Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.182.78.104 (talk) at 08:24, 18 June 2007 (→Merging Alternate Characters). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Suggested merges

Would suggested merges be under AfD, requested moves, or under "Articles needing work" and "Mergers"? I'm specifically looking for where to put Punisher: MAX --Newt ΨΦ 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Merges" - I am going to remove that second "r". I wonder if Wikiprojects have different dialects. --Chris Griswold 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, maybe not. AfD? Or should I move the Merge section up with the AfDs? --Chris Griswold 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Proposed Merges was a good call, adding Punisher: MAX there. --Newt ΨΦ 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles Under Consideration

What about an article on indie comic creator Andrea Grant who recently entered a legal trademark battle with DC comics over the title 'MINX'? After several months and a lot of press the dispute was resolved amicably and she is now calling her title 'Andrea Grant's Minx'to distinguish from DC's title.

What about "Articles that might should be made"? Example: I, personally, think an article on all the various devices & gadgets Doctor Doom has made/used in his decades of existence would be of interest (and there is some precendent for such an article -- Captain America's shield, Mjolnir (Marvel Comics), and my own Iron Man's armors article). Dr Archeville 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I don't think any of Doom's inventions is notable enough to deserve its own article, thought. Wilfredo Martinez 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully, which is why I suggested making one article with all his inventions, rather than one for each. (It's the same philosophy I'm using for the Iron Man's armors article.) Dr Archeville 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am thinking it might be redundant because the task template has that function already. --Chris Griswold 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"Task template"? Color me blind, but what/where is that? Dr Archeville 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Above. --Chris Griswold 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it either; the Template: Wikiproject Comics is a currently a red link. Do you mean the {{comicsproj} tag? That SHOULD be included here, I think. Wilfredo Martinez 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Ooops. It is now. --Chris Griswold 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The tag is incomplete. Let me guess, you copypasted my mention of it above? I intentionally mispelled it so the Template wouldn't show up on mid page. No prob, I corrected it. Wilfredo Martinez 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious. Good prank. --Chris Griswold 18:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that a company (Shocker Toys) whos listing was stupidly removed from WIKI by some jerky editors is doing a huge project using over 70 indie comic properties called 'Indie Spotlight'. So who decides wether a company is notable enough?? With the properties I see they have under their belt I think they are worthy of a wiki listing don't you?? How do we add this to the comic section here is the characters and properties they are using if anyone wants to help: Dick Tracy Lone Ranger The Phantom The Tick Solar:Man of the Atom Magnus Robot Fighter Jack Staff Madman (In our Series1 release) The Atomics Nexus The Moth Retro Rocket Strangers in Paradise (Katchoo is in our Series1 release) ShadowHawk (In our Series1 release) Scud: The Disposable Assassin (In our Series1 release) ZAPT! Markus Fang WildGuard Earthboy Jacobus Venger Thundergod Robotika Jetcat Atomic City Nira-X The Skunk Deadworld Realm Jack the Lantern The Wraith Metropol Eddy Current Liberty Girl and Flare Honor of the Damned Katharsis Bounty Killer Bushido Airshell Unit Primes Atomika Zoom Suit Billy:Demon Slayer Forces The Rift Drunken Monkey Moonstone Publishing Badger Grimjack Ninja High School Warrior Nun Gold Digger OZF5 Fallen Angel Tyrant The Hypernaut N-Man The Fury

Formatting of AfD Notices

Why does the recommended format of the AfD notices have the entries point to all of that day's nominees instead of that individual one? Does this prevent the link from going bad once the decision has been made and the discussion has been archived? GentlemanGhost 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. I copied the board from the GLBT notice board, and they have been doing it this way for a while now. This way, when the notice board is archived, you can see to what the AfD is referring. --Chris Griswold 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stubs to be expanded

As mentioned in the Wikiproject Comics page, here are my votes for stubs that deserve to be expanded. All are Marvel characters or concepts. Note that while some may be obscure today, they all had an importance to the Marvel Universe or where the focus of once-important storylines. I'll cover the DC comics ones later:

Ajak, Atum (comics)(as Demogorge), Batroc's Brigade, Blacklash, Blue Shield (comics), Chief Examiner, Contemplator, Controller (Marvel Comics), Demons (Marvel Comics), Doctor Demonicus (or expanding Pacific Overlords instead), Doctor Sun, Dragon of the Moon, Dreadknight, Exemplars, Eye of Agamotto (as Eyes of Agamotto, also covering the Orb of Agamotto), Fantasti-Car, Fear Lords (comics), Flag-Smasher, Guardsman (comics), Heliopolitans (comics), Interloper (comics), Iron Man's armors, Karnilla, Kristoff Vernard, Legion of the Unliving, Lethal Legion, Machinesmith, Malekith the Accursed, Mandroid, Marduk Kurios, Master (comics), Master Pandemonium, Mentor (Marvel Comics), Morgan le Fay (Marvel Comics), N'Garai, Possessor (comics), Satannish, Serpent Men, Seth (comics), Six-Fingered Hand (comics), Straw Man (comics), Thena, Thog, Undying Ones, Zuras. -Wilfredo Martinez 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the point of stubs that they should be expanded? Perhaps a better thing to highlight is the stubs that need to be merged into a list. --Chris Griswold 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Either way works, but I prefer the first approach. -Wilfredo Martinez 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please elaborate.--Chris Griswold 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The goal is to eliminate all the stubs that do not deserve their own page. We can do it by going around listing the ones to be deleted/merged, then focus on what's left, OR we can list the ones that deserve expansion so that people can notice and focus on them, and THEN get rid of the ones left. The result is the same- less comics stubs littering the Wiki landscape- but the second approach is more constructive, in my opinion. -Wilfredo Martinez 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
But what I am saying is that they're all supposed to be expanded. So when you're pointing out the stubs above, you are saying something that is already assumed while not telling people which stubs should be deleted or merged. It's much more efficient and effective to focus on those ones. --Chris Griswold 16:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel that a list like the one above would encourage people to work on those articles, while a list of "to be deleted or merged" articles does not. In my opinion, of course. -Wilfredo Martinez 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that editors are always eager to delete or merge entries. We're a bloodthirsty lot. As for highlighting stubs to be expanded, try the task template above. --Chris Griswold 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
...Which I now see no longer includes a list itself but instead links to another page. Shouldn't that list be in the Notice Board page proper? The more links it gets an editor to get to an article, the more his desire to work on it will decrease (and that's not just my opinion.) -Wilfredo Martinez 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I may be way off base on this, but shouldn't minor topics usually start off as parts of major articles, then be spun off when they grow too unmanageable and/or they don't fit neatly into one particular article? We seem to be pretty quick to start stubs--especially based on minor characters. -HKMarks 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Strikethrough

After twice deleting the Colossal Boy entry from the merger section, I see that Markeer has tried to find a compromise by using a strikethrough tag. I find this to be unnecessary and am concerned only because I don't expect this will be common practice. The reason entries are added to the top of the list is to create a sense of progression; the items at the bottom are older and so their having ended should come as no surprise to an editor. Finally, I think the list should be legible, and the very function of the strikethrough - to partially obscure text goes against that. --Chris Griswold 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the strike through since the merger is completed. What would be a better way of indicating that sort of thing? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What you did was perfect. --Chris Griswold 07:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Major Events

Ok, this is something I've been meaning to address for a while, but I've been otherwise occupied: What makes a comic book event or plotline "major", as in, worthy of inclusion in our lists of Major Events or Timelines? The reason I point this out, is that publicity can often exaggerate the importance of a particular storyline. Example: I see the "Planet Hulk" storyline in Incredible Hulk has been added to Major Events of the Marvel Universe; howevever, as far as I'm aware, other than keeping Hulk from being involved in the events of Civil War I don't see it as having any major importance; most likely Hulk will return to Earth after its conclusion and go back to his old plotlines.

What I propose is an official definition of what a "Major Comics Event" is: that it is either A) an event that effects the whole universe (or at least Earth) or B) a major event in the life of a major character in that universe (such as his origin) with "Major Character" being defined as one whose acts have (at some point) an effect on the World at large. Examples:

-The Crisis on Infinite Earths.

-Batman's origin (as Batman is a major member of the Justice League, the DC Universe's major hero team.)

Examples of what not to include:

-Any overhyped story that doesn't change the Status Quo much in the end (eg, Planet Hulk.)

-Any change that is of obvious limited duration, like Spider-Man's new costume.

Opinions? -Wilfredo Martinez 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, the Spidey Costume changes all tended to happen around 'major' plots. Witness: the Venom introduction of the Black Suit, the Other and Civil War for the Tony Stark Suit. Major would have to fall under 'This alters the character for a long time.' And of course, we can't really tell what that is and isn't 'Major' for a couple years :P Just to muddy it up more. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Major events", in this instance, should refer to events that affect continuity in for more than one character or team. This is, after all, about the Marvel Universe. Planet Hulk only really affects the Hulk; it doesn't affect the rest of the Marvel Universe. Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, Infinity War, Secret War, and Civil War all affect a large number of characters. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on a few comments from Marvel (along the lines of "Hulk will be back, and angry at the Illuminati") it's possible Planet Hulk could have an impact on the future. It's hard to judge the importance of storylines as they happen. Perhaps the Major events page needs a current events section for crossovers that haven't really resolved? Maybe not. Just a thought. -HKMarks 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a planned "World War Hulk" event next year that comes from "Planet Hulk" and "Civil War", but that's the event, not "Planet Hulk". --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Aye, as it stands Planet Hulk is just a minor side note to Civil War -HKMarks 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to separate the two kinds of "event" here. One is a significant moment in the fictional history of some character/group/planet/universe. The other is a piece of real-world hype - Civil War, for example, is being explicitly marketed as a Marvel Comics Event-with-a-capital-E. Naturally there is plenty of overlap between the two but the latter definition is MUCH easier to put a definition around, so based on this I would propose, to start with, renaming Major events of the DC Universe to Major events in DC comics.
It's the first meaning of the word that we're struggling with. Naturally, each comic book character - and, by extension, each comic book universe - has an idealised classic status quo. Characters almost always tend to revert to "normal" eventually, although the universe made up of these characters will obviously be in constant flux. Thus I'd suggest that the significance of an event-in-history should judged based on 1) the magnitude of the change (number of people affected, significance of those people) and 2) how long it takes (or has taken, so far) to revert. --SamSim 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't our description, as editors, of any comics event as "major" without secondary sources stating it's a "major event" POV? Even if we agree on some sort of definition, that seems like it would stink of original research without a reputable source backing it up. Shouldn't "major events" be events that have been deemed "major" by reputable secondary sources (since we can't necessarily trust the publishers on this one)? --NewtΨΦ 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And what would these secondary sources be? Also, "Major Events in DC Comics" that refer to publishing events, would have to be covered under the main DC Comics article; ditto Marvel, Image, etc. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Think of this as setting criteria for notability within each fictional universe, rather than taking a point of view. If we didn't do this, we'd end up simply listing everything that's ever happened. Imagine doing that for a character like Batman, let alone an entire comic book universe. -- SamSim 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
We already have a notability criteria. We don't necessarily need an article for Major events of the Marvel Universe, or its ilk, if the material it covers is arbitrarily decided by Wikipedia editors. Read WP:NOR, defining "major" as separate from what secondary sources have reported as major introduces independent analysis, providing new information. What exactly the secondary sources are to report this, I don't really know, but that's not the issue. It's also POV, even if it's the POV of a consensus of editors. --NewtΨΦ 13:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't see how reporting on events of significance in a fictional universe can be considered "original research". We're not talking about arbitrarily deciding what is important or not; in fact, my point is that we need a working definition, based on the effects that the events have had in the stories, to keep people from just posting their favorite storylines as "Major"; By your definition an enourmous amout of "official" stuff already in Wikipedia would be considered Original Research. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is a Wiki, subject to constant unjustified changes by the public, and whether those of us who are dedicated to keep it as correct as possible have the right to decide what should be included, sooner or later we have to do it, at least until the day Wikipedia changes format to make the contribution process more exacting. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Reporting on events of significance is one thing, which we have notability criteria for, but creating a list of events deemed significant by editors of Wikipedia (or rather a list of events fitting a definition of "major" created by editors of Wikipedia) is another. I haven't forgotten Wikipedia is a wiki. What sort of "official" stuff are you talking about? --NewtΨΦ 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is starting to sound like we're drifting off-topic from trying to improve the Major Event and Timeline articles to questioning their reason for being. Fair enough, and feel free to continue; but you'll excuse me if I decline to participate in such an argument again. (See Talk:Timeline of the DC Universe to find out my previous experience.) I just want to focus on the Event Definition at this point. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically I'm questioning the title. If you're wondering what could merit the inclusion on an article entitled "Timeline of the Marvel Universe," you're on the right track. However, if you're looking what would merit the inclusion in an article entitled "Major events in the Marvel Universe" you're going to need secondary sources calling an event "major" as that is a POV qualification. The problem isn't that the article has bad information, it's just unfortunately titled, which can create flypaper for cruft and POV inclusions. While I get the impression you're stonewalling further discussion of this, I do think it's a relevant issue. --NewtΨΦ 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I should make clear that the reason I started the "Major Events" articles was so that the "Modern Ages" sections of the Timelines wouldn't grow too large in respect to the others; I also wanted to eventually get around to a discussion about what should be included. And I'm not "stonewalling" anything; I'm refusing to participate on a particular discussion, which I have a perfect right to. You and others can discuss whether these articles deserve to exist in the first place. But do so on a separate section, OK? This one is about the Events themselves. -Wilfredo Martinez 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the need for the discussion of what events should be included is predicated upon the existence of the article, I (falsely) assumed you would be interested in arguing to keep it. I apologize. I do suggest renaming it, as I personally see no point in continuing the "Events" discussion until the inherent POV-ness of the article is corrected. --NewtΨΦ 03:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not as familar with the Marvel article (It could work there too) But I would propose Major events of the DC Universe be renamed Major storylines the DC Universe. It still leaves a bit of redundancy about exactly what "Major" is but it helps clarify what type of things to be included, story lines that crossover or impact across the DC Universe. - Waza 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that "major" is a POV word. What is to be included in a timeline (as opposed to an article named "Major events...") follows notability criteria, but what qualifies as "major" is not necessarily what qualifies as "notable." However, calling the article "Notable events" or "Notable storylines" still reads as POV even if what it contains fits our criteria as notable. --NewtΨΦ 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comics are very resistant to change; writers usually leave the universe in the same state in which they found it when they were brought in. Deviations from that are what is considered "major" plots, I think. Thus, a "major" storyline is not as arbitary as it sounds; plotlines (in limited series and in story arcs of ongoing series) are either vignettes, maintaining the status quo, or introduce changes to the character(s) and situation(s) involved. The latter can be described as "major", and the former as "minor"; and the writer's intent is usually clear enough that we can categorize them.
Of course there are also many cases of "major" plots being later annuled by other "major" plots, or simply ignored, but I think that lists such as this do make sense even with NPOV taken into account. -- J'ohn 10:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags in Marvel Universe article

Ever since the article was tagged for Cleanup and Sourcing, I've been thinking on how to fix them accordingly, but the more I do, the more I come to think it is unnecessary. The article seems clear enough to me; it does its job of explaining what the Marvel Universe is, what its publishing history has been, and gives a good description of the universe itself. I do not see how it would be confusing or useless to non-comics fans. Further, it DOES cite its sources, at least for the Concepts section (which I wrote). I did not provide a source for the history section as I did not write that part, but I presume any article or book on Marvel Comics could be cited as a reference there. Right now I'm considering removing the tags, but I wanted to discuss it here first. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Increasing participation

In order to increase participation in this page, I have a couple suggestions that I would like to run past other editors.

1. I'd like to ask for editors that regularly contribute to the board or would like to, to list themselves on the page in a Contributors section. I lately have not been scouring the XfDs for new items, and there have been some recently. I know others check such things more regularly, and it would be nice if they could remember to just add any comics-related items they see to the board. This list should have no air of superiority, and it should be clear that anyone can add their name. It's just a way for someone to make a commitment and also get some recognition for their work.

2. We should edit {{comicsproj}} to make greater mention of the board. This is one of the ways that we could increase visibility. Any other thoughts? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement. Also, maybe just have a checklist of things like the above, where newcomers to the project (and slow-learner editors like me) can go to remind them of these little regular tasks, with links, until we begin doing them out of habit. -- Tenebrae 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I really miss having the template on {{comicsproj}}.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Completed splits?

There doesn't seem to be a section for these on the Notice Board - should there be? --Mrph 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We haven't had many splits since this started, but if we do now, go right ahead and make it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Added - cheers. --Mrph 23:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Request to Merge some Legionnaires

Hello; new to this section and I may have violated some rules, so I'll bring them to your attention. Regarding the Legion of Super-Heroes, Garth Ranzz (Lightning Lad) was consolidated from redundant articles Lightning Lad and Live Wire. He is more generally known as Lightning Lad; would it be best to rename the article? In the same spirit, I request help to examine/clean/consolidate/merge the following redundant articles:

I merged this one, since there didn't seem to be any reason not to. Sukael 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Help appreciated. --Squashua 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Costumed crimefighters

A single, seemingly straightforward sentence in the lead of Superhero is causing an edit war. I placed a call for comments at Talk:Superhero, but the other editor ignored my call for consensus, so I'm placing it here as well.

Here is the lead paragraph, with footnotes following:

A superhero is a figure who is noted for feats of courage and nobility, who usually possesses abilities beyond those of normal human beings. Many superheroes have a colorful and distinctive name and costume. A female superhero is sometimes called a superheroine. Alternately, such heroes without superpowers are sometimes called costumed crimefighters[1]

Another editor continually deletes the sentence about "costumed crimefighters," though leaving "superheroine", and at one point sarcastically commented that superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". I'm not sure sarcasm was called for, and "underwear pervent" is not a term used. "Costumed crimefighter" is, and I supplised a smattering of examples from mainstream newspaper sources and elswhere. I could supply more, but I thought five would be enough.

"Costumed crimefighter" is term used in historical and academic research as well, and makes a necessary, immediate distinction to the general-public reader, given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super". Yeah, the average comic fan knows the distinction, but Wikipedia is written for the general public, and confusion and ambiguity are not what an encyclopedia is about.

We're talking one sentence, supported by cited source, that clarifies a distinction that for non-comics-fans is otherwise unclear. I'm asking for comments on this, please. --Tenebrae 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Eh, response here: Talk:Superhero#Costumed_crimefighters (See latest edit, though -- not just a revert. Hope you like it better. Sorry for the edit war.) -- 71.206.231.102 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

  1. ^ Per Lawrence Journal-World (March 17, 2006): "'V for Vendetta' is S for Subversive", by Jon Niccum, "The Dark Knight: Batman — A NonSuper Superhero", Gamespot: PS2 Games: Batman Begins, Spotlight Comics Annual #2 (May 2002); "The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters: Rev. Dr. Christopher Syn, the Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (one of the world's first masked crime-fighters)" (no date), and other sources.

Principalities

As mentioned in the Demons (Marvel Comics) talk page, I've created the page Principalities (comics) to cover all the Marvel spell-granting beings that were lumped into the Demons page. I'd like to ask permission to delete these characters from the Demons article and the Octessence stub and redirect it to the new page. I also want spell checking on their names from those who may know them better than I do (they ARE tongue-twisting, aren't they?) and their respective spells. I'd also like some help with the Categories links. -Wilfredo Martinez 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also have an image of the Octessence that would be great for the article, but it's a panel from a comic book, and I do not know which page it is taken from. I do know the issue, though. Should I use it?- Wilfredo Martinez 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hero & villain category trees

In researching an AfD today, I noticed that there are some inconsistencies in the category trees for the hero and villain characters of Marvel and DC.

Here's what the trees look like from different starting points:

Starting from Comics characters:

Starting from Fictional villains:

Starting from Superheroes:

The problems that I see are:

  1. Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered is a subcategory of Category:DC Comics superheroes, which is a contradiction
  2. We're not consistent as to whether superpowered heroes and villains should be a subcategory of heroes and villains in general. It seems like the easiest fix would be to rename Category:Marvel Comics villains to Category:Marvel Comics villains, non-superpowered and move its subcategory Category:Marvel Comics supervillains up one level. However, my gut feeling is that superheroes/supervillains should be a subcategories of heroes/villains and that the dab phrase "non-superpowered" be excised from the category names. This would take more work, however.
  3. From the Superheroes tree, it is not possible to get to non-powered Marvel heroes. While this is accurate — non-powered heroes are not superheroes — I don't know that it's very intuitive.

Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At a gut level I'd say delete the "hero" and "villain" cats and populate as:
  • Category:Comic book characters
    • Category:Comic book characters by publisher
      • Category:DC Comics characters
        • Category:DC Comics superheroes
        • Category:DC Comics supervillains
      • Category:Marvel Comics characters
        • Category:Marvel Comics superheroes
        • Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
And
  • Category:Superheroes
    • Category:Superheroes by publisher
      • Category:DC Comics superheroes
      • Category:Marvel Comics superheroes
And
  • Category:Supervillains
    • Category:Supervillains by publisher
      • Category:DC Comics supervillains
      • Category:Marvel Comics supervillains
The cat Fictional villains is at CfD at the moment and may be a non-issue.
As for the "Super...", it's been pointed out that these terms are fairly well defined and could be considered NPOV. They should be valid for defining aspects for a category. Further, some of the "hero, non-powered" tag have had me scratching my head. Batman, Robin, Hawkeye, etc are "superheroes". To call them "hero, non-powered" seems wrong, very, very wrong.
The only sticky places will be characters that have reformed/gone rogue and articles that cover multiple characters, some superheroes, some supervillains. — J Greb 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I like what you're saying. I think we need to bite the bullet and get rid of whether or not their powered, and concentrate on whether or not their considered superheros or villains. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
A character that has been both hero and villain at different but substantial periods of time can (a) simply be classified as both, (b) be classified as the one that has taken up most of their history, or (c) be classified as whatever they are presently (which has a problem because all fiction is supposed to be present tense, but then again, that's a problem with the list of dead comic characters and yet it continues to exist.

"Non-powered" is often subjective. Green Lantern is not actually powered, and yet he has plenty of powered. Once we count his gadget as powered, where do we stop?

We need people to weigh in for a serious consensus. I think we should classify Spider-Man as both superhero and Marvel Comics character. I don't like breaking it down as Marvel Comics superhero, but that's just my preference. Breakdowns by company blur when characters change companies too. Doczilla 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point with the double cating. If both fit, both should be added.
By extension, if a character migrates companies, each cat is valid and should be applied. And keep in mind that the tree variants, character, superhero, and supervillain, will wind up being fairly large. IIUC, that is a criteria for subdivision and in this case the company seems the natural split point.
As far as "Super..." and "Character", a superhero or villain presumes that we are talking about a character. It seems redundant to have both cats on an article. — J Greb 07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing work...?

Would there be any objection if I added "Former Good article nominees" and/or "Delisted Good articles" as subheadings under this? I'm thinking it might be a good idea for two reasons -

  • Firstly, it draws a little attention to articles which should have already have Talk page feedback explaining how they can be improved
  • Secondly, it's a way to keep track of the WP:CMC articles in these categories, without trawling through the main category pages looking for anything that might be part of the project. It seems that they're something we might want to keep track of, after all.

Opinions? --Mrph 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody's objected, I've added 'em. Please comment if you think this isn't a good idea. --Mrph 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

One of our regular comics article editors is catching flack for canvassing in connection to a nomination for adminship. I understand the arguments against canvassing, although I don't wholeheartedly agree. Votestacking - bad. Notifying interested parties - good. Selectively notifying a lot of interested parties because you think they'll agree with you - okay, that could be attempted votestacking. How about notifying one person because you believe that person is more knowledgeable and can make a more constructive contribution than other interested parties? That can be a tougher call.

Back to the issue of canvassing with regard to a nomination for adminship: When someone who contributes frequently to the comics articles is up for adminship, I want to know. Period. All regular contributors in WikiProject Comics deserve to know and deserve the opportunity to have their say. Anybody who frequently edits the comics article damn well better let us know. It would be appropriate for them to notify ALL WikiProject Comics members. Unfortunately, most of the people voting on the RfA will not be our members, and once one mistakes such notification for canvassing, constructive discussion will end as people focus on canvassing instead of qualifications. So what then? The candidacy needs to be announced to us either on our project notice board or on our project talk page. Every time. (I am therefore posting this message on both of the relevant talk pages.) Doczilla 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Added sub-heading for images

I added a sub-heading to the notice board for images which need to be reduced. Since not all of us have the tools necessary to reduce high-res images ourselves, I figured this would be a good place to bring it to the attention of other project members. I decided to be bold and do this without checking first. Feel free to revert or change as necessary. --GentlemanGhost 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How long do we keep things listed on the notice board?

Right now we seem to have about a year of 'completed' items (and 'newly created pages' on a quick look). I propose we switch to 6 months, since this page gets long fast, with enough edits. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Also, under the "Completed Discussions" section, it says to archive those after 60 days. --GentlemanGhost 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well ... dude. 60 days it is! Firing up the delete button! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I was planning to archive all this over the next few days, but you guys beat me to it. Where have you archived it to? Steve block Talk 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A text file on my computer momentarily. I'll paste it into an article as soon as I double check it :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ack. I didn't archive. Sorry. I didn't think about it actually. I presumed that one could see the historical discussions on the respective article talk pages. However, I can see why we would want a central repository for this. I don't currently see a link to an archives from this page, though, unless I'm missing something. --GentlemanGhost 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I picked up yours, GG! See here. I'm not sure where to link it though... Top of the page, bottom ... -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Either top or bottom is fine with me. Steve? --GentlemanGhost 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I flipped a coin and made an archive box on the top right, under the Comics TOC box. Now to address OLD moves! -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging Alternate Characters

At issue are the proposed mergers to make the entries comply with an already established standard(Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Articles on alternate versions of characters).

I can only speak to "why the suggestion" for Nighthawk, Hyperion, and Squadron Supreme, since I was the one who put those tags up. All 6 articles were under going serious editing which resulted in the "alt" version article being substantially smaller. In addition a few page moves made it look like someone was trying to force a merge without going through consensus. I put them up to be done with it and get a consensus one way or the other. That looks like it is winding down.
Beyond that, it may be worth looking at exactly what the characters are. In some cases, it may be time to actually see the "alts" either spun off or treated as "other characters" In others, "alts" and some mainstream universe characters need to be folded into "supporting" or "minor character" articles.
Looking at the above:
  • Ultimate Thor -- Merge The character can, at present, reside on the parent page without problems.
  • Nighthawk -- I believe consensus was reached on this one, and it was to leave the Supreme Power character separate from the main article. And to not further split that article. This is the same for Hyperion and Squadron Supreme. LSS being that those three have sufficient weight to split between the MU and SPU.
  • The Brute, Fallen, Ice-Man, and Bloodstorm -- Merge those three together as Mutant X (comic book) supporting cast or expand the table in Mutant X (comics) and deal with the characters there. Place a small {{main}} blurb in the relevant mainstream character articles, and done. I would also argue moving the bulk of the Goblyn Queen section to there as well.
  • Widget: Merge into either Excalibur (comics) or create Excalibur (comics) supporting cast for him and like characters.
  • Sunfire - Merge into the main as a minor variation of the character.
  • Changeling/Morph - Leave Split as the characters have become more than just "alt" versions. And, at best a merge would result in a "Morph" article, in name and weight, with Changeling as the "alt".
- J Greb 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a merged Morph/Changeling page should be titled Morph as that is what most people know him by through Exiles, AoA and XM:TAS. The page shoould probably resemble Blink (comics). Plus I believe DC owns the TM to Changeling so if he is brought back in the regular Marvel universe he would probably be called Morph. Or both entries could be under a Kevin Sydney page. -- 69.182.78.104 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Bloodstorm article is about two different characters. They're not both Ororo. Doczilla 06:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge All I've always been of the opinion that all versions of a character should reside in one article, to conform to wikipedia's guidelines on presenting articles on fiction from an out of universe perspective. The differing depiction of alternate versions of the same character are primarily of interest to those who are already, to some extent, familiar with that character. To all others, a one article guide to all version better follows wikipedia's goal to be the first-use reference to all information on everything. Key word there is "reference". To put it another way: wikipedia comics articles are not just for those who read comics. They are also for, say, a single parent whose child just asked them for a comic on some character for their birthday. That single parent may know absolutely nothing about the character and yet is strongly motivated to find out something about it. Finding out from one source that there are a variety of versions of that character, and what the differences are, would be best for that hypothetical reader.-Markeer 14:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Perhaps the "What If" versions should be merged, while those with signifigant differences from the root character might deserve a sub-page. In other words, the basis could be similarities, rather that what particular fictional universe they belong to. I.E., Ultimate Jean Grey is pretty close to the original, with just a few tweaks. Ultimate Galactus is completely different in terms of character, powers, nature, origin and motivations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)
  • Merge all, except Widget, Sunfire and Nighthawk - I'm for merging them all into their parent articles because essentially they are deritatives, and really, the Mutant-X characters are unlikely to get anymore info. Nighthawk is a completely different character, really only keeping the name. Similarly, Widget is pretty much her own character (I didn't even know that it was an alternate version of Kitty Pryde to begin with). Same goes for Sunfire, since she really has nothing in common with Mariko other than name and parentage. Kusonaga 09:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would argue that your reasoning for not merging Widget/Kitty Pryde is exactly the reason that the entries should be merged, so people reading the article know they are the same. -- 69.182.78.104 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be construed that way, but I think a link on the Kitty Pryde page would be the most logical manner of doing this. I also have to add (since I missed it) I oppose Dark Beast->Beast, as Dark Beast really is his own seperate character. Lastly, is there any reason you won't make a user account on wiki? Kusonaga 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all unless the resulting pages would exceed the acceptable average Wikipedia page lenght. Each version should be covered in the order they were introduced, i.e. The Defender's Nighthawk should come before the Squadron Supreme's Nighthawk. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge partial To go along with some of what was already suggested, I would only merge those articles that are much shorter than the main articles (such as Ice-Man and Iceman), but I would not merge those alternate articles that stand by themselves. Some of the ultimate and Mutant-X characters, for example, are such minor variations of the main stream version characters and/or have such short articles, that merging would not create problems for clarity or length of the main articles. However, other alternative characters have extensive differences and/or substantial alternative articles that merges would make it difficult for a non-comic book fan to understand the articles and/or would create an article that is just too long. However, this just applies to pasting and copying entire articles without any editing. If we want to take a serious step of actually re-writing alternate articles almost from scratch to fit into the regular articles, then I'd go with that, but it'll be time intensive. I'm just concerned with the flow of articles. If articles are difficult to read merged, I'd would much rather have two articles. If the reading ease and clarity is preserved, then, by all means, merge all. Hopefully, my explanation makes some sense. (RossF18 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
Oppose all.
Oppose - Ultimate Thor into Thor - Out of all the Ultimates, yes he does have his own article but Thor's own article is big enough especially with the clone/cyborg/robot and the return of the God himself. Ultimate Thor does have enough history to have his own article that is different from the mainstream Thor.
Oppose - Brute to Beast, The Fallen to Angel, Bloodstorm to Storm, Ice-Man to Iceman. The same applies here. All three are mainstream characters with big histories. And the Mutant X versions have totally different histories (well from a different point in time I guess) and as I mentioned in in the Bloodstorm article, if she goes then there is really no point for the Bloodstorm article whatsoever.
Strong oppose - Dark Beast into Beast - What are you thinking?! He is an alternate version of Beast but he is also a mainstream character as well. If you merge him you may as well merge X-Man to Cable.
Oppose - Widget into Kitty Pryde - She's a separate entity and needs her own article from Kitty.
Weak oppose - Sunfire into Mariko Yashida - This could be doable since Mariko and Blink in the mainstream universe have small histories.
Oppose - Changeling with Morph - also I oppose the name change for Changeling to his name.
Oppose - Nighthawk and Hyperion (supreme Power) to their Squadron Supreme counterparts - both characters (well the Supreme Powers ones) had their own limited series/ongoing and then there is the catagories that Nighthawk will be in. That's going to cause a tangled mess.
Most of these articles are large and merging them will create even bigger articles for the mainstream characters. Some like Blink are lucky enough that the main Blink had a small history, while the Exiles Blink has an ever-expanding history (at the moment)
Although these articles are alternate versions, the guidelines do state that if they (the alternate versions) are unmanagably large then they can have their own article. The guideline also states that this also shouldn't be a reason to split alternate characters from the main BUT if you are going to merge them then I suggest that ALL articles involved should be copyedited first to allow space for the alternates to have enough room for their own history not to be hack'n'slashed editted.RIANZ 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, X-man isn't an alternate Cable. X-man is Equivalent to Cable and happens to be from an alternate universe. X-man is actually a synthetic being composed of the genetic material of Jean Grey and Scott Summers. He was created by Mr. Sinister with one goal: to destroy Apocalypse. Cable, on the other hand, is the son of Madalyne Pryor and Scott Summers who was sent to an alternate future. Madalyne is the genetic duplicate of Jean Grey, but still a wholly different person from "different parentage." I believe all the trully alternate articles should be merged. This would provide clear consistency with writing style, composition, related information, and cross character background. The DC comic pages adhere to this idea as well because they are also apart of the WikiComics Project. 74.220.74.236 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – The Fallen with Warren Worthington III -- that's the only one with which I'm knowledgeable and have an opinion. There's enough material to justify a separate article, and there's enough on the Warren Worthington III article to give a brief overview. Other editors concur on Warren Worthington III's talk page. "Wikipedia is not a place for individual alternate versions of characters to have entries" -- why not? I don't see any foundation in policy for that statement. Unless you think the alternate characters' articles are lacking, please keep them. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other editors concur on Warren Worthington III's talk page" Only 2, the same 2 that oppose here.
It's so cute when newbies quote the guidelines (not an personal attack. It's a statement albeit smartarse-ish :D). Anyway notability-wise, most of the above are notable enough to have their own article as their history is long and different enough to warrant an article. Yes the wikipedia isn't a fansite blah blah blah but no every single alternate counterpart has an article. If we merge the alternates then what's to stop someone merging clones (Spider-Man, Superman etc) of major characters (Madelyne Pryor would then have to be merged with Jean Grey). Also, if we are merging the Marvel characters only, how is it that the DC alternate counterparts are being overlooked. And as a side note, the Exiles Sabretooth's article should actually be split in my opinion due to that his history and the mainstream's are getting longer and longer and there is only so much a copyedit can do. Also shouldn't X-Man be merged with Cable and/or Stryfe since he is an alternate version of Cable. RIANZ 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge all: When you delete plot summaries that best belong elsewhere, none of these articles are long enough to need an article for themselves. The guidelines are there for a reason, people. --Jamdav86 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge per J Greb and Jamdav86. We're an encyclopedia targeting a general audience, let's not forget that. Let's keep these articles encyclopedic. When sourced out of universe info allows a split, fair play. Steve block Talk 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition - Ran across another split entry for Captain Marvel. I feel its approiate to reopen that debate and include it here. It will be much easier to do this all at once rahter than one by one. -- 69.182.78.104 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongest Oppose Possible - These type of merge discussions fly in the face of what Wikipedia is...especially when selectively applied as the above are. I completely concur with RIANZ's objection and find just a discussion as being solicitly more on personal opinion than objective and consistent application. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is in no way being applied selectively. The articles listed above are simply the leftovers of previous decisions to merge alternate versions of characters. By not merging the articles listed it just encourages sloppiness in creating articles. If the above articles don't need to be merged then no alternate versions need to stay merged so long as an editior can wite an entry long enough. Thats a pretty lousy standard to hold these entries to. Whats the point of a guideline if no one enforces it? -- 69.182.78.104 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strong oppose to all - There is no reason for a blanket merge discussion, these merges should be relegated to their individual pages. Most of the characters are so far removed from the base character and have their own established publishing histories that they should have their own pages. Finally most of the cases (particullary Thor, Marvel) have already had this discussion and consensus was NO MERGE. - 66.109.248.114 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely a reason for a blanket merge discussion. In fact, if one reads the entire discussion they would see it was suggested by someone that opposes merging the articles. If left to discussions on individual pages, some articles would be merged while others wouldn't based entirely on which users visited those pages while a discussion was ongoing. The whole reason that WikiProject Comics exists is to prevent this kind of haphazard editing from happening. -- 69.182.78.104 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The caveat of this proposed article shift relates to (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Articles on alternate versions of characters as an "established standard". The history on this page dates back to July 2006, with only one or two editors actually adding this standard. If it is based on summary of style, the degree of latitude in that guideline makes arbitrary merges a questionable endeavor. Let's further the discussion on the practical applications of article sizes, valuable content, etc before working backwards. Mister Fax 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board&oldid=138935162"