to Attila's ilk). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you do, Just a few sources then I searched an MTV seem to have something on him. Oh I Call everyone 'hun'. Rain the 1  BAM 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortdj, you must understand that leaving in "poor sources" does more damage than simply doing nothing at all. It's best to remove them than just leave them there. I myself am more of a Drive By Updater when it comes to G.I. Joe articles. I've got some other stuff to do, but when I see a G.I. Joe article I see an error and quickly fix or remove it. Don't get me wrong, I am interested in G.I. Joes articles, but I'm also doing other stuff. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Harry, are you truly interested in the G.I. Joe articles? Are you not the one who said about them: "I'm half-tempted to just redirect every single character article they have in a moment of harsh deletionism and a bit of spite."? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm half-tempted to that to everything. I mean, I considered doing it to some Star Wars characters, but yet most of my major contributions have been to Starkiller, a Star Wars character that I very mildly like. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake, out of curiosity, what does questioning my interest in the subject actually accomplish, other than somewhat alienating me? Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm simply concerned that a self-confessed deletionist (see above) isn't necessarily going to have the project's best interests at heart. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I removed any reliable sources? Have I vandalised articles? Do I go around removing important details? Whether I have the project's best interests at heart, it hardly matters. No matter how you like to see it, all of my edits have been constructive, and in the end, that's all that matters. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you and I have a fundamental difference in editing philosohy, and a very different definition of "constructive". In my world, constructive involves helping to find a solution to the identified problem. Also, I probably have as much of an interest in Star Wars as I do G.I. Joe and I recognise a lot of the same problems in those articles, in some cases they're even worse. But if I ever decide to come over and help out (unlikely, since the Star Wars wikiproject already has a lot more support than the Joe wikiproject) I can guarantee you that I'll be contributing by adding, and to me that's all that matters.  -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, if your hair hadn't been cut in a year, and it was long, shaggy and rife with split ends, would you prefer to get a basic buzzcut, or a nice haircut? They're both valid solutions to the problems of length, unkemptness and follicular degradation, but the latter is obviously superior to the former. And given tha Wikipedia is free, you don't even have the argument of having to choose between a cheap barber or an expensive hairdresser. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is both constructive to do either, it is merely more constructive to do the latter. Btw, you're metaphor does not work as you have to grow your hair back while you can just add a source instantly later when you get round to it, and the choice between a barber and a hairdresser is easily metaphorical for the passage of time which I would have to pass. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up - More from Raintheone
All: I just wanted the wikiproject members (and anyone else who may be interested, but haven't officially joined) to know that Raintheone has resurfaced and is giving us a hard time on the Joe articles. Except that instead of having the courtesy to give us a heads up on this page, he's decided to post it elsewhere (I wouldn't have noticed it except that I was looking something up on an unrelated matter): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yojoe - External link?
I don't think that Yojoe is a reliable source (I've removed it on a few occasions), but I'm wondering whether it could be a good external link. Any thoughts? Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Zartan AfD
Head's up FYI: Articles for deletion/Zartan (2nd nomination) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope for yojoe.com as an external link
You might be able to use yojoe,com as an external link under ELMAYBE section 4. "4.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Mathewignash (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the character articles already have it as an external link, such as Beach Head (G.I. Joe). Anyone who is planning on removing YOJOE.com as a source from any of the character articles, should also replace it by including a link in the External links section, with the format:
 * *Beach Head at YOJOE.com
 * Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it is trivial, but "Character prorfile] at YOJOE.com" on each page would look better. It is what we do for many TV characters these days.. Rain the 1  BAM 15:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only suggested using the character name, because the other websites that are used as external links, are sorted by the character name (specifically JoeWiki and JMM's G.I. Joe Comics Home Page). While I can respect that the format for TV characters may be similar, using the character name seems to be more in accordance with other external link templates, such as IMDb character. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh okay then. :) Rain the 1  BAM 17:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Y'know I actually suggested this a few sections above. No one responded. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of our helpful suggestions are ignored here though. Rain the 1  BAM 20:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another book for a source
I was at Barns & Nobel today and i saw abook called Totally Tubular 80s (Bellomo, Mark (2010). Totally Tubular '80s. Krause Publications.), it has 6 color picture pages devoted to GI joe toys of the 80s, and some text about them. Maybe check it out. Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up
The GA-rated article G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) has been submitted for GA reassessment. An earlier (somewhat tangential) discussion took place here -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

This is a credit to your team. We try to keep stub article categories between 60 - 800 articles. The recent activity improving your articles has dropped the stub article count very low. Keep up the good work! Dawynn (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing the box and instructions DIRECTLY as opposed to the yojoe.com links
I know there has been some hubub here about citing yojoe.com as a source, since it's technically an unreliable fan site by Wikipedia standards. We have similar citations at the Transformers Wikipedia project for citing tru.info and other sites which archive pictures of the instructions and the boxes as sources. Thing it it's not REALLY yojoe.com that should be cited, since it's unreliable, it's the BOX or INSTRUCTIONS themselves that's being cited for information, the yojoe.com link is just there as a reference that the instructions say something. Citing the box or instructions of a toy or fictional character is reliable, as it a primary source for fiction. So what's the best way to cite it in a way that does not violate Wikipedia policy? For instance can we write up a citation that cites the Ally Viper's box as a source for information on him, instead of pointing to a yojoe scan of him and calling it a source? Perhaps the file card for a toy can be considered a "short story", and we could cite it like any other piece of fiction? While boxes and instructions are not proof of notability, they are reliable sources and should be treated as such, if we can agree on the best way to cite them. Mathewignash (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, interesting point - technically there's no reason why we even need to link to, for example, the file card scans - we just have to refer to them (as the links are just a convenience for people who want to refer to them themselves) - is that sort of what you're getting at? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that would work. I'm going to check if maybe we could cite it as a short story written by Hasbro, then see if perhaps an outside link would be appropriate to some site with scans (it may not appropriate, but they are not necessary for the citation). I know it falls into merkyness or legalities. For instance, could you site a news story from ABC news, site ABC news as a source, then link to a youtube video of the news report? It's the same as citing the box, then providing a link to yojoe in the citation. I think maybe I'll grab some article, and make some different citations in it and then ask for opinions in it and ask for people's opinions on which is best/appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other alternative, and probably better one, is to cite the The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe (ISBN 0896899225), but the problem is you need to have a copy of the book to find the proper references (i.e. quotes and page numbers). It's a better source, but harder to get - I may just decide to put down the $25 some time and get a copy of it. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah totally right. Cite the actual medium and not the gobetween like Yojoe and so on. I'm not sure which citation layout would be best to use though. Maybe on one of the source notice boards you could ask them or start a discussion to find a consensus on how to do it. Then no one can really pick at the citations then because you can back it up with a consensus.. :) But yeah if the book is better, go with that. Has anyone got it, if not, anyone going to buy it. Rain the 1  BAM 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the irony is using money to buy something to support a project that's ostensibly free. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've bought books as sources before. I might recomend checking for used copies (Amazon, ebay) or library books if you want to do this on the cheap. Mathewignash (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I already checked my local library system - not one copy - pretty sad for a city with a population of over 2 million. -- Jake Fuersturm
 * I see one starting for 99 cents and free shipping on ebay, or $14 used on Amazon, and there are torrents of scans of that book out there. Oh, related to citing the box/instructions directly, I see there is a template for citing "manuals", are the file cards and instructions the "user manuals" for toys? That might work. Template:Cite_manual, might be handy. Mathewignash (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take a look -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The three books that many of the character lists seem to reference, are: I am also in the process of trying to locate these books, so that specific pages can be referenced in the character articles. In the meantime, there is also a trade paperback of the Order of Battle mini-series that Marvel published, which contains the same information that is on the filecards for most of those characters. The references could be modified to use that book as a source, instead of the images at yojoe.com. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Santelmo, Vincent (1994). The Official 30th Anniversary Salute To G.I.Joe 1964-1994. Krause Publications. ISBN 0873413016.
 * 2) Bellomo, Mark (2009). The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994. Krause Publications. ISBN 9780896899223.
 * 3) Hidalgo, Pablo (2009). G.I. Joe vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide 1982-2008. Random House. ISBN 9780345516428.
 * They are all on sale on Amazon and used so they can be cheaper. Rain the 1  BAM 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The last one is perfect because you can preview the book via Amazon before purchase. So I guess you can remove yojoe sooner than we all though. It has some good facts and some character profiles are fully in view. :) Rain the 1  BAM 18:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to work for the public library, so I have the first three books on order, and I will start putting them to use once I get them. I already own the Order of Battle paperback, so I can start using that as a reference soon as well, but it's only good for characters that existed before 1988. If anyone else has an opportunity to do the same, feel free, but we'll still need a solution for those characters that were introduced after that book was released. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have several toy collecting magazines with articles on joes mixed in, as well as many PDFs of the Joe club magazine. Mathewignash (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update - I have books #1. and #3. from the library now, and I will try to start integrating them as references soon, after I have finished checking the character articles against the Order Of Battle book. The 30th Anniversary book is strictly about the toys, and doesn't do much more than list them by year, so having it in the Notes section for each character is misleading, but I will see what I can do. On the other hand, the G.I. Joe vs. Cobra book has a TON of information, and will greatly help expand a majority of the G.I. Joe character articles. I might end up buying this book for myself, but I look forward to putting it to use soon as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update - I'm almost finished with the 30th Anniversary book, and have added references to a lot of the character articles. There is also a lot of information in that book about the 12" figures, but I'm not sure where it best belongs. I discovered another book by Vincent Santelmo titled The Complete Encyclopedia to G.I. Joe, which again is all about the toys, but has some good history information. And I finally have book #2 from the library, which covers EVERY figure ever released, and should be able to substitute for any toy information from yojoe.com. Please let me know if there's anything that you think I've missed, but I plan to start in with these books soon. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

General Flagg
First, can I just say well done on merging so many characters so far. Secondly, I'm not sure that General Flagg is notable enough for his own article. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Certainly General Flagg has not had as much written about him as other members of G.I. Joe. But he was an influential part of the beginning of the team, and there has been 2 different characters and an aircraft carrier based on him. I'm still going though the sources mentioned above, but I think that his article deserves a chance to be expanded. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention being the first member of the Joe team (retcons notwithstanding) to die in combat (in issue 19). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter what his role in G.I. Joe was. What matters if there's any reliable third-party coverage of his role in G.I. Joe. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added two new third party reliable sources to Flagg. Mathewignash (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh...Harry, once again I feel like you would rather create problems for others to deal with, than try to help us solve problems. I have 5 reference books in my possession right now that specifically deal with G.I. Joe, and I will continue going through them alphabetically or chronologically, whichever seems to be more convenient. However, I have edited General Flagg out of order, in the hopes that it will get you off our backs, long enough for us to return to our regularly scheduled editing. Given the limited number of editors that are actively working on G.I. Joe articles right now, you are just going to have to be patient, and trust that the remainder of the character articles will eventually be properly sourced... Fortdj33 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fort - just ignore Harry, and do what you can at your own pace. If he steps out of line, at least we have experience dealing with that sort of thing now. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake, with all due respect, Harry has just as much a right to express his opinion as anyone else. But as you point out, we recently had to deal with someone who was forcing their own agenda onto the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe. I was just trying to ward off similar behavior, from someone who might actually be able to help us instead of hinder us. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fort - due respect back at you, but I never said that he can't express his own opinion. It just seems to me that you felt forced into dealing with the General Flagg article, on Harry's timeline rather than your own - and I was simply posting a warning about that kind of behaviour. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm just trying to warn you, if you ever pull that in a AfD and say "He's a major character in G.I. Joe", no one will be anymore swayed to your side of the debate. And, if you want an article about General Flagg, yes you must add sources to it, otherwise it'll be redirected to somewhere fitting until sources are found and the article can be restored. (Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh.) Honestly, the main reason I brang this up was because discussion on characters seemed to have temporarily halted and this might get things started again... Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Harry, let me remind you that there is no deadline! I agree that the character articles need to be cleaned up and properly sourced, and I have the sources to prove that they are all notable, but I am only one person. Just because I happen to be focused on other areas of G.I. Joe right now, does not mean that it's your job to "get things started again". Once again, given the limited number of editors that are actively working on G.I. Joe articles, you are just going to have to be patient. In the meantime, if you feel the need to nag the editors of a Wikiproject that falls under Fictional Characters, I'm sure that you can find one that has more unsourced articles than G.I. Joe. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADLINE is an essay, not a guideline. Nobody was making notices about the work on fictional characters, so I voiced a valid concern over one of the articles. You know, I don't go actually looking for unsouced articles. I just happenchanced upon General Flagg when roaming around. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New Categories
FYI...the merging of character articles is pretty much done. There are a few that still need to be merged, but I am confident that all of the character articles left, are notable enough to stand on their own. To that end, I am still in the process of adding citations from several books, specifically G.I. Joe vs. Cobra, G.I. Joe: Order of Battle, and G.I. Joe: Battle Files. If anyone is interested in debating the notability of any character articles not covered by those sources, please let me know and I will provide a list for us to come to a consensus on...

In the meantime, I've created several new maintenance categories, in the interest of expanding the G.I. Joe article coverage on Wikipedia. There are now separate categories for Category-class, Disambig-class, Redirect-class and Template-class G.I. Joe articles. Specifically, any article that has been merged, has now been re-added to the WikiProject under the Redirect-class. I don't think that it's necessary to create a redirect for EVERY G.I. Joe character ever created, but if any additional articles are merged, they can remain part of the project by updating their classification on the article's talk page. You can see all the articles broken down by quality status here, or by clicking on the quality status of any G.I. Joe article's talk page, and see all the status categories in the table of contents at the top of the page.

In addition, I have made sure that all of the G.I. Joe articles are now classified by importance in addition to quality. Please feel free to let me know if you think that I've assessed an article incorrectly, but the statistics table has been added to the WikiProject G.I. Joe assessment page, and it has been updated with all of the necessary importance categories. You can see all of the articles broken down by importance here, or by clicking on the importance status of any G.I. Joe article's talk page, and see all the importance categories in the table of contents at the top of the page.

There is also a log of everything that has been updated here, which is maintained by the WP 1.0 bot. I'm happy that the articles of Wikiproject G.I. Joe are now fully part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0, and I look forward to using the quality and importance guides to improve the coverage of G.I. Joe articles on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Update - I am still plugging away at improving the references on the remaining character articles, using G.I. Joe vs. Cobra, G.I. Joe: Order of Battle, and G.I. Joe: Battle Files as sources. There is also a lot of information in the Ultimate Guide by Bellomo, which is better suited for the lists of vehicles and playsets. However, there are a still few characters that are not covered by any of those sources, and I thought that I would list them here before they are merged. Specifically, Golobulus and Nemesis Enforcer have had a merge proposal on them for over a month now, and I think that the information in their articles could easily be merged into the Cobra-La article. The only other characters that I cant find anything for, are Captain Grid-Iron and Metal-Head. Both are not much more than stubs, and if there are no objections, they can both be merged into the character lists (or in Metal-Head's case, the Iron Grenadiers article). Let me know what you think, and I am open to any suggestions for improvements. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject G.I. Joe to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject G.I. Joe/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation
Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Old sources from the CBC for GI Joe
You might want to check out the CBC video archives for some nice sources to cite on characters. Heck on this video http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/leisure/clips/16902/ a reporter quotes Major Bludd's bio card! That's pretty notable. In his video they interview a collector of older style Joes from Canada. http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/leisure/clips/16999/ Mathewignash (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for plot writing
I would like to say that I have been following and updating the page G.I. Joe (IDW Publishing) for the last year or so. And, although I have done much to update the article, it lacks one major thing. The plot/storyline of the comic. So I am requesting that someone, who is familiar with the IDW storyline, write the plot for the article, like there is already one over at the IDW Transformers article, although that one also has not been updated for the last year and should maybe also need a writing to be up-to-date. Plastelin (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Thank you for your contributions.  I am happy to try to add some plot information, but I will probably not be able to do so for a couple of weeks.  If someone else can get to it before then, please do. :) Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

New discussion at G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)
Hello everyone! It would be great if we could get G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) to GA status once again, so I have started a discussion at Talk:G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) with some suggestions for improvement. Please chime in with your opinion if you are interested. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to develop deleted/merged G.I. Joe articles off site
As I had done with the merged and deleted Transformers articles, I have started to make copies of the merged and deleted G.I. Joe articles off site on Wikialpha. As an example, I copied the article for the Joe Airwave there. I also cleaned it up a bit and added a new picture. Please feel free to move any deleted articles you want to continue to develop there. http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Airwave_(G.I._Joe) Mathewignash (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, not every character is notable enough to sustain their own article. The G.I. Joe articles that were merged, were done so because they didn't have enough information covered by multiple sources. And per WP:CL-RULE, that means "written sentences of information". It does not include images, infoboxes, navigation templates, lists of examples, external links, etc., all of which are just add-ons for the purposes of supporting the actual text of the article. While your intentions are noble, please do not re-introduce character articles like Airwave, without showing that the text has been sufficiently expanded and referenced first. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CL-RULE does not apply to articles on Wikialpha. I just took Airwave as a short example to show how a deleted or merged article can be moved from Wikipedia to Wikialpha. I know it was a short article, that didn't really matter for the purposes of an example. Mathewignash (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

G.I. Joe navbox
It's been brought to my attention that the G.I. Joe template is not functioning as intended, because the primary purpose of a navbox, is for navigating around the related articles that are included in the template. Right now, the navbox is included on ALL G.I. Joe articles. To correct this, ether the template should be modified, so that every article using the navbox is also included as a link in the navbox, or the navbox should be removed from G.I. Joe articles that aren't included in the template. Any suggestions? Fortdj33 (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's up Fort, it's been a while! Honestly I don't see why the current situation is problematic but if we need to make a change I support removing the template from articles that aren't included in it.  It seems a little excessive to add every character in Category:G.I. Joe characters to the template, though really I don't have strong feelings on the issue. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe we should just make multiple specialized navboxes in addition to the main one. This system has been used elsewhere, i.e. Spider-Man (1994 TV series) and Spider-Man publications in addition to Spider-Man.  --Cerebellum (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the fact that the G.I. Joe template is on all the G.I. Joe articles. If we were to make sure that the template includes every character article, I picture something more in line with Transformers, where all the media links would be in one section, and all the characters would be in a separate section. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that makes sense, I didn't think of collapsing the sections like that. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jinx quote box
Please consider joining the discussion at Talk:Jinx (G.I. Joe), regarding whether a quote about the character in G.I. Joe: Retaliation needs to be in a quote box or not. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Other wiki

 * There is now a G.I.Joe-specific wiki at http://gijoe.wikia.com/wiki/Joepedia_-_The_G.I._Joe_Wiki Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hasbro, Claster, Sunbow, 80s
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pared down cast list
Please consider offering your opinion at Talk:G.I. Joe: Retaliation, regarding whether certain characters should be included in the article or not. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Movie-character infoboxes
Please consider adding your opinion to this discussion, about the movie-character infoboxes for G.I. Joe characters. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Larry Hama low-importance?!?
I don't understand how Larry Hama can be considered a low-importance article in the context of this project. Without him, there would almost certainly be no G.I. Joe franchise today that went beyond the 12-inch dolls. There is literally no-one who could be considered more important to the franchise. 50.72.201.97 (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree, but the importance assessments are completely arbitrary. I went ahead and re-assessed him, but in relation to all the other G.I. Joe articles, his score is still relatively low...  Fortdj33 (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup listing
Hey everyone, I signed us up to get an automated listing of articles in our project that need cleanup. You can find it here:. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Coil
I proposed The Coil for deletion, because I couldn't find any good sources for it. Can anyone think of a good alternative for deletion for this article? Could we merge it somewhere? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable enough to warrant its own article. There are other G.I. Joe articles lacking in sources more that this one. It could possibly be merged with Cobra Command, but I think a lot would be lost in the process. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I send invitations to new members for your project?
Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to who was willing to help invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly for WikiProject G.I. Joe on your behalf to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I haven’t heard anything back from any member in the project yet. But based on the feedback from other projects, it seems to be a welcomed idea. If I don’t hear any objection, I’d help send a small number of invitations to selective editors with care. Bobo.03 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

IDW's G.I. Joe comics
Greetings, I need your help to expand this articles, as I recognise you people know a lot more about G.I. Joe, because I'm a novice. Therefore, I need your help this pages:


 * G.I. Joe (2019 comic book)
 * Snake Eyes: Deadgame (still a draft)
 * G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (IDW Publishing) (still unmade)

Anyway, thank you so much. F. E. Puricelli (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Donald Levine Biography
I added additional info to the Donald Levine biographical page and will continue to monitor the page and update as needed. NeatDoc2 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)