Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archive 25 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

Primary sources sufficient?

This is a chestnut that fell from the tree during the AfD for Ego. The debate can be viewed here:

One user in particular - Blast Ulna - has been rather dogged and emotive about the issue. Much of his argument is flawed, but I'd like to try and establish a ruling on this as it does require clarification. From the debate:

The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages.

Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series? Or because a character appeared in over 3 decades of comics and never had an appearance in an animated TV series?

Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support.

The comics, therefore are the primary sources in terms of appearances and events. Yes, series such as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe comes with a flawed set of statistics, but it does support the previously mentioned whens/whats/hows.

Asgardian (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Primary source alone has long been thought insufficient. We used to say that the project is about covering such topics with an encyclopedic tone, analysing in as much depth as secondary sources allow for all our subjects. We were quite clear that we had to summarise secondary sources. Primary source alone is not enough. I think that view still has consensus, because I am not sure how else you define an encyclopedia. But it is certainly more heavily disputed than in the past. Hiding T 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How can primary sources be considered insufficient? If a comic features the first appearance of a character, then that is fact and in itself should be enough. It was enough for decades before there was ever a Wikipedia. I think an exception needs to be made for comics. For some characters there are no secondary sources, but that in itself should not make their article grounds for deletion, especially if they have been appearing for decades. Or does the likes of Dormammu need to go?

Asgardian (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some would say yes. Not I, but others would. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't understand your point Asgardian. What do you mean it was enough before Wikipedia? As to whether it means articles should be deleted, I really do not know. My personal opinion is that we should make our articles as encyclopedic as possible, and that almost all of the comic book characters who have decades of publishing behind them have been mentioned in one of the many comics publications so it doesn't matter. Ego has almost certainly been discussed in one of the many magazines. Dormammu likewise. I don't like to see articles deleted if they can be improved or for which sources can reasonably be expected to exist. I don;t really like to see any article deleted which isn't libel or promotional. I'd rather it was tagged in a manner that identified the flaws with the article so that the reader was aware, a sort of buyer beware state of affairs. I think secondary sources are important to ground criticism and avoid bias, and prevent an article being a hagiography or a mass of plot, but I I think we should keep as much information as possible. Hiding T 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. If one wished to propose changes to that existing policy regarding fictional content, that might be reasonable, but as is policy indicates that primary sources are not the preferred ones in any content. I think one particular issue which might be relevant here is the frequency of retcons in this particular field. Were we to be primary reliant on primary sources, then there would likely be instances when the primary sources disagree as a result of a retcon, with someone saying that as a primary source, the older version would still be most reliable. However, I personally can imagine that some provisions for fictional content might be useful. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read it. It has some serious holes when applied to comics. Again, the comics are the principle sources, and were for decades. Wikipedia should respect that. The OHOTMU is in this respect actually a perfect tool. As for retcons, you would still need to refer to the comics, yes? A secondary source will not provide that?

Asgardian (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:V is, if it insists on this, flat-out wrong on this issue, and its advice reflects the dogmatic insistence of a handful of people who have railroaded discussion there, not the larger community or our best practices. I am loathe to offer an alternative formulation, since I think much of the problem is an insistence on formulations over judgment based on specific cases. Suffice it to say that primary sources should be used with care and that secondary sources provide an essential perspective on subjects that must never be ignored or minimized. On the other hand, no magical powers are bestowed on an article by virtue of citing a secondary source., and it is simply inaccurate to treat them as a prerequisite for an article's existence. Their addition is always a substantial improvement to an article, but their absence does not automatically make the article inadequate.
That said, the word "primary" does not seem to appear in WP:V, and so I doubt it is as dogmatic at present as is being said. Though, rereading it, it does rather suck. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree that for several articles regarding fictional content, the details of much of the content should be considered adequately sourced if the original work said it. I do think WP:VERIFIABILITY should be adjusted to take that into account. The question of whether something can be solely based on primary sources is another matter entirely. Clearly, secondary sources are basically required to establish notability, and those sources should be used as much as possible in an article to establish notability. I guess I would think the primary sources could be used to verify any information not discussed in reliable secondary sources. What do to when the secondary sources contradict some primary sources is another matter. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think very little is clear about notability, least of all the relevance of secondary sources to it. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm burned out on notability. It was probably the worst thing I ever did. I cannot count the number of people who now tell me I have no idea what notability means whilst parroting my words back at me. I think it is best politely ignored, although there is a huge sandstorm raging at WP:FICT if anyone wants to get involved. People are talking about seeing which pages the current formula excludes and whether they are the sort of pages worth including anyway. I think the best goal is to aim for FA. Once you get an article there, it's pretty much bound to be included. Hiding T 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also the added problem of those comic characters that will never possess secondary sources but have certainly had longevity. I think that WP:VERIFIABILITY needs to be adjusted to reflect this. For comics, a primary source should suffice, and if secondary exist, then that's an added bonus.

16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problems your identifying are real, but broader than comics. The real problem is that we do not adequately consider the practical context secondary sources exist in. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When it comes to fiction, the work itself is not just a, but the reliable source. Notability is separate. (Lots of people misunderstand this though.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's true for criticism and evaluation. It's not so true for an encyclopedia, oddly enough. Interpreting the fiction is OR, and describing it is plot regurgitation. Wikipedia's policies were primarily written with articles on the sciences in mind, not the arts. My real issue is the restrictions on reliable sources are way off when it comes to stuff like comics. Sure, a blog post is no good as a source for the unified theory of everything, but as a source on who ghosted for Bob Kane I'd take it depending on the blogger. Hiding T 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you missed my point slightly, which was more a logical one than a practical one: people routinely complain about lack of "verifiability" or "reliable sourcing" in fiction-based articles in cases where the articles are written straight out of the book they come from, and by nature more accurately verified than our best FA on a real-world subject could ever even attempt to be.
Principles like third-party sourcing are based on compensating for the subjectivity of real life, and their premises assume the subject about which you are writing is real. Because things within fiction are not real, however, we get a (rather vacuous) fulfillment of the accuracy requirements from square one. The problem with primary sourcing only is not verifiability at all, it's that it doesn't allow us to say anything particularly useful about the subject so we might as well not have the article. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thing that is true though is that there are probably at least a few RS's out there which will mention Magneto and the like in non-trivial ways. The Jeff Rovin encyclopedias come to mind here. Maybe I should run to the local libraries sometime soon and make a list of all the names included as individual entries in them? If we had all them sourced like that, we'd at least have a clearer idea which characters aren't covered, and have a better idea what the situation is. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any character who has appeared in a film in a major role is going to have enough sources out there, even if it is just describing how Ian McKellan played the character. It's the bitty ones we have to consider. Thinking about it, even price guides are a secondary source, since they tend to document creative team changes, costume changes, first appearances of characters and such. Or they did last time I bought one. Hiding T 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Bad example with Magneto there. But I think the villain the Brain Emperor from the Mighty Crusaders and several other characters of that level of recognition had separate entries in that encyclopedia as well. And, yeah, if Overstreet or other price guides or review materials mention the character in a non-trivial way, that would qualify as well. And there's always the various magazines and journals out there. In all honesty, I really don't see that that many characters can't be demonstrated to be notable enough to merit articles, and the few that can't could probably be placed in articles about other entities until and unless they get big enough to be spun out, which will probably only happen if they are mentioned somewhere. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just some thoughts after reading through this...

  1. With regard to works of fiction, primary sources (the works) are excellent sources for some things. For comics these would include: first appearances, appearances in general, generally credited writers and artists of the story if credits are present, exact dialogue an narration text, and the like. Anything that can be quoted verbatim.
  2. Relying only on the primary generally results in problematic articles. Either they read as a disjointed collection of facts or become overly bloated plot summaries. Articles going the later route, especially on recent comics, are a real problem for me. By doing that we undercut the companies publishing the books, or think about publishing reprints.
  3. Secondary sources are needed when providing real world context, which include "behind the scenes" items like character creation, why elements were retconned, sales, exploitation of the character(s), and so on. They also should provide the critical commentary in the articles, the original research and drawing of conclusions that we aren't supposed to be doing.

- J Greb (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The items listed here are all listed with separate entries in Rovin's "Encyclopedia of Monsters", which includes monsters from advertising, comics, computer and video games, folklore, literature, movies, mythology, poetry, religion, theatre, toys, trading cards, and TV as well. There are also two dedicated volumes by the same author on superheroes and supervillains and another on adventure heroes, as well as various others. Somehow, I don't think that establishing notability would be as hard as some people seem to think. I'm not suggesting that articles on each of these should necessarily be created, however. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I argued in the AfD mentioned at the start (for "Ego"), having only primary sources is insufficient, certainly in this day and age. Having only primary sources only indicates that "it exists...": having no secondary sources indicates that "...but no one has thought it important enough to comment on". If that is the case, we should not be the first to do so (we are a tertiary source, not a secondary source). However, as John Carter says right above, for most characters with a bit of a history, there are secondary sources.
Don't get me wrong: of course you can use primary sources as a source for (reliable) information on fiction. But you still need first and foremost some (or at least one good) secondary sources to indicate that the subject is notable. Longevity is not an indicator of notability. Appearing in X is not an indicator of notability. Popularity is not an indicator of notability. Still, these were the main reasons people insisted that "Ego" should be kept. Most people agree that for person X, to have an article on Wikipedia he should be e.g. the topic of an article in some newspaper or magazine independent of person X. But for character X, suddenly no independent indicator of notability is required. I fail to see why we should have two standards, as most important characters have no trouble at all meeting the general notability requirements, having sufficient secondary sources. Fram (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In this day and age" is a large chunk of the problem. With the internet, between the forums, the e-zines, and the blogs, a lot of the hobby writers are now semi- or non-professionals, and therefore not considered reliable secondary sources, so we have to swim the Atlantic to find a couple traditional RSes to prove basic notability even though the articles are often left no better for it in any real informational sense. Currently, we've been kind of going at the issue backwards by (on the inclusionist side) arguing for the inclusion of non-notable subjects necessary to understand notable ones, and on the exclusionist side by trying to merge everything humanly possible, but neither of those approaches encourages building good content. What we really need are some realistic fiction-specific definitions of "reliable secondary source". --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? As part of WP:HALO, I've found merging articles which cannot meet notability into a larger article a much better strategy. For instance, both United Nations Space Command and Forerunner (Halo) are going to be merged into Factions of Halo; there's only a bit of sources available for the design of these fictional organizations, which is better done in a paragraph or two with a paragraph of plot summary, rather than an article which clearly has no semblance of Notability.
As to the crux of this argument, primary sources will be used; no one is begrudging that. But they must be balanced with secondary sources which prove their notability. Think of the ramifications of primary-source only; that would inherently make almost any subject notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a miscellaneous collector of human knowledge. And while it would appear they often cross paths, we should be mindful that improving the Wiki as a whole often means casting aside poor articles which will always be poor articles- like Ego. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some excellent points, but with the last offering we have come full circle. Again, what becomes of a character that has no appearances other than the comics, which according to Wikipedia's logic is primary and not enough? Exceptions need to be made. I think we need to propose a rethink of the whole process when discussing comics.

Asgardian (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please specify an example of the kind you are talking about. The only potential characters I can imagine who would not be mentioned somewhere else are supporting characters and some third-level villains who get brought out once in a while to keep the copyright on the name. Can you point toward a specific character who you have not found any verifiable sources for who is so important in any event that they merit a separate article? John Carter (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try Mangog, a perennial Thor foe. Or Korvac, a major foe of the Avengers in the late 1970's (#177 was groundbreaking). Or even Starbreaker, a classic JLA foe. There are characters - strong ones - who slip through the secondary sources net.

Asgardian (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korvac appeared in the Korvac Saga, which has been critically reviewed on a number of occasions. There's enough out there on Korvac. The other two, I can't say I had heard of them, so I can't provide sources. That isn't to say they don't exist though. A quick search at google reveals [1] a number of sources. Starbreaker will have to suffice with The Justice League Companion for the moment. This stuff can be sourced. You just have to have a good eye. For example, there are some great sources on Ego the Living Planet here, [2], especially Outlaws of America: The Underground Press and Its Context. It's all about research. Hiding T 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Starbreaker so far as I can tell has appeared in exactly 2 stories, 1 pre-Crisis and 1 post-crisis. I think the "Planet Heist" story was critically reviewed repeatedly, and the content on the second incarnation could reasonably be placed there. The content on the first incarnation could easily be placed in the content on the JLA, given the single character was supposed to be strong enough to take on the entire League. I'm not sure how much space it would take up, but with only one appearance, that pre-Crisis character may not merit particularly much content. Mangog, based on the article, hasn't appeared outside of the Thor comics. It certainly would not be unprecedented to add the minimal existing content (2 paragraphs with a brief introduction) to one of the other articles relating to that series, which would also probably help that article get closer to GA. Even if independent sources were found, I personally think the Starbreaker content would probably make more sense in the articles on the storylines than as a separate article, as the continuity between the two is really minimal beyond the name. Also, one possibly strange question. Would the commissioned introduction to a reprint collection of a story or group of stories if it did review the content be considered an independent source? I can well imagine that if it is just "isn't this great?" type material it may not, but if it were for instance one of the introductions to the Sandman reprints by the likes of Harlan Ellison and Gene Wolfe, I think those might be considered "independent" enough to be possibly counted as an external source. Maybe. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly what I was thinking. Many of these tomes have been written by fans for fans, and aren't that academic. There's a plethora of badly written but supposedly canonic Star Trek dross out there. I still don't see the problem with using the comic itself to assert an event, such as a first appearance. In the case of the aforementioned Silver Surfer, it is always going to be FF #48, with no if's, and's or but's. That should be factual enough. I also have to chuckle at the comment about research.

Asgardian (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. They tend to be opinion, which makes them primary source, but then in the sense that they discuss the work, they're secondary source. They're just not independent of the source, being commissioned by the publisher. Personally, I would suggest using them if they aren't unduly self serving and see where the consensus takes us. There's a similar debate over commentaries on dvd's, which are a great source for development facts and actor interpretation, but similarly are not independent. Hiding T 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, for the most part, Asgardian is displaying a sane and useful sense of quality sourcing. WP:V is absolutely and unsalvageably awful on this point, and should be outright ignored. The fact of the matter is that third-party sources exist or do not exist based on the profitability of the publication, not the intellectual value of the information. As self-publishing on the Internet rises a number of fan-targeted publications like character guides, episode guides, etc are simply squeezed out of the market. Why pay $20 for the Buffy guidebook when exists for free? But we, unthinkingly, have opted to bind ourselves to the knowledge that is most commercially viable. This is a dreadful idea. Write a good article. In the unlikely event that somebody challenges a well-written, accurate article with an out-of-universe perspective then this is a fight worth having. Until then, write good articles and ignore WP:V. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some editors are so fixated on the "reliable secondary source definiting notability" red herring (thanks Hiding, for that one) that they're surprised when they AFD an article without them and lose. While such sources are important to use whenever possible, they're not the end all and be all of everything. BOZ (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. One such editor has already proven to be a bad sport (see the link). Based on our discussion, and the sometimes problematic nature of applying secondary sources to an article, I think it reasonable to use the comics as a primary source. Most character have had other appearances, and these usually appear in the "Other Media" section. Some, however, have not, and this is should not be a case for merging or even deletion (an option that backfired on two editors recently). The comics are still cited as the main source in the Comic Book Buyer's Guide, and it acknowledges the first appearances of characters and significant events. I think such a trend is more than adequate for the purposes of editing on Wikipedia as it demonstrates a very real-world - if commercial - use for citing certain issues. Those articles that lack the secondary source option will be few and far between at any rate.

Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There appears to be an issue here. No one is saying primary sources can't be used- and for something like the first appearance, I doubt anyone is going to argue with you. But secondary sources are still absolutely important for any article, comics to fictional characters of any medium. How else can an article ever be comprehensive? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the above comment, which I got caught in edit conflict with. I also have another concern here. There are any number of editions of Overstreet, and several of them include information for various reasons removed from various sources. One item I can remember specifically is that, if I remember the name right, the origin of Bob Violence from the American Flagg strip was included in at least one Overstreet edition. We don't even have the term "Bob Violence" anywhere in wikipedia yet, let alone a separate article. And, if all that can be said about the subject in an out-of-universe sources is "origin in issue #26" I can't see any reason for a separate article, because without such material all we've basically got is plot summary. The Overstreet editions have as noted varied their content dramatically. Acknowledging that, there's no reason to think that saying "specific mention in Overstreet, so it's notable" won't have us making so many short, entirely in-world comics articles Carl Sagan's "billions and billions" wouldn't cover them all. I think we could and should require more than that for an article to exist, at least potentially including merging articles which are not now and are never likely to be so long that they could not be comfortably merged into some larger, more useful article. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but again that falls down in practice. I know of several characters with no secondary sources that have made multiple appearances, many of which of significant. Merging is not really an option. There must, therefore, be a tolerance for both varieties - those that are primary/secondary articles, and those that are purely primary. The policy needs to accomoodate the comics, not the other way around.

Asgardian (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: Couldn't this or a similar dialogue within this project be utilized to create some new standards or guidelines that are more project/topic specific? Or what deliberate steps could be taken to do so? - (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
People (rightly) take a dim view of WikiProjects trying to one-up policy. One is better off arguing the specific case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Needed-Class articles

I hope that you saved the list somewhere, since it looks like someone came through and deleted the talk pages for the articles that are needed for your project. I have already lodged a complaint for WikiProject Doctor Who, but you might want to do so as well, since your project might have been very hard hit. - LA @ 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2008 comics

We have things like Category:2008 books and I notice in Category:2000s comics we are accumulating various titles, including Pyongyang (comic) which is also listed under Category:2004 books and it strikes me "Category:2004 comics" wouldn't be an outrageous suggestion - 2004 in comics would be the main article for the entry and a criteria for inclusion would be that the comic started publishing in that year (as obviously they are ongoing features - in the TV equivalent they note the debut and end, e.g. Category:2004 television series debuts but I don't know if we need to be so specific, although that is open for debate). As some have stopped and restarted I see no reason a specific title can't be listed more than once.

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Cause for concern?

The page moves that Brian Boru is awesome‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been doing are getting out of hand. He is edit warring over several character names, seemingly, for no particular reason other than "more than one codename."? Need some real help here and this time, I would like for comics expert to look through all of his page moves, figure out which ones are wrong, and give a severe warning to this editor about such irritating behaviour. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussions are taking place here and here as a result of this madness. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is getting a bit silly considering we only looked at this issue last month [3]. Some quick thoughts:
  • BBiA shouldn't move any more pages without running this past WP:CONSENSUS - so post the suggestion on the talk page, add it to the project noticeboard and it might be best if someone else closed the move and gave the decision. I know it is slower but it avoids all this business and stops it escalating, which is what is going to happen.
  • We probably need to discuss this and lay down some general guidelines, although I'd suggest each one needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There might be good reasons for this, for example I supported the split of Hobgoblin/Jack O' Lantern to Jason Macendale as it avoided the replication but that is a special case (and was/is controversial). Let's remember a lot of the "big names" have used other superhero names but we follow the naming conventions (i.e. go with the name people would expect to find and create redirects from common aliases). Where it starts getting complex are when different people have adopted the same name/persona and/or the same person has had a number of different notable personas, e.g. Batgirl or Wonder Girl.
Anyway just something to be going on with. (Emperor (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Emperor, could you place the update on the project's noticeboard? I don't really know my way around here, and you seem to know how to do it. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What update? Sorry its late here ;) (Emperor (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Meant could you place the message regarding Brian's moves in the noticeboard? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BBiA may be difficult to reason with at times, but if you take the time to explain yourself to him you may get him to see things your way. Otherwise, he will just revert, revert, revert until you get tired of it. (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The noticeboard is to announce move proposals so other people can pitch in and discuss them. As none of the ones I've seen have had any such proposals there is nothing to add. (Emperor (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Worth noting that the only currently open move request is Hawkeye (comics) which touches on exactly these topics (the proposal is to move it to his name as he has gone by Goliath and is currently calling himself Ronin). (Emperor (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
While it would seem to make sense to leave it as Hawkeye (comics) under the assumption that he will eventually change his name back, I could go either way on that one because of his multiple names. (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I think it makes sense to do that. He has appeared as Ronin (comics) and Goliath (comics)]] and there is another Hawkeye: Hawkeye (Kate Bishop). This would seem to fit in with the examples I give above like Batgirl and Wonder Girl. However, that it isn't a simple case of a move - there should be a Hawkeye entry giving an overview and I think Goliath needs to be expanded from a simple disambiguation page. If that was done then I think the move is the right way to go.
Note a split has been proposed for Captain America which would have a similar result. I am not so convinced of this but will have a read of the arguments and ideas put forth and see. (Emperor (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
As far as all the various changes go, I think most of them aren't necessary. Writers have given various characters new hero/villain names and personas for certain storylines but they almost always go back to the original codename and persona. Daniel Rand, AKA Iron Fist, masqueraded as Daredevil for a time for storyline purposes, but the article wasn't moved to Daredevil (Daniel Rand). As for Captain America, there have been storylines where other characters have taken the Captain America mantle and persona on behalf of the government due to one reason or another. While Steve Rogers will always be the "true" Captain America in the minds of fans of the character and industry insiders, it doesn't negate the fact that there have been others "officially" given the mantle by the government. Basically, Captain America is a government appointed position like Secretary of Defense rather than the typical superhero codename.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't this WikiProject supposed to adhere to WP:COMMONAMES? Think that would solve the problematic page moves that Brian does. And can we conclude with saying that the page names must be discussed from here on? Frankly, I'm tired of seeing this guy make everything harder for us (like at Invisible Kid, Wiccan (comics), Ferro Lad, etc.) and next thing you know, he'll move Batman to Bruce Wayne because there is "more than one codename". And he'll probably do the same to Captain America for the same reasons. Thoughts on what should be done? BTW, I don't think he blanked his talk page in good faith. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone's supposed to adhere to WP:COMMONNAMES, but there are always exceptions. Personal preferences would be to firmly establish and make known project-wide guidelines for naming of articles where more than one subject who has an article has used the same name, depending on the relative popularity and frequency of mention of the various parties. But, yeah, until then, we gots problems. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean, like maybe, "Personal preferences would be to firmly establish and make known project-wide guidelines for naming of articles where more than one subject who has an article has used the same name, depending on the relative popularity and frequency of mention of the various parties"? My preference there would include:
  • (1) If a given character is best known by one identity, such as Jean-Paul Valley as Azrael, or Bruce Wayne as Batman, making that name or the easiest variation the name of the article.
  • (2) If a given character has been well-recognized in more than one identity, naming the central article after the character's "real name", like "Mark Shaw", for instance.
  • (3) If, like Clint Barton and Henry Pym, they have real identity problems, definitely naming the article after their "real name".
  • (4) For (Golden/Silver/Bronze/Plutonium/Tin/whatever) age variant, using that designation as the dab aspect (Vision (Golden Age)), for example.
  • (5) If multiple characters have all become best known by a given codename, then using a parenthetical dab following the name (Robin (Tim Drake)), for instance.
  • I'm sure there are others, as well. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are pretty good, VERY good if I may say so myself. Sure beats the "more than one codename" rant. Perhaps this could be integrated in the exemplar? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, those are great suggestions! -- (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Some observations...
  • (Foo Age) strikes me as a bad idea. First because it is darn hard to pinpoint when the "Ages" start and end as well as which versions of characters fit where. Second, it can become an unreasonable tool to split articles.
    For characters like the Vision or Whizzer, there's already a built in dab by publisher. Yes, Timely eventually became Marvel, but that wasn't until the late 1950s/early 1960s, the books published in the 1940s were published by Timely. "Age" should be an absolute last resort.
  • Common names — I'd say we need to take a step farther back. Yes, the argument about Jean-Paul Valley and Bruce Wayne is valid, those character are the best known as Azrael and Batman. But there are other characters that fall in that situation when viewed from outside of fandom/hobbyists. Clint Barton and Mark Shaw are good examples of this. Barton is Goliath and Ronin only once you get "inside", outside he's just Hawkeye. Mark Shaw, if he's recognized at all, is as Manhunter, not Star-Tsar or Privateer or Dumas. Even fans are more likely to use, and search for, the long standing codename.
  • LSH characters — A lot of the characters (Ferro Lad, Phantom Girl, Triplicate Girl, Shrinking Violet, etc) fall under the concept of "Common names", but there are a couple that go a step farther: Kid Quantum and Invisible Kid. With these I'm hard pressed to see the need to split the articles up, there just is not enough there to say that a single article for each, cover all the versions, are to large.
- J Greb (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the most part agreed, particularly regarding the Legionnaires. I only started on the "Batman" kick because that was mentioned earlier, and Mark Shaw only came up because of the huge mess of Manhunters out there. At this point, I would agree about Hawkeye, basically, and certainly links could be made to use the word "Goliath" and link to "Hawkeye" anyway. Hard to tell how long he'll stay "Ronin" (my guess is from now on, but that's just a guess), but if he does his "Hawkeye" status might eventually fade as well. Otherwise, no disagreement that using separate names for each small-timer would also mean different articles for each, and that's not necessarily required. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note - the majority here (4-1) say that "Wiccan (comics)" remains where it is. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also note BBiA has gone with my suggestion of listing the suggested moves on the project's noticeboard [4]. So feel free to express your opinions there (although it'd be handy if we thrashed out the general point here so we can firm up the guidelines). (Emperor (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I saw that, but what do I say? Is it like a poll? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well a discussion should be started on the talk pages and, if consensus can't be reached through reasoned debate, then someone (other than BBiA and other interested parties, just so things are kept fair) can look over the arguments with the general naming principles in mind and see what the best solution is. So you say what your objections are to the move, with reference to guidelines, precedent, reason, logic, etc. (Emperor (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • NOTE. Does WP:NCC not help in any shape or form? Hiding T
    • It does, but only to a degree. The problem that is cropping up is that the project level guideline is starting to be used as a draconian absolute that does not need discussion. Most of the moves BBiA is advocating are based on the "If a character used multiple code names, the article title should be the character's alter ego/'real name'." thought in NCC. The same motion has been made on Captain Marvel Jr.. Some of the characters, like CMJ and Hawkeye, have code names that are more in line with WP:COMMONNAMES (most likely to be used by the average user in a search) than the civilian names are. The way these moves pushed the guideline would result in things like:
And so on. - J Greb (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J Greb, would happen to have any ideas for a solution? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(De-dent) - Following up on some of the comments above, would John Carter (et al) update his comments above to match the clarifications following them, so that they can be merged to WP:NCC? I think that this fairly has consensus, and may help resolve things less contentiously. - jc37 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoa. Thinking? Brain cramps! Anyway, here goes:
  • (1) If a given character is best known by one name, such as Jean-Paul Valley as Azrael, or Bruce Wayne as Batman, making that name or the easiest variation the name of the article. Thus, Bruce Wayne, better known as Batman, would have the article Batman, unless the article by that name should more appropriately be given to some other, possibly better-known, subject. Similarly, if a character is best known by their "real" name, use that name as well. Examples being "Lois Lane" rather than "Superwoman" or whatever.
  • (2) If a given character has been well-recognized in more than one identity such that no "codename" is necessarily better known than the other, naming the central article after the character's "real name", would be appropriate. If the article by that name more appropriately belongs to someone else, then "(comics)" might be an acceptable substitute, or, as a tertiary, the most "iconic" alias the subject has used. Examples might include Henry Pym and Wally West.
  • (4) In instances when several different characters from several eras or publishers have used the same name, the differentiation could be achieved by adding (Publisher) after their names, possibly using (era) as a tertairy means if more than one from any given publisher exists as well.
  • (5) If multiple characters have all become best known by a given codename, then use a parenthetical dab after the code name for their "real name". An example being (Robin (Tim Drake)), for instance.
  • (6) If multiple characters have all used the same codename, but there is not necessarily enough reasonable content to merit breaking the subjects into separate articles, then keep all the content relating to subjects by that name in the same article. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I merged 3 of the above examples to this section. Noting that much of the above was already in the naming conventions, though worded differently. (Though I've found some copy editing I can do : ) - jc37 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where should we comment on these moves? An anon removed my comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Requested moves/2008. Anyways, it seems like alot of these moves aren't correct. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should comment on the talk page of the endtry - I did drop BBiA a note saying it'd be a good idea to start the move discussion section on the relevant talk pages. If there isn't one then feel free to start one. (Emperor (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Importance tagging

I've been going through the importance categories and moving things - mostly down. A lot of kind of crufty stuff has risen to top and especially high importance (Earth-2 Batman was high, for instance), and there are some real gems of articles lower (How on Earth was Alan Moore put at high given the other creators in Top). I intend to at least go down to mid to knock some stuff down (there are alternate versions articles in mid - not OK), and will probably glance through low and see if there's anything that deserves a bump. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that the 1.0 people are trying to set up some sort of "master guide" based on a variety of things to determine an "objective" importance rating, but that wouldn't be project specific. I know the Novels project has had a discussion page devoted to assigning Top and High importance ratings. Maybe something similar could be done here? John Carter (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that's not needed - someone with a pretty good general knowledge of comics that spans superheroes, strips, webcomics, and foreign comics will be able to make a sort that will be uncontroversial in 90-95% of the cases, and controversial only to a handful of partisan fans in most of the remaining 5%. It's just that this needs to be done periodically to clean out the more foolish classifications. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree, those people are few, and we can't just wait until they will rate every article. As I wrote earlier on this talk page, some general guideline would be needed, to refer to when an article's importance is questioned, or if someone hesitates. I'm not thinking of stiff rules, but some guidance to help others out. Zoli79 (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your retaggings seem pretty sound. Theer are still a few "Top" articles I would reassess as high or mid (Cerebus the Aardvark, Digital comics, Flash Comics, Inker, Letterer, and Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards), but in general it looks pretty good to me now. Fram (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're right about WCCA. Inker and letterer I'm more torn on - they are fundamental topics, I tend to think. You're absolutely right about Flash Comics - that was a brain fart as I read it as Flash (comics), which I wouldn't put at top but also wouldn't demote. Cerebus, however, I have to insist on. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was fooled by Flash Comics at first as well :-) For inker and letterer, it may be my European perspective: in our comics, it is (almost) never noted who is the inker (if different from the main artist), and I have never seen a letterer mentioned. Colourists are only mentiuoned since the last ten to twenty years or so. So to me, the letterer is not really important. For many comics, they had a fixed lettering style and interchangeable letterers... But I have no fundamental problem with it being top importance if people with a different perspective see it like that. As for Cerebus: it is obviously important, but why would you judge it as "top"? Fram (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could see at such, because it is probably the most important of the indie publisher titles. That, together with its 300 issue run and the prominence of its creator, probably make it as important to the indies as Superman is to DC, and the indies are themselves significant enough for their top title to be of top importance. I think. Maybe. I shut up now. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see inker and letterer as important because they're important production aspects - that is, even if a given letterer is unimportant (and really, unless the letterer is Todd Klein, a given letterer is unimportant) the role is important as a fundamental aspect of the medium. As for Cerebus, I think self-published comics in America are important enough to get their high points into Top, and I cannot think of any self-published comic (with the possible exception of Zap!) that I would be willing to say is definitively more important than Cerebus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is neither the time nor the place, but Phil, when you wrote even if a given letterer is unimportant (and really, unless the letterer is Todd Klein, a given letterer is unimportant), did you mean to overlook Dave Sim. There's a pool of thought which argues his greatest work on Cerebus was his lettering, and it has a fair amount of currency if you ask me. I think he could probably work as a letterer if he so desired. Stan Sakai is another letterer of no small ability. Digression over. Hiding T 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that in both cases they are doing the whole work, I tend not to think of them as "the letterer" in the same way. Certainly their lettering is significant, but I am skeptical that it would be considered as significant if they were not so deeply involved in the overall work. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, fair play. One should never edit Wikipedia when drunk. Although I think Sim could well have been a very significant force as letterer alone. But you are right. The freedom he allowed himself as artist would not have been afforded him were he working on another book. Hiding T 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rocket Frog

It'd be worth keeping an eye on this user: Rocketfrog1974 (talk · contribs)

They have created one entry that was speedied as advertising and then re-created it and the rest of their work looks suspect. It all seems to revolve around Rocket Frog Films so the name seems lie a bit of a give-away. I've left them a note but re-creating something that was speedied seems like they are trying to force the material in no matter what. (Emperor (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

  • If they're also inserting external links or you think they're attemting to use WIkipedia to drive traffic to their site it is always worth mentioning at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. I think they have a bot which can monitor this stuff somehow, although I am not sure how. Hiding T 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFC and lists

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Batplane - I have reverted your changes to this. Whilst the small number of images (3) that were on there is obviously compliant with WP:NFCC, the number that you restored to (18) is clearly not (WP:NFCC#3a). I suspect the correct figure lies somewhere between the two, but I have reverted to the obviously compliant version whilst that is discussed. BKNFCC 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're looking at the wrong section of the wrong page : )
See: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. - jc37 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but NFC is a guideline, whilst NFCC is policy. Even so, how can 18 images satisfy NFC when it says "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry" ? Black Kite 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, WP:AADD#It's only a guideline, aside...
This doesn't concern photography or "stand-alone" imagery. So the typical reasoning for NFC doesn't apply (" the hopes of gaining a free version...") That just won't happen with copyrighted characters, and other "things" of name from an animation series or comics series.
But even that aside, this is a list page, and it illustrates the differences between each model of Batplane. When I look over a few encyclopedias I have here at home, this rather commonly done. Even we do this. (See: Ford Mustang.)
So yes, this rather clearly qualifies.
That said, I'm going to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics concerning this. If the images are deleted in the meantime, we can always restore them. - jc37 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like thoughts on the above, as well as suggestions for the current situation, and the future. - jc37 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The norm is that we do not illustrate every item on a list with an image. That said, what article are we talking about here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts are that 18 seems too many and seems unnecessary - I know there are a lot of batplanes but it should be possible to illustrate the main designs with under half a dozen pictures. Of course, how many is too many is a tricky beast and this entry does need more than a couple of images but 18 seems too many. (Emperor (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict)
Just a bit of my reasoning for the partial revert I made (none to 3 images)... The list article does need illustration of some of the Batplains to help a reader unfamiliar with the topic. It doesn't need on for each appearance though, or ones that actually lack a depiction of the vehicle. The three I popped back in are the most germane for the comics in that regard. I didn't add in the elseworlds back as they are pretty much one-shot variations. And as for the other media... I erred on caution. It can be argued that they should be there to illustrate how the vehicle has been adapted for other media. - J Greb (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to me a situation that is not well-distinguished from a list - in both cases, the use of images is to be comprehensive. Fair use images should not be used to provide a comprehensive gallery of images - they should be used to provide the minimally necessary visual context. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly a situation where the policy doesn't help. We certainly need to use enough to inform the reader, and you can make a case that presenting each iteration informs the reader best. But then how do you define an iteration? Is each artistic interpretation a separate iteration? What does policy have to say about making one composite image of all the images? Hiding T 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are obviously 2 places for "wiggle-room".
First is that the "other media" examples (meaning, in this case, "live action") do have potential for non-fair use versions, and should probably fall directly under that rule, concerning photos.
Second, we could split the article (Wikipedia:Article series). It's what the episode list proponents suggested in one of the last sets of discussions on the issue of lists. It devolved into the age-old debate of stub vs. list.
That said, I could see the jet version(s) split to their own page.
But that doesn't really solve the problem of what to do in the future. Is Batman the only example of having multiple versions of a vehicle or other "objects"? (Batmobile, for another example.)
And that said, if we allow the various different costumes of the characters (see Robin (comics), Captain America, or even Batman, for that matter) then why not their other accouterments? - jc37 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure non-fair use images of the other media versions of the Bat-Plane can be made. Images which better satisfy US fair use policy can certainly be made, but Wikipedia definition of non-fair use is free to use period, and I'm not sure images which satisfy that can be made because I am not satisfied that the copyright can't be infringed. Wikipedia and Wikimedia policy in this instance is quite clear. If it is free to use it should be hosted on the commons, and you can't host anything on the commons upon which there are restrictions on any possible reuse. I don't think every version of the bat-plane needs illustrating, and I don't really see that the article can satisfy consensus by being split into separate parts.
  • I can't see overly excessive image use at Robin (comics) where they are being used to illustrate the various characters who have been Robin, rather than the costume changes. Possibly the 52 image at the bottom can be removed, and an argument could be mounted that with each different character having its own article, no images are needed for their sections, but that's a whole different can of worms. Captain America could probably stand to lose a couple of images, the one depicting the Winter Soldier scene and the cover to issue 78, although that does have the wonderful tag line Captain America...Commie Smasher, so could be better integrated into the article. At the Batman article I think there are again two images that could be redundant, one of the two images in the other media section can probably be removed, and the cover to 327 may be a little redundant. I think if we look at those three articles, though, and we consider that they are discussing character's who have evolved over a vast number of years, we can see that they are actually using a relatively small number of images. They aren't using an image to depict every variation, every different tweak to the costume. They've got images targeted to specific historical points discussed within the article. Comparing the top end number of 18 that had been used to illustrate the Batplane article, if we view that as a percentage of the total number of images that contain the Batplane, and then we compare that to the similar percentages regarding the article you've mentioned, I think we'd see that it was higher. I would be prepared to say that it would be a great deal higher.
  • I don't think you can split the articles, consensus is generally that some form of secondary sources are needed to give an article some sort of legs to stand on, that has been the general view going back to the earliest versions. I think the rights and wrongs of that issue are probably discussed somewhere else. And like it or not, Wikipedia policy on image use is stronger than American fair use law. The 18 images would certainly have a decent chance of utilisation under a fair use defence, but I don't think any argument can make them acceptable under Wikipedia policy, which is to use as few as is reasonably possibly to convey the necessary information to the reader. I can't really see a consensus forming on 18 as the magic number. I'd probably see consensus evolving nearer to 3 than to 18. I really don't see much wriggle room. Hiding T 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't arguing specifically for "18" being the magic number. I was merely looking at the article at hand, and looking for "wiggle room" in where we could "cut", while still remaining encyclopedic.

I think this is a case where the NFC rules as interpreted by the reverter, are standing in the way of us being encyclopedic. This isn't the commons, it's Wikipedia. So now does the argument go between IAR and NFC? I hope not, but it's starting to look that way.

One of the problems, I think, is that the discussion seems to be about arbitrarily determining x-amount of images is bad while x minus z is good. "Good" should be the amount that best enhances the article. I wonder... If these were all free images, how many of them would we "allow" to stay, and how many would be considered "too much"? I think that that should be determined before we delve into the question of free/not-free. (And I think the guidelines/policies should be written that way.)

As for free versions of the live action vehicles, I've seen a couple photos of the batmobile from trade shows and the like. They're "out-of-context", but at least they're images of the object in question. That said, I don't think we'll find something similar for the batplane, in that I believe it "flies" only through computer special effects.

(And Wikipedia:Article series would allow for the breaking up of the article. There just would need to be a consistancy in naming. But honestly, I'm not strongly in favour of that in this case.)

And by the way, my goal in this is more than cleanup of the Batplane article. This is something that directly affects quite a few of this WikiProject's articles. And I'd like to find a consensus here amongst us what we think it should be. And if need be, we can always start a discussion at NFC/NFCC to work for "better" text. - jc37 14:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't really see how it helps to discuss how many images would stay if they were free, because we have a policy which limits the use of non-free media. Also, I'm not sure if Wikipedia:Article series would allow breaking up of this article. This article doesn't really fit my definition of either a very broad subject or a long article on a general topic. It seems to be a very specific topic with limited scope, and I would suggest that the consensus on Wikipedia currently leans towards merging similar stubs together. That's certainly how I've read recent discussions on this page, WP:AFD, WP:FICT and arbitration cases. IANAL but the status of images of the Batmobile and the "freeness" of them is unclear. They have a better fair use defence, but whether they are free as our policies define it is unclear. I'm not sure what you mean by this isn't the commons, this is Wikipedia. Our definition of free images is the Commons one, and many of our images are hosted on the commons. Therefore the policy of the commons is germane here, Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum regarding images. The foundation have made very clear statements regarding image use. I think there's also little gain in and little allowance for WP:IAR trumping WP:NFC. You're right, this is an issue which affects a vast number of this WikiProject's articles. It also affects a vast number of Wikipedia's articles full stop. I don't personally think there can be a guideline which defines a magic number for all articles for all eternity. It's a matter for editorial consensus. As to changing NFC or NFCC, I'm not sure you'll get much traction, personally. Policy, and the Foundation are firmly behind us using as few non-free content as possible. How we define that is a matter for consensus, on a case by case basis. Hiding T 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was talking about tweaking text, not making a change that would go contrary to foundation policy...

And I was hoping that we would generate a broader discussion amongst more of our members here...

Anyway, I went through and removed all but one example of roman numerals, and condensed the sections roughly by decade. (That in itself, I think, is an improvement.)

I restored a few of the images (1940s, 2 composite pictures, and two distinctly different ones for the 2 animated series).

Most of the jet variations are clear enough from the text, if we allow for the links to the (presumably) artist models.

I think we can let Batman Forever go, as nothing earth shattering there, though I think we need an image from the 1989 film, as it initiated the change from Batplane to Batwing. There was one previously (but it apparently needed a better/clearer license?) and so it was deleted.

There are two other images I also considered restoring:

The Gorilla City" one, since that would seem to be rare, and distinctly different.
The "jet-tubes" image for the first Batplane jet. For various reasons.

But without those, this places us at 9 images. Half of what was previously there. - jc37 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the animated series one, clarifying in the text. - jc37 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could go to one image that shows the mirroring of military technology, and cut one of the two Batwing images. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've given the article a lead and moved the Batgyro image to the lead, to make the flow of images more evenly spaced. This reduces the effect and gives the appearance there are less images. I would agree the jet tubes image could be restored, I think at the expense of the Batman 203 image in the 1960s section or the Untold Legends of the Batman image in the 1980s section. What would your proposed change to the text be? As I suggested above, I was wondering if we could make one composite image, a collage of the different versions of the Batplane, and run that as a column down the article. If we are allowed to crop and otherwise edit images to better present details, for example erasing the background, I don't see why we can't make composite images. On another point, is it descriptive or interpretive to compare versions of the Batplane to actual aircraft? Could we say, "The Batplane, as depicted in this issue bears a resemblance to this actual plane?" Or would we be better sourcing that to fan opinion expressed by a fan somewhere? Hiding T 11:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of the reason I also am supporting the two composite pictures currently in the article is that they also reflect how the batplane was shown on the 60s Batman catoon series and the Superfriends (something that isn't yet in the article). They, plus the variations of the '89 Batwing (and possibly the most recent cartoon version) are probably the most commonly known versions of the Batplane - With the batmask front version (duplicating that era's batmobile) and the "auto gyro" probably being the next well-known to fans. (Not that DC has ever been known to replicate an "other media" version of a bat-something in their comics... : )
As for comparison to actual aircraft, As I read WP:OR, it's a fine line. I think we can say that something looks like something else (for descriptive purposes), as long as we don't make the claim that the artist did make it to look like that something else.
And (and I'm writing this more for anyone else reading, as I recall you and I discussing this in the past) - There are different "levels" to "fan references". Online articles vs. amateur blogs, would appear to be opposite ends of the spectrum, for example. There are some good links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. Please feel free to explore (and we can always use more good references to that page : )
And while this subject is up... Anyone out there have a good image of the '89 Batwing? (glances over at our image expert, User:J Greb : ) - jc37 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, regarding the 89 film image, I've found this image wghich has been on Wikipedia before at Image:Batwing89.jpg, which was used in this version [5] of the article. I've also found [6], which offers up Dave Cockrum's thoughts on the Bat-Plane. The author seems to be some sort of expert on models and aeroplanes, in that he's been published in FineScale Modeler, so for me I'd lean towards using it. Ouch. We may have a copyvio on our hands. [7] is pretty much the same as [8]. Hiding T 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On another point, what do people think about making the Elseworlds section a prose section rather than a very short list. It looks rather ungainly as it is, and for me would work better as a chunk of text citing the appropriate comics as and when. Hiding T 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't think full-prose would work, but a non-headed list might be better. I've given it a quick go, we'll see if people think it acceptable. Incidentally, I can't recall if Batman/Tarzan is officially Elseworlds-branded, but as it stands there's only one true Elseworlds incarnation on that paltry list - surely there are more alternates..? ntnon (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Batcopter?

Incidentally, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to merge Batcopter (with its single batman movie image) to Batplane. It would seem to me that this could accentuate the batplane article, rather than detract from it. Else, the autogyro, and the untold legends image should be added to the 'copter page (presumably with accomanying text). - jc37 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd merge them in. I'm not clear on where the batgyro should go, since Daniels sees it as a clear part of the evolution of the Batplane, and an autogyro is a sort of hybrid between an aeroplane and a helicopter, having a top mounted rotor for lift like a copter, but using a front mounted prop like a plane for thrust. I agree it is of better benefit to discuss them all on one page. Hiding T 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page moves

 – Hiding T 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moshikal has moved Hawkeye (comics)‎ to Clint Barton‎ and moved Andreas von Strucker‎ to Swordsman (Andreas von Strucker)‎. However, instead of actually moving the pages, he copied and pasted the text, leaving the edit history and talk page at the old article. I reverted the Hawkeye change, which was pasted over a redirect, because recent discussion on the talk page seemed to be against such a move. However, I left the Strucker page alone - could someone else revert it and/or fix it to a page move? (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've merged the page histories, and left a note for the user about cut and paste moves. I'm not sure where the page should ultimately reside, so I left it at Andreas von Strucker‎ pending further discussion. Hiding T 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged this brand new article for notability. Can anyone who knows more about this check if it is indeed notable or not? Thanks! Fram (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I added that page. I can add more references if it helps. Newsarama, Comicbook Resources, Dread Central,, and a bunch of other sites have coverage on it within the past week. There's 524 results on a google search for "Death Walks the Streets" + Comic, and 27,400 results under simply "Death Walks the Streets". According to Dread Central it will debut at Wizard World Chicago in June as a part of The Scream Factory line. SantanicoPandemonium —Preceding comment was added at 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes please - anything you can add will not just help address the notability concerns but it'll also help round out the entry.
Looking over the entry it should be fine - looks like The Scream Factory have picked up the ball dropped by Fangoria Comics and run with it - which is good to see. Thanks for starting the various related entries and I'll keep an eye out for more material to add - there will be a lot of interest in these titles. (Emperor (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Biographies of living people

There are a lot of issues with biographies of living people, as both our policy at WP:BLP and the user essay at User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem make clear. Many solutions have been and still are being proposed, but in the meantime I have put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/BLP. This page lists every article which is tagged with both {{comicsproj}} and {{BLP}} on its talk page at the time of creation. If all project editors could check the recent changes to articles on that page, we can better police the articles under our eyes for changes contrary to policy. I've added this task to the to do template as well. Thanks. Hiding T 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. We tend not to have a vast problem but it does crop up. The main one is from WP:COI edits with quite a few having the whiff of adverts full of peacock terms. However, there are some that are problematic - Steve Niles is the main one on my watchlist with some very odd vandalism. I've suggested we put it on low level protection so anonymous IPs can't edit it. That won't solve the problem but it does slow it down and it is something to consider.
I'd suggest a few easy solutions:
  • Active comic article editors should sign up with the creators work-group
  • Try and put any editor's page you are reading on your watchlist - the important thing to prevent this kind of problem is eyes and lots of them. I have all the British comics creators on my watchlist as well as most of the big names and the bulk of the newly created. Keep an eye on the new creations page and tag anything new. Eventually we should have good coverage.
  • Perhaps add a BLP section to pending tasks where we can add the important ones to watch, possibly split them up as COI, V, etc. and anyone passing should try and add the entries there to their watch list.
  • We should consider moving continuously troublesome articles to long-term low level protection to nip things in the bud.
  • As I say we don't seem to have a big problem as even the big names don't tend to attract the kind of vandalism that other famous folk do but when they are involved in controversy activity does spike (as with Steve Niles - there seemed to be quite a bit of score settling going on there). It'd be worth keeping an eye on Lying in the Gutters and other comics gossip sites as it can often be a good forecast of where the problems will come from, especially with issues of non-payment. I picked up one this week which was discussed on LitG: "Who is the mysterious 'Hyrocomics' user ID cleaning up Pat Lee's Wikipedia history and replacing his history of bankruptcy and dodgy dealing with one of success and admiration?" That is one entry worth putting on your watchlist.
So I think we can deal with most of the major problems with vigilance and "if in doubt take it out" (take it to the talk page to discuss the removal). Also try and get people who are complaining about their entry to use the WP:OTRS if they want to confirm their identities. (Emperor (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Worth noting one vital thing - the talk pages of all creators should have the Comics Project and BLP headers or they aren't going to get picked up in the handy link above. I provide the code here and it doesn't take much time to put it in. I keep an eye on new creations and check those articles I surf through but there are a lot still untagged (I just spotted one today) which makes the system not work quite so well. (Emperor (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
The bot hasn't tagged them all as yet, but it's getting there. I added all the pages to my watchlist, so at least one set of eyes is on them, however poor they are. Hiding T 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category help needed

Category:British superheroes sits in both Category:Superheroes by nationality and Category:British comics characters. The former categorises the character's by their fictional nationality, the latter categorises characters by the nationality of the publication in which they first appear. It seems at this intersection the structure is in some sense flawed or corrupted. Personally I lean towards using the structure utilised in Category:British comics characters. However, usage may differ. I've thought about taking this to cfd, but I can't work out what template to use in order to discuss it. Hiding T 17:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you're not sure, or if nothing else applies, just use the standard Template:cfd.
My personal thought is that British superheroes is probably too vague a name, per your comments, and so per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (among others), should probably be renamed at least to Category:British comics superheroes, and pared/pruned of things like The Beefeater. I'm not sure what to name the subcat of "by nationality". However, if we follow convention of even the parent cat, it should be "British superheroes". Maybe a hatnote in each would help?
Also, I seem to recall having similar concerns (See:this CFD discussion)
Hope this helps : ) - jc37 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is tricky and there is room for confusion. For example Dylan Dog is an Italian comic starring a British character, but is listed as an Italian comics character, as he is a character from Italian comics.
In a previous CfD I expressed concerns over Category:Superheroes by race which seems to be also holding some by nationality like Category:Brazilian superheroes. The whole thing is confusing.
Either we have "Superheroes in British comics" and "British superheroes" or we loose the whole classification by race/nationality - especially as this is completely flexible because they are fictional and often their racial origin goes unstated, so it could even be WP:OR.
See this CfD. (Emperor (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
2¢ or so...
It almost sounds like the structure needs to back slide a little, changing "British (comics) characters" to "Characters appearing in British comics". Yes, it is longer, but it is infinitely clearer. - J Greb (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well... In re-reading WP:CLS, I'm really starting to think that maybe these should be lists. References with explanations sound rather necessary. - jc37 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could listify "Comics characters from Britain" - the category for characters in British comics doesn't have any wiggle room and is easy enough to define. (Emperor (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That might be needed. British comics characters could be seen as 'British comics' characters (i.e. characters from British comics) or British 'comics characters' (comics characters from Britain). I'd say "Characters from British comics" is compact enough and useful enough.
Anyone wanting to start a "Comics character from Britain" would need a good arguement because given the long running nature of comics and retcomming someone's origins are up for grabs. I suppose it could work but it may be over-categorisation and could lead to headaches.
So for now "Characters from British comics" gets my vote as a replacement for "British comics characters" (Emperor (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The perils of in-universe writing

Discussed at "Rowling to Testify in Trial Over Potter Lexicon," New York Times, April 14, 2008. The allegation is that the defendant's work in that case does not qualify as fair use because it "merely compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling’s fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight or criticism." Everyone should watch the outcome of this case. Postdlf (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We, however, are not making money off plot summary. (Not that we shouldn't be trying to go beyond recantation of book plots.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately the Wikipedia Foundation's apparent stance on fair use is much harsher than US law. It is possible that if Rowling wins (likely from what I'm seeing) that the Foundation may take a direct look at the articles on fiction here to reduce the plot summaries used. And the "Fictional character bios" will make good targets. I also seem to remember that one of the ultimate goals for Wikipedia was to produce a print version of some kind. Presumably that would be distributed for cash. - J Greb (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely fictional biographies would only be problematic if they were solely composed of quotes and verbatim descriptions? My understanding of JK Rowling's position is that the book is copyright violation - and that's already frowned on here. So I wouldn't have thought it would radically change any positions or create new targets - unless they're already worrisome. ntnon (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually came here just to give a heads-up about this but Postdlf beat me to it. In answer to Fuchs, whether WP makes money on it is a factor to consider, but the analysis won't stop there if WP's use of the work causes a substantial detriment to the market value of the work to its original author. Our use has to transform the work, and not provide enough material to deter potential buyers of the original. Check out fair use. -PsyphicsΨΦ 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving aside that this is legal, commercial and ordinary madness our aim here is keep the plot descriptions tight and the result of that policy is that we don't have any detailed "and this happened and then that happened" for exactly these reasons. So as long as people actually abide by the policies I think we should be fine. If Wikimedia have anything to be worried about then it is the Wikia wikis they host and I suspect part of their agreement is that the people running the wikis accept legal responsibility. The only issue I see is if this wins (which I really can't see happening) then there may be a knee-jerk reaction to it to clamp down and/or those folks looking to clamp down further on fictional articles could use it as an excuse. Also people are getting more hardcore about their intellectual property (to increasingly absurd lengths) and if this resulted in a victory then it could open the floodgates for increasingly stricter lawsuits, etc.
Ultimately, if it went to the extreme on impacting the articles that abide by the rules then people wouldn't be able to properly write reviews, etc. (a lot of comic reviews can go into far more detail on the plot because they deal with a single issue).
If things did start swinging against us I'd be prepared to contact the major comic companies for their input - I suspect they'd see that such efforts would help them shift more units (if we really have to appeal to the bottom line - I know I have bought more thanks to the information I've found here, which has helped me track things down) and be a valuable resource to their fans (if we are aiming at altruism). (Emperor (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It is worth noting that the major problem with the Lexicon is excessive quoting. Rephrased plot summary is not at issue in the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precisely. Which would surely impact here no more than the already-extant rules on violation of copyright, and therefore isn't an issue. ntnon (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wasn't it an issue in the case against Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who's Who and What's What? I think the deciding factor tends to be whether our publication adversely affects the potential market for authorized books about the fictional work. So in the case of comics, if we affect the market for OHOTMU or Who's Who in the DC Universe. We might not be as affected by Marvel because they now have their own wiki, but it is a concern and one we have to watch. Mike Godwin has apparently taken the view that it won't be an issue for him or the foundation until publisher's start taking an interest and making noises with him and/or the foundation. He has indicated to me that "From a legal standpoint, I see no reason for contributors to worry about coverage of fictional universes, so long as relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed." The problem then is working out what those provisions are and how they apply. Not being a lawyer, I throw open the floor. Hiding T 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to the "WP may make an encyclopedia" comment, it should be noted only the best articles would go on 1.0; so Batman and Master Chief (Halo) and Cortana, et al, are already balanced by critical reception, so it's just the Iron Man-type articles where there's six paragraphs to describe two years of publication we have to deal with. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could I just get an extra set of eyes on Alternate versions of Robin? Seems to be being hit with vandalism and I can't stick around to keep an eye on it. (Emperor (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Was just wondering if the categories Science fiction themes and Superhuman powers should go there, or at least replace the current vague one(s). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes they seem better - seems the article has bigger problems though. If anyone can help that'd be great. (Emperor (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the policy on living people, WP:BLP, it's been suggested this article be re-factored to discuss the case. Anyone want to pitch in and help? My time is limited at the moment. Thanks. Hiding T 10:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes good point. What about something more sweeping? Obscenity trails over comics? Melinda Gebbie was also involved in a comics obscenity trial. I think it'd take the focus off WP:BLP and could be an interesting well-sourced article. (Emperor (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Why not redirect it to CBLDF? Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my suggestion at WP:BLP/N. Another user suggested the refactoring. Hiding T 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March AfD's

It appears that with March comes a wave of AfD for mid-heroes/villians (and some major). Similar waves have gone thru D&D project and Bond project. This is a nudge of encouragement for editors to check and double check and watch some of their favorite character pages (clean-up and facelift where needed), and participate in the AfD discussions. - (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Equally we might want to take it as inspiration to discuss what we should do with all these low and mid-level characters which are failing WP:FICT - we can obviously keep going around the houses but there is a limit on what can be done with a lot of these characters. I mention it (and answer some questions raised) here. (Emperor (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"The general plan would be to merge them to a list as can be seen starting at List of DC Comics characters, although it might need more fine-grained divisions (A-Ad, perhaps). It'd basically be a longer multi-page version of the examples given on WP:FICT, e.g. Characters of Carnivàle, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, etc. and the name would then redirect to the section. Things like the DC characters list is fairly solid and as detailed as you'd ever want so you could get a reasonable idea of how to break it down further. List of Marvel Comics characters is less extensive but the category should give us an idea of existing entries. It may also be that we'd want to transwiki some of the entries to more detailed wikis so we can link on to them too. That is how you'd do it - it'd need a bit of planning and a lot of hands on to make sure everything is edited together right but it is doable. The bottom line is that a lot of these comic characters are either not notable or are right on the edge. I don't feel deleting them is the way to go - transwiking is certainly one way but the WP:FICT-approved approach would be a transwiki (if needed) and slotting them into character lists. In the end it is a case of use it or lose it as people are always going to be nominating such border-line characters as this (and there are worse out there) and they will be gradually picked off and the whole thing gets messy. There is a broader solution that allows us to keep the bulk of the information. (Emperor (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

As much as I hate to admit it (because I prefer characters to have their own aticles), it seems like you might be right. And your system sounds like a good one - I would hate to see just a list of names like with the DC List (a list is not very informative) and probably the only proper way to handle it would be alphabetically with multiple pages. Most letters would require 2-3 pages (some, like Y and Z would need only one), some like M or S would take several. Could we start a separate page or something for this discussion? BOZ (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, tangental experience, but bear with me. From my experience in working on Characters of Halo, what you might need is for the FICT-failing characters to be reviewed by an impartial editor, and then hacked apart and pared down to two paragraphs of plot and introduction to the character and then whatever out of universe info you can find. For example, Avery Johnson originally had seven paragraphs of plot, but for the Characters article (unless there is a current article for them) I limit the plot to one paragraph and then fill the next with commentary or reception. I admit this will be harder to do with characters that have been around for decades, but as ungainly as a "List of Superheroes, A-H" might be, it's the only way to both improve the encyclopedia's quality while keeping the characters here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"List of Superheroes A-H" would be ridiculously ungainly, even limited to a sentence or two each!  :) That's why I like Emperor's idea of more fine-grained divisions better. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah - if you look at the size of List of DC Comics characters: A you'll see even trying to expand that would be unwise. Something that size with a paragraph or two each would need something like 5 or 6 pages (A-Ab, Ac-Ae, etc. - pretty much as the very largest collections of encyclopedias are) but the fact the list is so comprehensive does allow us to gauge the size of the issue.
Worth noting I'd want to do this in combination with transwiking so nothing is really lost, it is just the full account is moved off Wikipedia.
If we don't do this they all slowly be chipped away and there is nothing left here or there so while it is a big job and I'd rather they all had their own entries (they can't here due to the guidelines) it seems like the best solution given the various issues at work. (Emperor (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Is this something that could be work-grouped or tasked forced. User:BOZ you have a real gift for minor and mid-level character pages, is that something you'd be interested in? - (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I'd be interested in working on it, if for no other reason than preserving material. Like I said above, I suggest another page for talking about this, unless you think we can do it here and still keep it managable. The first thing to decide is how many pages we'd want to work with. That'll require a lot of estimation. Using Emperor's model, it will require a few dozen at least. If we don't do it that way, it would have to be something more like one page per letter (or less), splitting into new pages as necessary to keep them from getting too long. I'm not sure which characters we would or would not to put on these pages (and I would not want to force the issue on anyone), but initially it would be a good place to put anything which has become questionable. For example, a number of character articles have been redirected for various reasons, and we could start with these. Also, on any character which has actually been deleted (for notability, not copyvio), we could ask an admin to pull up the text and paste that into one of the index pages. I'd start it that way, rather than redirecting a bunch of pages en masse. That way, we hope to avoid a "characters and episodes" issue with comics. We would add more and more characters, a few at a time, as deemed necessary. For example, as Emperor knows, I have created quite a few Marvel stubs, and I would move most of them to the index pages once the deleted/redirected characters are underway. Like I said, I wouldn't want to force the issue on anyone who resists the process. I'd focus on the multitude of stubby little ones at first, and worry about larger articles later. BOZ (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a ton of character lists to move less-notable characters into, definitely. Oddly enough I was planning to start this topic myself. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great idea! (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about we look at the DC characters as they have the most detailed list? We can start breaking it down into manageable chunks and see how the land lies? Perhaps we could actually move some across and use them as the basis for a chunk, as long as we've defined the chunks ahead of time. Keep the main list up while things shape up but start using merges to bring the entries together, combined with transwiking to the relevant wiki. (Emperor (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
OK Kong the Untamed is up for deletion. I say we use this as the test case. Looking at the DC characters: K it looks like we can make it work as Ka-Kh, Ki and Kj-Kz - which would make that a merge to List of DC Comics characters: Kj-Kz, if I'm not mistaken. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hey, I haven't forgotten about this! I just got busy doing basically the same thing to stave off the D&D deletions. To be honest, they were under a much bigger threat, since the comics deletions kind of petered out but the D&D deletions kept going strong, so I felt the greater need was there. Don't worry, I'll try to get something going here in a week or two. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Emperor, give it a shot? I'll admit I don't know DC characters all that well. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still mean to get to this, rolling right along at User:BOZ/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters‎ (if you're also of the RPG persuasion, feel free to join in!). BOZ (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick note but there are expanded templates for big categories: {{LargeCategoryTOC}}. It wouldn't be difficult to create things like "DCCharatersTOC" and "MarvelCharatersTOC" so we could have an expanded and flexible table of contents if we broke things down into sub-pages. (Emperor (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That might be worth looking into. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wondering if this is still alive? (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is, one other comment. For the characters of the older comics, who tended almost exclusively to appear in a single strip or book, the useful content related to those individual characters could certainly be added to the main article on the strip or book itself, maybe in one or more "recurring characters" sections, which might include "allies", "minor characters", and "recurring villains", for example. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is as this is going to keep coming up and needs resolving. Latest one: Amanda (comics), which again seems a prime candidate for being part of the Marvel list. (Emperor (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That's what I said, but Stephen Day disagreed. I'm almost ready to go live with my D&D list project, so I bet I could start putting some real energy into this starting next week, or at the very least the following week. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He might have a point - if she has only appeared in 1 issue she'd have to be pretty important to meet criteria for inclusion on such a list - there must be a cut-off in how minor a character is before we mention them here. It should be transwikied though. (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I'm posting my D&D monster lists tonight (God willing!), and then I can take another look at this. I do have some ideas on what can be done. May want to start a new thread though as this one is kind of dead.  ;) BOZ (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I finally finished my List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters a couple days ago. It was a big undertaking just to get it that far (it's far from done) and I need a rest.  :) That model won't work so well for comics characters, though I'm thinking it should look something like this section when all is said and done. I think I'll start a new thread in the not-too-distant future as this one has gotten pretty stale and should head off to the archives.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes more like that - with the front page probably resembling the DC Comics characters (as that is more exhaustive.
How do you feel about this for a plan - we start up the outline for the Marvel characters in one of our sandboxes (is it even worth having a Comics Project sandbox?) and we sketch it out until we are happy we have the length and balance right? Once everyone is satisfied we can start a process of going through the entries and seeing what needs merging in (and transwikiing to the Marvel Database Project - remember we can always add interwiki link to the transwikied page, so nothing is lost. We can probably make a quick template to make this simpler) and what needs a short overview paragraph and a {{main}} link to the larger section. (Emperor (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That's exactly what I was thinking, and I'd be happy to volunteer my userspace/sandboxes and spearhead the project as I did with the D&D one. Although, I don't want to rush to get it done like I did with the D&D monsters; I felt a lot of pressure on that one because there was a strong sentiment of deletion that I just don't feel on the comics pages. If it takes us a few months to get it done, then so be it - we're not on a deadline.  :) I'll start taking a look at this next week, as I'm fairly busy at the moment and through the weekend (well maybe not Sunday night?).
What I was thinking of doing would be to take the current List of Marvel Comics characters page and break it up into however many pieces we think we'll need to get the job done. Any characters who merit their own page (or have just not yet been added to the list) should consist of nothing but the {{main}} template. Once we break it up into a few dozen sandbox pages in userspace, we can start adding text from lesser notable stubby character articles first (as well as articles deleted for no notability), and once we go live with the list we'll begin redirecting such characters. Some characters will require talk-page discussions, which we can do either before or after the lists go live. Since there are so many character pages, I figure we can get a certain percentage of the work done before going live (10%? 25%?), and leave the rest to community consensus. I say to do some of the work before it goes live so that people don't just jump on it and say to delete it.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legion of Super-Heroes articles

We should all rename any of the LOSH articles, if the character had more than one codename. The LOSH have gone through so much reboots that their real name is their commonname. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example Ayla Ranzz has gone by Light Lass, Lightning Lass, Spark, Pulse and Live Wire. The artcile should be renamed Ayla Ranzz. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a question of the real world implications. A common user to wiki, without familiarity with the post-Zero Hour Legion, brought in by the TV show, Superman:TAS, or JLU would be seeking the traditional Silver Age names. Indeed characters like Ferro Lad was also called Ferro, but such a differentiation is utter semantics contrasted to the near foreign Andrew Nolan, greatly decreasing the commonality and accessibility of the page. I would encourage and aggregated examination of the characters and their names, versus strictly relying on a 'secret idenity' derived from equally multiple incarnations as the codenames of the character (Triplicate Girl or Duo Damsel = Luorno Durgo or Luornu Durgo). I suggest examing name that have been presented the most quantitatively in print or throughout multiple mediums be represented. The is no singular answer for these great characters who a reinvented almost every 5 years, I feel my suggest might be more encompassing. - (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)
Long and short: It's case by case.
Ayla and Violet are cases where an argument can be made that the name changes were made with in a series. That may be good enough for the article name to default to the alter ego.
Others though, like Ferro Lad, Colossal Boy, Lightning Lad, etc, are mostly re-boot specific. This results in two things:
  1. There is a default status quo to the pre-Crisis code name.
  2. There are, in most cases, 3 comic book versions of each character.
With that, leave the articles at the iconic default and get the text crystal clear with the real world context as to why code names were tweaked in the reboots.
In any case: Moves one way or the other should wait on consensus at this point. It's been made fairly clear that this is a contentious issue.
A few side issues since this does bring up the grouping of the LSH character articles:
  • Infoboxes — Some nagging issues with these, regardless of the articles are named, for the pre-Crisis characters that made it through both re-boots.
    • Images — While some of the characters have similar visual appearances (Brainiac 5 and Ultra Boy for example) most of them have had distinct appearances that didn't migrate (Star Boy and Projectra being extreme examples). Right now, the 'box guide line is for the "iconic" costume. In the bulk of these cases the "iconic" on is going to be debatable. We may be best to use spot images and remove the images from the 'boxes.
    • Code names — This is based on what I saw done with the Shadow Lass/Umbra article. Under the current 'box format, we're getting names piled to character versions that never used them. Such as: Lightning Lad (LSH 1.0 & 3.0) has never been Live Wire (LSH 2.0); Umbra has never been Shadow Lass; Micro Lad was never Leviathan; and so on. We shouldn't be lumping these into "Notable alias" so it looks like they were used by all versions of the characters. It's tempting to say we should either be adding the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 (or similar) to separate the information in 1 'box or place 1 paired down 'box per 'boot section.
  • Short articles and dabs — Right now I believe we only have one of these situations: Invisable Kid. This may be a case where we've got 2 relatively sort articles (Norg and Forcatte) that should be merged into one.
- J Greb (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is also the general guidelines for naming articles - go for the one that people are likely to look for which is, in these case, going to be the classic name - like Lightning Lass (I have to say I have read a lot of LSH comics and I'd struggle to remember what everyone's real names were, but, given the rather clunky naming, it is easy enough to remember the names).
Equally, in other circumstances you get a number of different people adopting the mantle of specific superheroes, so the superhero should be the core article in most cases, that allows you to then have separate articles under the person's name, as we do with Green Lantern and Hal Jordan. Feel free to set up redirects from other identities and the individuals names, as that will aid people who look up something using less common names (and if you can't redirect add a note on the disambiguation page).
As has been said, there are no hard and fast rules on this just guidelines and if there are specific ones that could be a cause for concern then we can discuss them and see if a move is needed. So not a blanket yes or no, but the guidelines suggest we should be cautious, so I'd suggest we deal with this on a case-by-case basis if there are solid grounds for it. (Emperor (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I pretty much agree with the above. We should a.) figure out which name is the best for the article and then b.) create redirects of the other names for navigation purposes.
And since redirects are an option... I dunno. For example, "Garth Ranzz" might just be the best name for the article about Lightning Lad/Live Wire/Lightning Man. Unless we split them as J Greb seems to be suggesting above. (Does it make me crazy if I pretty much agree with J Greb and Emperor in this? : ) - jc37 07:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably ;) But if so then I am too as I agree with me and J Greb too. (Emperor (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Point of clarification: I'm not suggesting splitting the articles, but rather the infoboxes with in the articles. (And an aside - doing a continuity parse on Lightning Lad will have a tendency to go south when Proty is hit.) - J Greb (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Christ, yes, Proty. That was a plot point and a half. Damn, some days I miss the LSH. Hiding T 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image issues

Just bringing this up to a wider audience.

There's been some conflict of the infobox image for Mac Gargan that also seems to touch on the article name. (ie "Are users more likely to search for 'Scorpion (Marvel Comics)' or 'Mac Gargan'?")

Right now the image has been removed ( there is still a Scorpion and a Venom pic in the relevant sections) and a discussion started (Talk:Mac Gargan#Scorpion or Venom?). But there is a need for opinions to be voiced.

- J Greb (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I've thrown in my fourpenneth but it seems to have gone a bit quiet - we will need a bit more discussion and input to make sure we arrive at the best solution. (Emperor (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I know... it's one of those that just flares up every now and then. If it does again, I might just run with your suggestion... though sans image. - J Greb (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible proposed changes to some articles

At present, it seems to me that many of the major comics series do not have separate articles from those of the titular character. This could be a bit of a problem, because, as many of you will remember, in the old days back-up strips were a common occurrence, and in many cases they would currently have to be, rather uncomfortably, fit into the main article of the title character, where they would probably fit in more comfortably as sections of a separate article devoted to the book as a whole. Also, such a separate article on the series per se would make it possible for content regarding recurring characters and/or villains in the series to be included, thus allowing a bit of a dodge of the WP:NOTABILITY requirements, or giving a place to put content relating to notable but minor characters, like the "Anteos" and some others listed at User:John Carter/Rovin. Do the rest of you think that setting up separate articles for series which had regular back-up strips and/or supporting characters rarely if ever seen outside of the title would be potentially useful? John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree and in theory this would suggest that a lot of article should have a distinct between character and title - after all people like Batman often have a number of parallel titles with an eponymous one (and we do have Batman (comic book), as well as Superman (comic book)). So there is already precedents, the question should be where we draw the line. I remember we merged Orion (comic book) into Orion (comics), as the eponymous mini-series could be easily accommodated in the main article. Perhaps that should be the main rule of thumb - how clunky it seems to keep the character and title together and whether it would be natural to split it off. (Emperor (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I think for most recent series and maybe most short lived series it wouldn't necessarily be a problem. But for longer run series and/or series which had frequent backup strips it would make sense. The longer run series articles would have room to place content regarding minor characters who appeared in the series but might not merit their own article and the older series with back up or multiple strips would have room to place content regarding those strips and possibly characters, if the characters rarely if ever appeared outside of the book and are of borderline notability. For shorter run series, though, if there is a clear main character, only one strip, and not that many other new characters unique to the series, there wouldn't be anywhere near as much need for it. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provided I'm in a position to do some "break-up" of articles into new ones for both the character and the series, any ideas on which ones to start on, how to break them up, naming matters, and the rest? John Carter (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). For example, based on that page, we should never have (character) as a dab phrase.
That aside, I'm curious. How many titles which are titled after a character had "backup" strips? Flash comics is different than the Flash, for example. Thinking about Action comics, Detective comics, More Fun comics, Western comics, Adventure comics, Gold Key comics, and so on. - jc37 01:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just off the top of my head...
  • Both Firestorm and Green Lantern were back ups in Flash at different times.
  • Huntress in Wonder Woman
  • Adam Strange in Green Lantern
In all cases IIRC it was a result of DC clearing invintory after a line implostion. - J Greb (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had forgotten those : )
So, I guess per WP:NCC:
And it should definitely will help reduce the size of the character articles : ) - jc37 02:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Flash (comic book) (as you note, a separate title to Flash Comics), Wonder Woman (comic book) and Green Lantern (comic book), surely? Partially to keep them in-line with Batman (comic book) and Superman (comic book), but mostly as per the NCC page: media types since two of the three have TV programmes, all have novels, all (allegedly) will have films before too long, etc. ntnon (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be the formulation I'd favour - our first order of disambiguation should always be "(comics)" and then if wanted to differentiate a comic/comic book from say a character then "(comic)"/"(comic book)" seems the way to go (respectively). I have seen "comic book series" but it seems unnecessarily clunky (as is "comic book artist"/"comic artist", unless really needed, e.g. David Lloyd (comic artist) and John Ridgway (comic artist)).
So you could have:
Which is clear and consistent. (Emperor (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
(Note I added "The" in your 3rd link above.) - jc37 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good catch. Seems solid. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

[break] I concur on the Flash example, and the more general "(comics)" and "(comic book)". There could occasionally be a need (IF such titles warranted their own page, which for the most part they probably shouldn't) to differentiate between "Mini-series'" and "On-going series'" on the same title, but the benefit of the generic "(comics)" label for people, characters and many titles is that you can then have sections on the page to incorporate most relevant information in one place. Plus, it side-steps artists writing and writers drawing, which might be confusing if people were further labelled. ntnon (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publication vs. comic book

See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(comics)#Publication_disambiguation

Based on the above discussion, we seem to have a slight conflict of guidelines as when to use "(publication)" and when to use a more specific dab phrase, such as (comic book) or (comic strip).

Is it based on "need"? (We use the more specific only when such articles exist to require it.) Or is it based on existing examples which may not currently have separate articles? (Well, the video game is currently part of the main article, but it might be split someday, so all other pages should be required to use more specific dab phrases now, "just in case" the video game section is split to its own article.)

Either POV is a valid opinion, but I'd like to see if we can determine some consensus on this (as well as any other thoughts/ideas/perspectives).

Also, I'd note that technically most of the more specific dab phrases aren't even publications. So another alternative is to split that section of WP:NCC into two sections.

And another alternative is to merely remove the section saying "publication", as we have more specific dab phrases which remove the need for it. (Though I'll note that it works rather well with publisher dabs, so maybe we should restrict it to that.)

Further thoughts are most welcome. - jc37 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I think I answered my own questions in writing the above, and re-reading the discussion.
Updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). - jc37 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only thing I'd specify is that you could use "(comic)" instead of "(comic book)" - there was a bit of a mess created a while back with moving British comics to "(comic book)" e.g. and I'd like to avoid over-zealous editors doing that again - as I've said Judge Dredd appears in a comic, comic strip and a comic book (as well as films and audio plays) so the distinction is there (and important for understanding the medium) and if in doubt "(comic book)" should only be used for American comic books. (Emperor (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Well last time this was discussed, it was agreed to not use "comic".
That said, to you, what's the difference between "comic", "comic strip", and "comic book"? - jc37 18:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right - Judge Dredd has appeared in the comics 2000 AD and Judge Dredd Megazine (which like the majority of British comics are comics anthologies. Judge Dredd has also appeared a comic strip (single panel high 3 or 4 panels wide) in the Daily Star and they also launched a Judge Dredd comic book for the American market (as with most American comic books it was smaller than 2000 AD's A4 size and was all Judge Dredd with the standard 22 pages). The difference is explained at the start of comic book: "In the United Kingdom, the term comic book is used to refer to American comic books by their readers and collectors, while the general populace would likely consider a comic book a hardcover book collecting comics stories. The analogous term in the UK is a comic, short for comic paper or comic magazine." Basically you just wouldn't refer to a British comic as a comic book unless it was like the DC Judge Dredd and specifically aimed at the American market. (Emperor (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Hmm. And what would you call Mad Magazine? (Yes, it's intentionally a leading and trick question. But I'm looking for some further comparitives.) - jc37 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Incidentally, you may found the article on Comics useful.)
I'm not sure what you are getting at - the clue is in the name "magazine" - I don't know it very well (I think I have some UK reprints in a box somewhere but haven't read them in 25+ years).
What I'm trying to really get at is we shouldn't be trying to mirco-manage things - the previous problems I mentioned happened when it was assumed that every ambiguous comic article should be disambiguated with "(comic book)" and I'd like to try and avoid that happening. So rather than trying to define every variation (that might not be needed - as I can't think of any examples of British comics that need this) we should emphasise flexibility and discussion. So I'd say leave it as "(comic book)" but mention this strictly applies to American comic books and may not be universally applicable. I would suggest when we get down to this level it should be discussed first on the relevant entry with a note thrown in here so we can kick the issue around and come up with the best solution. As has been said this is probably going to be relatively rare and shouldn't be given too much prominence. From what I've seen the important thing is to specify that the first level of disambiguation should be "(comics)" then usually the next most common issue we face are comic characters of the same name from different companies (although over-disambiguation also comes up quite a bit and I have moved a number that didn't require disambiguating at all). All these cases can be dealt with pretty easily with straightforward guidelines and needn't require much discussion (possibly a note on the talk page). This seems overly long for what it is - films, comic strips, TV series, etc. are easy enough to define but slapping the label "comic book" on everything might not be appropriate. (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Well, per Comics#Publication formats, 2000 AD is a "comic magazine" ("comic" is used for short), which (per Comics#Forms) carries comic strips. So too is Mad Magazine. This disambiguation was actually important at one time due to the Comics Code Authority in the US.
I suppose this is the part where I note the "trick" in the question. Mad Magazine is a redirect to Mad (magazine) : )
It seems to me that this would be the better solution: (comic magazine).
(To be used only when needed, of course.)
So now, what issues/concerns/problems do you see? - jc37 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty - going by what that article says is circular reasoning, for one. As the quote above says comic is generally considered to be short for "comic paper" or "comic magazine" but no one refers to them as such - they are just "comics" these days. Equally comic magazine is awfully ambiguous and means different things to different people in different countries.
It also misses my main point - I don't think we should get that fine-grained in the guidelines. The need for such distinctions is rare and best discussed when they arise. I'd suggest the best way of handling this is adding a footnote to the bit where it says "(comic book)" and put something in the footnote like 'This distinction form "(comics)" should only be made when "(comics)" is taken and is, as noted with the Flash example, useful for distinguishing between a character and a title. NB: This is rare and also "comic book" may not be applicable outside American comic books, so it would be best if this was discussed first.' - I'd rather leave things open and flexible than try to allow for every eventuality in every language or culture we deal with. (Emperor (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
On one hand, I totally agree with the idea of not getting too involved in the specifics, and allow more for "case-by-case basis". On the other, as we all know, there are a fair amount of excited, eager, zealous, and sometimes over-zealous fan boys and girls out there, and I'd like to have "something" in place as the "general rule". It may sound punnish, but it's nice if we're all "on the same page", as it were : ) - jc37 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with Emperor, to be honest. I'd also be wary of what you quote from the Comics article. As primary author, I'd point out it doesn't actually reflect the real world so much as what can be sourced in secomdary sources. Emperor is more correct than the article is, but sadly neither I nor Emperor are reliable sources. History of the British comic is also a fairly good summary of the way things work, but again, like all things on Wikipedia, must be viewed as being two steps removed from actuality, as we are a tertiary source. We are also not a reliable source. Paul Gravett's Great British Comics isn't a bad reference point, and Gravett has this to say on UK comics: "In case British comics are alien to you, their formats boil down to a few: the anthology traditionally runs short strips, complete or serials, on half, whole or double pages, occasionally longer, at a tabloid or smaller size, sometimes on tinted paper, sometimes with a second colour or even four colours, mainly on the front cover and perhaps the back and centre spread. With anything from 64 to a meagre 4 pages, they come on the cheapest newsprint or on quality paper if printed on photogravure presses or as a modern glossy. Many titles spin off into hardback annuals as Christmas gifts, always cheaply priced and sold off cheap in January, and, since 1963, into summer specials for holiday reading. Compact Picture Libraries offer long, self-contained complete stories of up to 64 pages with mostly two panels a page. Slow to start compared to the Americans, popular strips in newspapers and magazines also get compiled into paperbacks for the Christmas market." And not one mention of "comic book, comic magazine or comic paper". Hope that helps in any small possible way. I'm with Emperor, case by case basis and let rational arguments hold sway. Standardisation, fortunately, is neither a necessary evil of nor a stated goal on Wikipedia. Hiding T 09:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree - also note that I can see a few cases where we need to differentiate between character and title for American comic books but I can't think of any examples in British comics (or beyond - possibly this might come up in manga with characters, anime, manga and perhaps films - I believe Spielberg is thinking of making a Ghost in the Shell film) so there may not even be a point and trying to address it now could prove confusing. As I say, this will be rare, and I'd prefer it to be discussed before we do anything and that is what should be emphasised.
On the name issue I checked Thrill Power Overload and David Bishop leaps straight in calling them comics about a dozen times in the introduction without having to explain what it means. He does use the term "comic paper" (page 9) but then specifically explains what he is talking about (showing that he doesn't expect the reader, who would tend to be better informed than the average reader) - IPC tended to call their weeklies "papers." Clearly we can't prove that comic magazine or comic paper aren't terms in common usage (like I can't prove Santa doesn't exist) but that would underline the idea that everyone calls them comics and when he refers to them as something different he actually goes out of his way to explain what it means. So not only are "comic magazine" and "comic paper" best kept as being mentioned as historical terms but there we may never have to make such a distinction so all this is pointless and more likely to confuse than help. (Emperor (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I agree with the edit to remove "publication" from the guidelines - I can't recall seeing it used at any point, it's not an especially helpful label, etc., etc. However, the "Amazing Spider-man" example is redundant, as it's totally covered by "Batman". Far better to use the (above) Flash example, which better demonstrates conceivable communication/understandability difficulties between three VERY similarly titled articles, which nonetheless are separate. ntnon (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may add Flash also. But I think it's useful to show an example in which an "overview" article is used. - jc37 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. It's not by any stretch of the imagination "perfect," and it probably needs an item-by-item reword and clarification. However, I've thoroughly edited the whole page now, changed some parts that have been superceded and/or were misconstrued, and added in a LOT more "examples" to hopefully communicate it better than the text did. Plus, I think it was a problem that there previously wasn't a short re-description of "why" the examples were the way they were.
Thoughts, comments, complaints...? ntnon (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Emperor's points, I agree that certain titles are rightly "comic" - but am unsure how you could necessarily enshrine that in a policy guideline. Arguably it's almost as simple as:
"American titles are "comic books," UK ones are "comics"..."
..but I suspect that probably it's not quite as clear cut. Is it maybe linked to size...? "Normal" comics are "comic books" (Superman, Batman, Spawn), tabloid, treasury, over-sized and others are "comics" (Bunty, Beezer, 2000AD, Superman vs. Muhammed Ali) - would that work? (Re: Dredd - aren't most "comic books" reprints of the comic, just to confuse the issue..?! And there's also the "m[a/e]gazine," as another format... ntnon (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to User:Jc37 - To me the only clear one is "Comic strip is what is serialised in a newspaper." The others are difficult to pin down, and arguably more obvious (or confusing. Or both) to non-Americans. (Maybe.) I wonder (as above) whether it's geographic- or size-related.
Maybe even "comic" denotes anthology, while "comic book" applies better to a single-lead-character periodically-published-piece-of-graphic-literature. Not sure. ntnon (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comic strip isn't seen as being what is serialised in a newspaper in some parts of Europe. The French and Belgians tend to use comic strip to mean the strip that appears in an anthology like Tintin, as do parts of the UK. A quick search through newspaper coverage of Viz or the Beano in the UK will confirm that. Hiding T 09:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the Europeannote: Isn't that merely a slight evolutionary leap of language, though - Tintin was initally serialised in a paper, after all. So the term "comic (newspaper) strip" refers to the initial individual serialised strips AND (sometimes - "album" being more common, surely?) to the content of the eventual collections. I don't see that as a particular discrepancy, unless I'm misunderstood. :o)
Viz and The Beano (etc.) also tend to (historically, at least) differ from, say, 2000AD in conforming with the (newspaper) comic strip layout, though, which is surely why that label might also be used for them. They tend(ed) to be shorter, one page or even literal "strip" comicartoons, and hence the "strip" label also applying to them reasonably accurately. I'm also not sure that the slightly alternate usages in Europe take the place of the newspaper-strips, rather sitting alongside them. Mind you, just to confuse the issue further, they're often called Cartoons - another catch-all term for a dozen different things...! ntnon (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to confuse it even more, a fair few people see Judge Dredd as just another comic strip in 2000AD, and in the Dr Who magazine there's a three page long comic strip as well. You're right, they can often get called cartoons too. I was just attempting to point out that it's not even certain that "Comic strip is what is serialised in a newspaper." I think the only thing we could probably point to as certainty is that it's all a little bit muddy. Look at the fuss McCloud caused when he wrote a definition of comics which excluded The Far Side. Another reason why strip is used in the UK, is because we went for strip cartoon initially instead of comic strip. Anything that had one cartoon next to another was a strip cartoon, and maybe we'd all be in a saner place had that caught on. No graphic novels, comic books and trade paperbacks, just "strip-cartoon stories". Had McCloud filled that jug up with cartoons instead of comics, who knows... I'm guessing the animation people would have got animated. (Ducks for cover, heads for the exit) Hiding T 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair points. Not that it necessarily holds true even with the additional, but what I meant is not "serialised in newspapers" but the marginally more inclusive "in the same form as those serialised in newspapers appear in." So some Dredd (2000AD) could be said to be a strip in a loose sense, and arguably Dr Who is, but yes. It's muddy, confused, confusing and ultimately all a bit mad. Which is why, of course, so many people feel the need to constantly point out the basic ultimate tenet that "Comics" is a form, not a genre - and even that isn't widely comprehended, so never mind arguing about sub-definitions of sub-categories! (Animated) "Duck" for cover indeed... ntnon (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically I'm trying to go in the other direction and I'm suggesting we not enshrine things in policy - I'd rather keep things open and flexible and leave the last call up to the people editing the pages. It is worth bearing in mind that other things are used for other cultures e.g. "(manga)" and "(manwha)" (and presumably "(manhua)", although I can't think of an example) - the later of which new falls firmly in our remit since the Anime/Manga project went for a stricter definition of manga (as just Japanese comics) leaving us with other Asia variants and OEL Manga - the latter opening up questions about what we should use to disambiguate them (I'd suggest "(comics)" but some might argue for "(manga)" but I don't know how acceptable that'd be to the Anime/Manga project. Also it might be "(fumetti)" is better for some Italian comics (although the wording at fumettiis currently unhelpful - see talk page) and some Franco-Belgian (and other European?) volumes might work best as "(album)". Soooooo I think it would be unwise to try and specify every variation and instead suggest "(comic book)" (which will be the main one as far as I'm aware) but emphasise this might not work for regional variations and people should consult first (here and on the relevant talk page).
Also here is another example: Marvel Universe - it is.. well the Marvel Universe and a title. It is also a game and shorthand for the OHTMU, a TV series, the spin-off one-shot and.... You can see from the third paragraph what a mess that is and I'd favour a disambiguation page for all of that, red linking Marvel Universe (comic book) for the series that starred the Monster Hunters. (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I agree that there shouldn't be hard-and-fast policies and requirements, but at the same time some standardisation is surely better than a free-for-all...! The one that has irked me in the past is John Bolton. Who is currently still at John Bolton (comic book artist), not John Bolton (comics), which is either a scrupulously accurate and ultimately helpful description, or really rather unnecessarily specific and (sometimes) hard to remember when typing it out. So some basic "suggestions" for form are surely a reasonable idea - although these specific points about which should be 'comic', 'strip', 'comics', 'comic book', etc. probably should be slightly more vague suggestive ideas than strict orders, you're right.
Surely, if Anime/Manga has gone all-Japanese, then there should be another 'Other Manga-like' project rather than trying to lump it into "comics" - not least since Manga itself is separate. But yes. That opens up a whole 'nother kettle of penguins naming-wise... Fortunately, (hopefully, in theory) most/many manwha, OEL Manga, Italian and French comics will have discrete names to begin with and nicely side-step the whole issue of disambiguation. If there are anime versions of various manga properties, they can be "(anime)" or even "(TV series)", and that should cover most of it. Fingers crossed, anyway...
Marvel Universe: could be a little convoluted, but I'm not sure there's need as yet for a disambiguation page - there's nothing so far about the TV series or the one-shot; OHotMU can be shortened to MU, but surely isn't done so overmuch, so a mention should be enough. "Marvel Universe (comic book)" is certainly valid, though for the Monster Hunters comic (and indeed, is linked to from that page as well).
Indeed, should the core "Marvel Universe" page in fact be "THE Marvel Universe"...? ntnon (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News trawl

I'd noticed The Guardian doing regular reviews and features on comics (often the more obscure ones) so I went through 2 years worth and dumped the results here: User:Emperor/News trawl. It might prove helpful for adding mainstream news coverage. (Emperor (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Good work. Someone should do the same with The New York Times ( and Entertainment Weekly ( WesleyDodds (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fingers crossed - would it be worth having a news dump section to the project? There are often things I spot that are useful but I'd never find the time to drop it all in. We could divide it up amongst the big American publishers and then by region or some such. People could monitor it and if something of interest showed up they could scoop it up and integrate it. (Emperor (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Discussion needing wider input...

With regard to the article name for Teen Titans.

This has come up before, and frankly it needs as many eyes, and voices, of all opinions on it so that it can be put to bed, one way or the other, once and for all. The Discussion is going on here and is the result of fiat moves since the beginning of the year. - J Greb (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK added a note in. While we are on the topic what about: Category:Titans (comics)? I only see that replicating the existing category: Category:Teen Titans, whether not Teen Titans is moved to "Teen Titans (comics)" but I may be missing something. (Emperor (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
It almost looks like Category:Titans (comics) was created for the sake of confusion. (I was going to say "without realizing Category:Teen Titans existed", but the cut and paste opf boilerplate and parent categories makes that very, very doubtful.)
Moving forward on it would be to empty it into the TT cat and the put it up for speedy. Note though that the user that created the cat also created the navbox and the bibliography (which may or may no need to go up for PROD/AfD) and converted Team Titans back into an article from a redirect. - J Greb (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes I hadn't seen Bibliography of Titans titles. Best with that would be proper referencing (we don't need to mention every single issue they appeared in - that is what comic databases are for surely!!) and I think the trades section gives adequate information as they list the various collected titles. Then we can just AfD it. An example of how it should be done is: List of Superman comics but that kind of treatment should probably be left for major characters and it'd need to be at least as well as that (not just vast lists). (Emperor (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Maybe should have checked back here first, but I re-wrote Teen Titans (comics) into a list of the main comics, brief description, etc. Then, since there still seems to be (albeit solitary) annoyance at the dominance of comics on a page about a comics team(...), I was going to split off the comics into individual pages - the ones that are currently redirects. That will allow them to have individual TPB tables related to the specific titles on those pages, too. (Although maybe there should still be a 'complete' list on either TT (comics) or TT itself. Half-wish I'd seen that Bibliography of Titans titles before I went to the trouble, though... although I like to think I pre-empted Emperor's comments in how I put it together.
Anyone object to having a Teen Titans (comic book) page (split into three for the three volumes); New Teen Titans (split into two/four for the two series' and their re-titles); (already a Team Titans page, although I've only glanced at it) and a The Titans (comic book)...? Ultimately there may be a need for Tiny Titans and Titans, but as yet, there shouldn't be. ntnon (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd not find this done for other examples - the DC Animated Universe is a different continuity to the comics. It'd be unwise to have a hybrid entry trying to mix the different media together - apples and oranges. So yes I object. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Not sure I grasp where the objection is there...! What's the apple and orange in this analogy, please? :o) Just to be clear, I think that, to alleviate the difficulties some seem to think exist, the Teen Titans page should either be about the different TT teams (rosters) OR effectively (even literally) a kind of core link-cum-disambiguation page, with necessary favour towards the comics. Then Teen Titans (comics) is a descriptive list of the different print comics available, with {{main}} links to pages containing information on the individual titles (including - information needed on many comics pages - any and all behind-the-scenes creation stories, critical reception, etc.). So I'm at a bit of a loss about how this might mix media (at least more than the TT page already does, mentioning as it does, the comics, TV and potential film). But if I'm missing something obvious: read as: objection noted! ntnon (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've left a longer note on your talk page but they are two different continuities. "Teen Titans" is about the team as seen in the comics - the two are one and the same (it isn't about the team with some comic information tagged on it is about the team as expressed through the medium of comics). It'd be like trying to add information to the main body of the Hulk article based on the Bixby/Ferringo TV representation or (better) putting information into the main part of Batman from the camp 1960s TV series (the precedent on this is overwhelming). The solution to the problem would be making the main page a disambiguation page, but that is based on there being a problem that needs fixing, and consensus suggests there isn't. (Emperor (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Conan comics help needed

For reasons lost in the mists of time there are 3 articles for the Dark Hoarse Conan comics and we need more input on the right name to collect everything to and the best angle of attack for sorting the mess out. See here: Talk:Conan (Dark Horse comic)#Merge (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

DC Direct

Is a long catalog of items such as found in DC Direct standard for Comic articles? Doesn't quite seem encyclopedic. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It just looks bad. I think big lists in the middle of articles can be a problem, I raised the issue over the long titles lists in publisher's articles like Dark Horse Comics and Image Comics. I'd suggest in all three of those cases the list should be split off to "List of..." articles. It'd certainly work with the titles but I would wonder if the DC Direct list might be a little too.... "crufty" (and I swore to myself I'd never use the "c" word). Then again if it gets deleted as a separate list it would show it probably shouldn't be jammed in the article either. So I'd support splitting most large clumsy lists out of main articles like that. (Emperor (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Webcomic Page in need of serious changes

Hi everyone! I've taken it upon myself to clean up and generally make the Gunnerkrigg Court article awesome. I'm not 100% sure what is needed for a quality article, though. Could you all help me? Terra (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your best bet is: WP:CMC#Overview. That leads you on into the various parts of the project's advice. Your best lesson is probably from looking at high quality articles on similar topics. I have Gunnerkrigg Court on my watch list already (as it is printed by ASP) so can keep an eye on edits and will throw in anything that comes to hand and can offer pointers if you get stuck (I'll give it a quick once over now). Also don't be shy about dropping a note in here asking for extra eyes and advice. (Emperor (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Thank you! Terra (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gibbon (comics) infobox image

I'm not even sure it is worth having the current image for Gibbon (comics) but rather than remove it I was wondering if anyone knew of a better one to replace it with? I've started a discussion on the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

A little Jimmy Olsen help

I had removed {{Superman in other media}} from Jimmy Olsen, under the rationale that a supporting character page does not need a template for other media (especially since there has never been the Jimmy Olsen show, etc); however, Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs) continues to revert the changes without providing rationale. I don't really want a war here, but was hoping another user or two could either provide some input or just be an extra set of eyes. - (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Looking at the templates — {{Superman in popular media}} — and where it is used — [9] — it looks like BBiA is keeping it in line with other articles.
That being said... I agree with the premise that the characters, all of the characters including Superman, should not have the navbox. This is in line with {{Batman in popular media}}. We've got the "in popular media" and "franchise media" articles which do justify being tied to the the titular actors, shows, products, directors, an the like. But they don't justify slapping the 'box on characters, settings, and comics specific alt versions articles. - J Greb (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same editor BBiA, has also been making similar edit to Culp (comics), unmerging it from List of Starman (1990 comic) characters, which was merged following over a months notice with no contention. I am concerned that this is an ongoing trend of unharmonious edits the aforementioned user. Any support or words of advice, has been,is and will be appreciated. - (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I don't know BBiA's rational, and whether this fits a need for a nav-box, but although "there has never been the Jimmy Olsen show" he was created for and first appeared in the Adventures of Superman radio series, didn't he? Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fictional wordplay

I believe the opening sentence of many articles don't read well and could be confusing to the layman as to what is and isn't fictional.

For example, at present we have this leading the Infinity Gauntlet article:

The Infinity Gauntlet is a fictional, comic book artifact in the Marvel Comics universe.

Now to me, that reads as though the object is considered fictional within the Marvel Universe, which in the real-world is in itself fictional. Surely this could be changed to something such as:

The Infinity Gauntlet is an artifact that exists in Marvel Comics' fictional universe.

This way we have a tight succinct description and are also advised that the item exists within Marvel's fictional world.

I believe User:Doczilla had some thoughts along these lines once. Opinions?

Asgardian (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The primary attribute of something like the Infinity Gauntlet is that it is fiction, just like the Superman locale "Metropolis" (whose lead, by way of exampleis a fictional city that appears in comic books published by DC Comics....")
These are fictional, comic-book places and artifacts. We need to be clear about that upfront. And the phrase "the fictional Marvel Universe" is untenable because to the average, general-audience reader, "Marvel Universe" is made-up jargon that holds no meaning to most people across the globe, whereas "comic books published by Marvel Comics" is concrete and real-world. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you both. I have found the wording confusion too but I think the better approach is the one Tenebrae highlights. So I'd suggest the rewording is:
The Infinity Gauntlet is a fictional artifact in the Marvel Comics universe.
That gets all the relevant information over and in fact the "comic book" is not just confusing but not needed and we should err on the side of brevity. (Emperor (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
How about:
The Infinity Gauntlet is a plot element in comic book stories published by Marvel Comics. Within those stories it is a powerful artifact from the Marvel Universe.
-J Greb (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never say that anything takes place in "the ______ Universe"; it's very fancrufty. Say "The Infinity Gauntlet is a fictional artifact appearing in comic books published by Marvel Comics". WesleyDodds (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That to me is the best option so far. However, it surely is relevant that it's part of the Marvel Universe, since Marvel does also publish non-MU titles (Ultimate, Icon). It's a plot device specifically on Earth-616. So perhaps "..appearing in comic books published by Marvel Comics set in the Marvel Universe. (Although that may be getting a bit clumsy again.)ntnon (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The boundaries of these fictional universes are not well-defined. For example, sometimes a term like "Marvel Universe" is used to refer to adaptions of Marvel superheroes in other media, not just the fictional construct in comics. DC has at various points worked in characters outside of the "DC Universe" into it just for the hell of it. To paraphrase Alan Moore, they're all fictional stories, aren't they? It's best to avoid using the "universe" tag as much as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This issue has certainly brought out some opinions, which is great. How about:
The Infinity Gauntlet is an artifact that appears in Marvel Comics' fictional Earth-616 universe?

This way the company is identified, the correct universe is identified as the company has multiple brands, and that it is a fictional item.

Asgardian (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer WesleyDodds' suggestion. I think ntnon's concerns can be addressed later in the article. We're introducing the concept in the first sentence, we're not defining it to the umpteenth detail. We don't write in our first sentence at atom that An atom is a minuscule object with a proportionately tiny mass that can only be observed individually using special instruments such as the scanning tunneling microscope and whose electrical charge varies according to the number of electrons and protons it contains within its nucleus. We write that An atom is the smallest particle that comprises a chemical element. Keep it short and simple. "The Infinity Gauntlet is a fictional artifact appearing in comic books published by Marvel Comics. First appearing in This Comic #1, the Gauntlet has been a central element in a number of storylines, especially the titular Infinity Gauntlet series of 1991. I think that starting to detail which universe it appears in is starting to stray into the realms of too much detail. The casual reader will likely be confused, the knowledgeable reader already knows. We have to remember we are writing for many different audiences. Keep it simple. Hiding T 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Emperor and J Greb in essence, and WesleyDodds and Hiding in specific. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Infinity Gauntlet is not a fictional, comic book artifact in the Marvel Comics universe. The Infinity Gauntlet is a fictional item in publications from Marvel Comics, but within fictional stories set in the Marvel Universe, it is real. Doczilla STOMP! 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a valid point - I think there is a need to make sure there's no confusion about the use of the term 'fictional' - in general maybe try to use fictional more sparingly and mainly in reference to the general context of the story universe rather than specifics elements within.

One aside that might help get the nexus of Thanos-related articles more grounded in pragmatic documentation methods, is to integrate reference material in the Jim Starlin article. He's done a good number of interviews over the years, methinks, and I would imagine there are some text pieces in the various TPB's that have come out- sometimes the letter pages in the original books have some real pertinent material, and there's quite a few interviews and such on the web. Even just listing the reprint and TPB publication history would help demonstrate that these books have had a certain degree of lasting impact in the publishing world.

Also, maybe try to somehow interlink all of the articles- with a 'See Also' section' or a table that gives a succint list of all the Thanos-related articles. Just to give a certain clarity and objectivity.

--Skyelarke (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responding to my good colleague Doczilla: I see your point. As Hiding says, one solution is rephrasing it as "The Infinity Gauntlet is a fictional artifact appearing in comic books published by Marvel Comics." That's pretty real-world, and it hits all the essentials: It's fictional, it's this person/place/thing, and it originated in comic books published by this company. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to work. I think no matter what the combination of words, it will be a tad unwieldy. It has, however, been an enlightening discussion.

Asgardian (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the category level of the hurricanes she created, if she really created any at all? I ask this because I've never seen her do this, comic or television-wise, and would like to reference this in the article per WP:VERIFY. Issue citations anyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You can source it in Syd Barney-Hawke's Marvel Encyclopedia Volume 2: X-Men Marvel Comics (1 April 2003) ISBN: 0785111999 which describes her capabilities as being able to "summon the softest breeze or the most torrential hurricane." On panel, off the top of my head maybe her power capabilities were discussed when she joined, so #94 through to maybe #115 or so, and possibly again when she lost her powers, #185 and #186? My run is in the loft so I can't verify right this second. I can't even remember when her powers returned. Siege Perilous, um, #260's? Maybe it was mentioned then? Hiding T 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the Forge article, his neutralizer gun took away her powers in Uncanny X-Men #185, and he then restored her powers in Uncanny X-Men #226. (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything else that can be sourced? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I doubt we should use Marvel Encyclopedia Volume 2: X-Men as a source any more readily than we'd use OHOTMU. Doczilla STOMP! 05:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doczilla, is there a specific scene where Storm actually created hurricanes? If possible, it would nice to cite this as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sure don't remember any hurricanes, and I've read most X-Men comics since the mid-70s. I certainly can't imagine that Storm would ever have done something as destructively dangerous and randomly lethal as create a hurricane. Even if that had been depicted in an alternate timeline, that doesn't mean Storm prime can do it. Numerous What If? presentations have turned out to be wrong. I don't think the storm she created in the Claremont/Cockrum story "Rogue Storm" was big enough to qualify as a hurricane. Doczilla STOMP! 06:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could it pass as a tropical storm? If yes, how should I cite it? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shouldn't interpret what it was. You'd have to read The Uncanny X-Men #147 to see what the source called it. Doczilla STOMP! 15:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you happen to have access to that issue? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can have my collection accessible some time this week if no-one else ponies up before hand. Let me know. Hiding T 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do have it. Whether I get to hunt for it this week is a different matter, but between Hiding and myself, one of us should get the question answered. Doczilla STOMP! 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take your time guys. No rush here ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I can help. Yes, in Uncanny X-Men #147 (vol. 1), Storm created a huge storm that was sweeping across the continent. This was in fact her subconscious mind panicking and reacting to her being trapped in metal form by Dr. Doom. When freed by Nightcrawler, she evidenced the same level of power in the final fight (or so it seemed - Chris Claremont never spelt anything out). From memory, Storm also performed a similar feat in Uncanny X-Men #150 (vol. 1) during a fairly brutal fight with Magneto. Ororo lowered the air pressure and hit one of Magneto's magnetic fields with a tornado. Not quite the same thing, but Storm certainly seems capable of such feats. It should be noted, however, that Storm herself states in #147 that she cannot summon and disperse weather the way Thor can - she must work with the elements and "weave" the desired effect into or out of existance. I hope that helps.

Asgardian (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Right:

In X-Men (vol. 1) #98, "Merry Christmas X-Men..." 8th story page, panels 1&2 (reprinted in Marvel Masterworks Vol. 11: The X-Men, page 122 panels 1&2) Storm, whilst battling a Sentinel, states "You are only a machine, sentinel -- and how can a mere machine stand against the power of Storm --? The power of a rampaging HURRICANE!!" Written by Claremont, art by Cockrum. Cover date Apr, 1976, reprint 1989. (Interestingly, the indicia of the reprint refers to it as volume 8.)

In The Uncanny X-Men issue 147, "Rogue Storm" p21, (Jul. 1981)the narration describes an increase in her power level; "...her subconscious created within her an insatiable demand for power. That near infinite power -- now unleashed -- has evolved her beyond all comprehension." On page 25, panel 1, Angel describes the storm Ororo creates as "...a gale blowing outside like you wouldn't believe. I can't survive those winds. Nothing living can. They're tearing the castle apart -- and the land around it." On page 26 panel 2 and 3, Storm thinks "If I were the Avenger Thor, I could disperse this storm with a thought. But I must work with the forces of nature, not ride roughshot over them, and gently shape them to my will. The effort... is as tremendous as the holocaust itself. I did not dream I was capable of creating such a thing." Written by Claremont, art by Cockrum and Rubenstein.

In The Uncanny X-Men 185, "Public Enemy!" Sept 1984, Claremont writing, John Romita, Jr. and Dan Green art, Rogue uses her power to absorb Storm's at Storm's request. She describes the experience internally on page 13, panels 1 to 3: "The sun and the air and water-- ah see them as patterns of energy, resonating within my own being. Ah feel... aware of every living thing around me! ... A wind has sprung-- up because of myy transformation. Can ah calm it, return things to the way they were--? There we go-- gently--that does the trick! Ororo creates little rainstorms to water her plants, ah wonder if ah...? Seems easy enough-- all ah have to do is shape the appropriate natural forces -- careful though-- without letting things get out of hand." Later in the story, Rogue describes events during a battle(page 16 panels 1&2): "Since I still control her elemental abilities ... I shal put them to good use. A small tornado should prove sufficient." In panel five a small tug, caught in Rogue's creation, describes it as "a full-fledged HURRICANE!" On page 17, panel 1, Rogue reacts, "Am I the cause?! Is this a reflection of my rage with the fed?!! My Lord-- no wonder Ororo has been going squirrelly, if this is what she has to live with ... her every emotion echoed by the weather around her."

In The Uncanny X-Men 186 "LifeDeath", October 1984, story Claremont and Barry Windsor-Smith, script Claremont and inks Terry Austin, page 5 panel 3, Forge states "Storm controlled the elements." Page 11, panels 5 and 6 Storm describes her powers: "Only a few days ago, I would not have needed to see the storm to know it was there. I would have felt its power resonating within me. I could have told you precisely when its rain would fall and how much, for how long. I could have nudged it aside. Or gentled its fury. I could have made its thunder and lightning my own." On page 12, panel 3 she descibes herself with her powers as being "ONE with all CREATION!" On page 30 pane; 5 she describes her powers: " elemental abilities were bound up with my emotions. The greater my feelings, the more extreme the atmospheric response."

Hope that all helps. Hiding T 10:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placeholder image

I've created a placeholder image for infoboxes for images at Image:Comic image missing.png. I copied the instructions from a missing album image page, so people who know the infoboxes better might want to swing by and update. Hiding T 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible to have a greyer version? I quite like the way the person photo placeholder is obviously there but being more of a background colour it doesn't jump out? I wonder if black and white might be a little... intrusive (especially as people often try and add comic images, we just lose most of them again ;) ).
Also would it be possible to set the bot to run through non-BLP articles adding this where the need for an image has been flagged but where the need for an infobox hasn't? Or would it be worth waiting for more infoboxes to be added? There are currently 200+ articles needing infoboxes. I have tagged a lot of them and was planning on doing a sweep through to do them all at once but it has become rather a big job (I will try and do British comic creators as planned but there are dozens of comic articles too). (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I'll look into a greyer version. I'm looking at getting some maintenance statistics set up which should help with infobox tagging and the like, and yes, I'll look at whether it is something the bot can do. Hiding T 21:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A more muted version is at Image:Comic-image-missing-muted.png, is that what you are after? Hiding T 21:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spot on!! (Emperor (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Cool, can we add them to comics articles now or are you still working on it? (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hang tight, I'll need to move the new version over the old one. Hiding T 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to give me a few, I'll slot it in as a default image in the 'boxes... - J Greb (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you mean? Hiding T 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look now. I've inserted code so that if there isn't an image ("image=") or a logical field ("noimage=yes") the place holder propagates in. - J Greb (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought you meant I had to give you a few images. Sorry. Hiding T 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Any way, does that fit the bill or do the image need to be scaled down? - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the few articles I've checked, it doesn't look too bad. Maybe scale it down to 150px? I used it at 100px in one article and that seemed a little small. This is handy, though as it means teh articles requiring images can be better found. Hiding T 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be good now. - J Greb (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good - perhaps a little smaller? Perhaps 125? (Emperor (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Looks like this may have been super-ceded: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Robots are already removing the person placeholder images from infoboxes. Seems a shame. (Emperor (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
True... but was it extended beyond the Bios? There were a lot of place holders and it looked like the main bone was the tens of thousands of bio articles that are potential targets for the images. - J Greb (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would interpret the discussion as if it was valid for the comics image placeholder as well, certainly when you consider that in this case, we would almost always request fair use images. Fram (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not really a consensus at that debate, since if you add our voices here to those there, I think it moves the consensus towards no consensus. I've been reverting such changes as flash on my watchlist until the position is clearer. Hiding T 09:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could we have a few more eyes on 2008 merges? There are quite a few merges on the god but with little input and some of them are a little complex and would benefit from project input (like resolving the Captain Britain Corps issue and while we seems to have finally resolved the Conan issue it might need a double check to make sure the proposed changes make sense as it involves history merging three entries and what to do with Conan (comics) - which is an issue we'll need to return to. (Emperor (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

And while we're at it, it would be nice to see the backlog at [[2007 merges resolved as well : )
(2007 RFC also need closing.) - jc37 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes - we could really do with boxing those off too (as a priority). I think I've added my fourpenneth to some of those but I'll go through and bump what isn't resolved. FYI the link is: 2007 split and merges. (Emperor (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Calvin and Hobbes archive

WP Comics, I'm looking for a specific C&H strip and wanted to know if there was an archive out there in the interwebs. I have the boxed set, but would rather not initiate a manual survey. The tagline for the strip is something like "Mistakes are only mistakes after you learn from them. Until that point, they're just hobbies." Thanks all. —ScouterSig 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • A quick google search on "calvin and hobbes archive" should turn up a few links that may be able to help. If you have the box set, you should be able to pin down the date and work back from there. Hiding T 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pet peeve (stylistic choices and comics events)

I've seen a number of comics articles with sentences along the lines of "During the civil war . . ." or "During the Infinite Crisis . . ." and it just bugs the hell out of me. There is the real-world context factor, where we should refer to events as depicted in the appicable comics series (ie. say Infinite Crisis and not "the Infinite Crisis") and not refer to event crossovers as if they actually happened, but I must admit my main issue is that the titles for these series are kinda silly, and using the event name in a fictional context makes them sound even more ridiculous. These aren't the greatest series titles in the world in the first place (When I saw the phrase "Died protecting the earth during the Infinite Crisis" in a random DC issue once I just about groaned aloud), and in particular referring to Civil War as "the civil war" in the context of the Marvel universe might have some people wondering, "Wait, so did like Captain America go back in time and fight the Confederacy? Or did like Dr. Doom try to try to challenge the legitmacy of the English monarchy?" WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I can't actually think of a way around it, although I agree at the very least it should be Civil War, and quite possibly Civil War storyline. And why are you still reading kids comics? ;) Ooops, you reminded me, I have to go in the loft. Hiding T 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the fix is to make it clear what it is "During DC's Infinite Crisis event", "in Marvel's Civil War crossovers" or be specific "But X died battling Y.(ref)Civil War #8(/ref)". I'm sure there are many ways around this. (Emperor (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I think storyline is preferable to event. These aren't real events, they're fictional, and we need to treat them as fiction. Hiding T 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aye. "Storyline" is neutral and factual, while "event" connotes something grand and is generally used in the context of company-written promotional hype. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Righto storylines seems good to me - it is usually the category they are put in, e.g. Category:DC Comics storylines. Might be worth adding a note in somewhere giving tips on wording to avoid too much in universe material (I obviously don't want everything to be a cookie cutter solution but some pointers would be helpful for everyone). (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Minor devil's advocate point... but marketing and reporting on some of the crossovers do refer to them in terms of a sales event. That being said, "storyline" is likely the best way to keep things crystal clear. - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah but those marketing people also call trade paperbacks graphic novels so they are clearly not to be relied on for clear definitions ;) (Emperor (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
You should write "DC's Infinite Crisis event" and not "the Infinite Crisis". I am somewhat curious has to what weak in-universe explanation they gave for calling a big cosmic brawl "the Infinite Crisis", though. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sarge Steel

What about that "fictional character biography" in so many other articles? Now, I just happen to have the original Who's Who and both Updates on my lap and his entry actually mentions his reaching Captain Sergeant in the Army, the rigged grenade planted on him, and his custom replacement for his lost hand. Why, is there nothing about this on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because no one has added any. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and so if people spot missing information that is important then they should add it. (Emperor (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Infobox concerns

A concern has been raised regarding the infobox colors used by the project at Template talk:Infobox superhero#The colors! The colors!.

The up shot is an objection to the color used for the left side headers.

To be honest, I'm starting to hit a "six of one" point. The colors and the boxing does help legibility for groups and lists, but I'm not married to it.

Since this affect a staple of the project and affects multiple 'boxes, as much input from the project as possible is warranted.

- J Greb (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Six of one"? I have no issue with how the infobox works, just that the colors look disjointed and are garish. If you're worried about legibility, there are much more subtle and pleasing ways to do it, for example the effect used at {{Infobox VG}}
I don't really have a problem with it. It may look strong when viewed on its own but in context (e.g. Superman) it doesn't overly dominate - in fact it needs to be strong enough not to be swamped by the image. Looking at the example you give there the top bar is lost.
If we were going for a redesign I'd keep the strong blue header but perhaps compromise and lose the strong background to the left box of the stats and go for alternating light blue rows with the separating bars some half-way house blue between the strong blue of the top bar and the alternating rows of the stats. If we wanted to keep a slight difference between left and right in the stats a slightly darker blue could be used for the left. I could have a fiddle and see what I come up with. (Emperor (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)
Yup, "six of one". I've been of the mind that the colored side works both aesthetically and functionally. But my opinion is moving towards keeping or losing the color would neither hurt or help the 'box. Moving towards that, I'm not fully convinced of it yet.
As for moving away from using the template base, I'd pass on that. - J Greb (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have an issue with the way it looks in context, but if something better turns up I don't mind that either. I do know how hard these templates are to do though. Hiding T 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I understand where the initial "clash" comment comes from at all. Looks fine to me, and I largely prefer the left/right colouring rather than alternating lines. ntnon (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Far as I know, "Jubilee" is her popular name so why is User:Brian Boru is awesome edit warring over here? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The upshot? It got moved in January when the character added a new codename. That was done by fiat. Note, this was not done by BBiA. Then April 25 the move was reversed, again by fiat. All most all of the moves were done without explanation.
Right now the page is move protected, so any further desire to move it should be brought up on the talk page. - J Greb (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Okay, a clean up list has been generated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup listing. 24% of articles tagged with {{comicsproj}} require some form of clean up. That's a little embarrassing. We need to start work on this backlog. Any help people can give is appreciated. Please address the clean up issues before you remove the cleanup template. If you can't see anything to clean up, drop a line here. If the article isn't within our remit, take {{comicsproj}} off the talk page. Hiding T 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability concerns

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability have sorted all the articles tagged with {{notability}} by WikiProject. I've copied the list of articles tagged with {{comicsproj}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup/Notability. Anyone fancying a bit of cleanup please take a look. Hiding T 10:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An awful lot of those are ones I've tagged as part of cleaning out Category: Comics (and the Comic book one) and going trough Category: Comic book titles (moving things to more refined categories) as these tend to be the dumping grounds for new entries. They pretty much fall into two sets of ones that are probably notable (they have a notable creator or publisher) but aren't demonstrating it (which might suggest it isn't actually notable enough) and those that don't look notable. Quite a lot of the list has been dealt with through AfD but there are clearly some that also need AfDing and others that need urgent work.
For some reason the notability tags keep getting removed from one article despite no one addressing the concerns [10] - can someone else have a look over that? As far as I'm concerned it just about meets WP:V at the moment but it is one I'd class as probably being able to prove its notability, except I've had it tagged since June 2007 and no one has. (Emperor (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Stupid question. Would the Fleischer encyclopedias and other similar works be sufficient to establish notability? I've found Mad Hatter (comics) has a six paragraph entry in the Batman encyclopedia, and could look to see which others might be in any of those books. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally? Based on the fact that Fleischer documented every character who had appeared in a Batman story up until 1970-something in his Batman encyclopedia, my call on that would be probably not. Others may differ. Hiding T 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Such a mention would help to satisfy WP:V but not WP:N. Add it in - it is a start. I would imagine the Alice in wonderland link might turn up something interesting. He is a major Batman villain who has appeared in various media as well as one of the most high profile characters based on the original so if they have had some serious academic analysis then the DC character would have got some serious coverage alongside it. Worth asking around to the Alice experts or doing a Gogle Scholar search. (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Surely the Hatter is in Scott Beatty's Dorling Kindersley Batman: The Ultimate Guide, and that would be a better source than the Encyclopedia. That he was one of the major named villains during KnightFall should count for some kind of notability, too. Basically, the Mad Hatter IS a notable Batman villain, but I can see that it might be hard to prove that..! ntnon (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Emperor proposed revised Categories for comics -

We have things like Category:2008 books and I notice in Category:2000s comics we are accumulating various titles, including Pyongyang (comic) which is also listed under Category:2004 books and it strikes me "Category:2004 comics" wouldn't be an outrageous suggestion - 2004 in comics would be the main article for the entry and a criteria for inclusion would be that the comic started publishing in that year (as obviously they are ongoing features - in the TV equivalent they note the debut and end, e.g. Category:2004 television series debuts but I don't know if we need to be so specific, although that is open for debate). As some have stopped and restarted I see no reason a specific title can't be listed more than once.

I think that it is a good idea to mark debuts, but I'm not entirely convinced of the need to mark terminations. So if anyone else agrees, shall we set up a handful of prototype "Category: xxxx comics launches" (with the 'xxxx in comics' pages as starting points) pages and see how it all works out?

(Incidentally, as a side-note, has there been a meeting-of-minds on whether it's COVER date or street/sale date that is listed as the debut month as regards the individual 'xxxx in comics' pages...?) ntnon (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oooo if I recall we went with cover date as it was there on paper and provable and getting street sale date for older titles could be a pain. It is somewhere in the archive, says he airly waving his hand in its general direction.
Everything else seems good. The best bet for a test would obviously be 2006, 2007 and 2008 as they are most immediate. We could then have "2008 in comics" with a child "2008 comic debuts". Sound like a plan? (Emperor (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Hoped as much (re: dating), but thought I'd ask since the articles should have background on the actual comics, rather than just summaries - so it could all get horribly messy and complicated! But, good. Hope for the best. ;o)
Sounds sensible. So there'd be a 2008 in comics page, listing all kinds of events and debuts and happenings (and ultimately births and deaths should be on the "xxxx in comics" pages as events, presumably), which would be the main part of the 2008 in comics category. Which would then feature primarily 2008 comic debuts, which would be the category appended to any series beginning (released, or, ahem, cover dated..?! Anything launched in November/December might be cover-dated the following year. Awkward. Also, for "2008 in comics" purposes, which month, say, is Final Crisis starting...?) in 2008. Have I grasped that right?! (N.B. "Debut", "Start" or "launch"...? Debut is probably the better word, but might not be wholly accurate for a re-launch... but that's nit-picking. Debut is probably best.) ntnon (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that'd make sense. I'll start with the 2008 ones and if it seems to be working OK then we can start working back. If not then I can easily get it deleted (as long as I'm the only editor I can use {{db-self}}). So if there are no objections I'll do this tonight. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Doesn't seem to be anyone even noticing, let alone objecting, so that seems safe. I'll try and watch it, but not do anything until it seems to be working. ntnon (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Righto (after a couple of cock-ups that we won't discuss) I started Category:2008 in comics (and the subcat for debuts) and then realised that 2008 in comics didn't resemble the previou excellent examples (especially 2006 in comics) so I also made Category:2007 in comics. If they look OK then we can start the ones for 2006 and 2005 as they are the really solid ones.
Anyway I'll check through Category:2000s comics and then look at what links to 2007 and 2008 in comics and see if we can't track more down and populate it. (Emperor (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Hmm. I'm not sure the category structure is the right way to achieve this. I usually list new series launches on the year page, as seen at 2006 in comics. A category could get muddy, because it doesn't differentiate between series and it could lead people to believe an article should be made on every single comic. Look at Guardians of the Galaxy, it is currently listed in 2008 debuts, when it hasn't as yet been released and their was a prior series with that name. Personally I think lists are the best way to go with. Hiding T 09:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not sure how this would lead people would think an article should be made on every single comic. Guardians of the Galaxy is indeed listed as a 2008 debut and when there is one for 1969 debuts it'll be listed as that two as there are two series with their own debut dates - at the moment it is just a couple of tests to see how it works out with regard to size and function and it seems to work out OK from that direction. A lot of these are already being listed in Category: 2000s comics which isn't very informative and at least 2 I found were being listed in 2007 introductions (which debuts is a child of now) which shows there was already a need/desire for this. Creating the categories allows us to formalise and refine this in a way that makes it easy to categorise titles, which allows us then to feed it back into the year in comics lists (there is no reason why we can't have both and they compliment each other). I already notice we have a lot more in the debuts categories than are listed on the year in comics so I see this being very useful for providing a comprehensive coverage. It works for films, books and TV and it looks like we have enough material to create viable categories which already looks like it could prove very useful. The years in comics articles are under used when they could be a very useful part of the project and this is part of the means to help them work properly. IMHO, of course ;) (Emperor (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • Fair enough. Why I see it leading to articles for each and every series is that people see the category and see this comic not listed, so they create the article for this comic and they add it to the category. Wasn't there a Guardians of the Galaxy series in the late 1980s, too? And how does this apply to an article like Superman? I'm just thinking about over-categorisation and whether a list is a better way of doing this. Personally, for me, it is. And usually there are many reasons not to have both the list and the category. A common reason for deletion of one or the other is that we don;t need both. But I'm happy to defer to the consensus, whatever that turns out to be. Hiding T 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • There are plenty of lists and categories most of which I'd defend (like the list of TV shows based on DC Comics and [[list of films based on comics) and they are pretty much list=category equivalents. The year in comics page is much more than a simple list and the categories are useful tools in supporting that (as I say it works well with other media and it is clear from the experiments that there is enough material for this). I see your point (I assume you mean someone might try to make "Guardians of the Galxay (1969)") but I don't really see that happening - the article can easily be tagged as a "1969 debut" too and if someone wanted to split off a section then it would need to be discussed first and I can't see a really good justification (at least one based on an arguement revolving around there being a category) unless one specific series takes off and is very different from the other, i.e. the reason for a new article wouldn't be anything to do with the categories. How does it apply to Superman? Well Superman (comic book) would go into a "1939 comic debuts" and Action Comics into the 1938 equivalent (Superman (vol. 2) going in the 1987 one). I probably wouldn't tag the article itself but given its significance an arguement could be made for adding it to the category "1938 in comics" - he does get a mention (rightly) in 1938 in comics#June after all, but overall I'd say what we are discussing doesn't have major impact on Superman. (Emperor (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
          • Fair enough. What's the parent category and I'll start watching them and try to update the lists as and when I can. Hiding T 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • The main parent category is Category:Comics by year, which breaks things down decade and then year. What I'll aim to do is create the 2006 and 2005 versions tomorrow as there is plenty of material there and then hopefully box off the 2000s and move those comics currently in Category:2000s comics to more accurate categories (I'll drop notes in on progress). Feel free to start any ones you want (you can use one of the existing ones as a template as they hook into other other broader categories), especially if they might be helpful - like the Guardians of the Galaxy one might lead to a 1969 debuts too. The 2007 and 2008 debuts already have a lot more than are present on the relevant articles so we can scoop things up from there. (Emperor (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
              • Actually as this is for comic titles debuting, then the Guardians of the Galaxy title didn't debut until 1990 (or something) it was the team who appeared in 1969 - that might qualify them for being included in the "1969 in comics" category, unless we decide it could count for a team debuting as well as a title. (Emperor (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

OK so I made the rest of the naughties:

Hopefully where the year in comics doesn't exist filing those categories will help with their creation (another reason why categories and articles can work together - cats can cover the lack of an article and help with its creation, articles can redlink articles that don't yet exist).

I also started a few from other decades as it'll make it easier to roll out with them in place (it is just a matter of copying and pasting and changing a number):

I'll now go through the 2000s in comics cat and move everything out to the relevant entry then check through the various lists and work on populating what we have. When that looks solid I'll roll out the rest of the 1990s and onwards. (Emperor (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Just a note to say I have been filling the various debut categories and most are looking solid (you can see them via Category: 2000s comics debuts) and I have been working through the 2008 one to populate the 2008 in comics section but it is clear there is enough material to make this a long job so other folks should feel free to pitch in ;) Also if you spot any comics news add it in the main section. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Side question

Given the above, is it worthwhile, and desirable, to sort the comics related images into categories under the "Comics by year" structure? - J Greb (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be - how would you do it? Year of the image? (Emperor (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
In most cases? Cover, air, or release date, which are also what I've been using for copyright data.
And {{Comic-no-orig-pub}} and its cat would be collecting the images that can't be slotted into a year or decade. - J Greb (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then yes I could see that coming in handy - it might be worth making an category to go with that template like "Comic with no date" or some such. They'd all fit nicely in something like "Comic images by year" under Category:Comics images and Category:Comics by year. It'd hook the two together (the former I made just recently as there was nothing outside of the project categories that hooked them into the main ones and some were scattered about). (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Well... the template already has Category:Comics images lacking original published source, or ar you suggesting the creation of a 2nd, essentially identical cat? - J Greb (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope that'll do nicely. Unless someone feels the need to differentiate between images lacking publication information and ones just lacking a year, but I think if you had something like the issue number it'd be easy enough to find the year so I don't see any need at the moment. (Emperor (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Trade paperback years

A related matter. I was just editing Livewires (comic) and noticed it had been added to Category: 2005 books. Obviously we do this for all trades or none but I'd not be happy about flooding those book categories with trades (as most long running series will have a trade or two a year). I'd suggest if we wanted to do this then we could create say "Category: 2005 trade paperbacks" but I am unsure how useful that would be and it could lead to some articles being added to great swathes of these. Unless you wanted "Category: 2000s trade paperbacks" which would cut down on the categories added to an article but it would lead to a large category that probably wouldn't be very useful and there would be a push for sub-categories by publisher and/or by year. I suspect if we were going for this then we'd need some fine-grained categories like that but I am unsure we really need to. So I throw the topic open to the floor. (Emperor (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I say that unless the TPB has its own page (which surely won't be frequently. "Yet" - if ever) then the category needs to apply to the comics, and just the comics. If the comics debuted in the same year as the TPB, so much the better, but I don't think it wise to start, for example, listing Superman and Batman in almost every year comics have existed..! (Arguably, if there's an enormous gap between comics and TPBs, then it could be worthwhile, but even then... probably not. I can't even think of an example, so almost certainly not.)
On the other hand... it could conceivably be a wider "good thing" for comics to be popularised as being near-synonymous with books. Can't see this making many inroads on that score, though... ntnon (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a few examples of where there are articles on trades: The Sandman (Vertigo), where it provides a convenient way of breaking down the plot; Hellboy, where the series is really a number of mini-series, which then get collected into trades and so they make a relatively self-contained unit.
I suspect most of these would be frowned upon by quite a few editors and that does touch on a broader point - would creating some kind of category for trades encourage people to do more of this? I suspect it might and it'd be a good argument for not doing this. Also, note that none of them are linked into the relevant book year which would suggest there might not be any demand for this (the Livewires example I flag is the only example of this I am aware of).
The possible demand might be for a "Category: 2005 graphic novels" as a child of both the relevant book and comic categories. It'd be fairly straightforward but I fear could lend itself to creeping "tradism" given the way "graphic novel" is used for marketing purposes when selling trades. So it might be best avoided too. (Emperor (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I certainly agree on that last point..! Even during reading that, I was thinking "..that will cause a lot of hassle when people arbitrarily decide what "Graphic Novel" refers to...", so yes. Avoid the graphic novel category - those can rightly be listed on the comics pages 2005 in comics, etc. as far as I'm concerned. ntnon (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the years in books category from Livewires (comic). (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]


DC and Marvel (and often others like Wildstorm) seem to have annual (or more) events with complex spin-offs and tie-ins. I notice that we have Category: Infinite Crisis (and there may be others) and it strikes me another category along the lines of "Category: 2008 comic events" would work well (if there have been any events that year, of course). Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

One big thing that favours this is that I saw someone going through cleaning up comics articles earlier and they removed an article which is in a parent and a child (which makes sense) but some articles (Civil War, the various Crisises, although not One Year Later) are a core title and dozens of tie-ins (one of the reasons Crisis on Infinite Earths nearly killed off my interest in comic books ;) ) which means it is both a title and an event but without an event category it wouldn't be allowed to be categorised as both. If that makes sense ;) (Emperor (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I don't see the need for an extra category, my thinking on this was to simply use the year in comics category as the parent cat, and was why I was adding populate tags to these categories. I'd prefer this because it makes better use of the category structure to have an event in both (year) in comics and Event comics categories. That way we can find our way either to similar events in the same year or to all events. You can't do that if you limit to Category: 2008 comic events, they won't show up in the parent category. I'd also prefer something better than comic events as the title, was Seduction of the Innocent an event which affected comics? This is an article which to my mind should certainly be in Category:1954 in comics. The same would go for Comics Code Authority and Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, which again should be categorised in Category:1954 in comics. Hiding T 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I have added books on comics into the "in" and you are right events is probably too open to interpretation and as you suggest in another section below "storylines" may be more accurate (and reflects the categories like Category: Marvel Comics storylines. Not that I've seen a year with enough of them to warrant a category so perhaps it is a moot point. (Emperor (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Category nav/category naming

I was experimenting with a year in comics category navigation at {{comicyr}} but ran into a problem because of the non-standard category names. You have Category:2000s comics but Category:2008 in comics (as opposed to Category:2000s books/Category:2008 books or Category:2000s in film/Category:2008 in film).

Even if the template is deemed a bad idea (although it works for numerous other similar categories) it does suggest we need to resolve the naming one way or the other and the "in" version seems the more flexible as it can accommodate storylines as well as comics published in that year (and major news stories like the Danish cartoon controversy). I've added a few notes on the talk page, as I went along. However, before doing anything I thought I'd kick the idea around here first so if we do do anything about it we'll have the best solution. (Emperor (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

To be honest, I've been thinking of cobbling a like template for the image cats and ran across a similar problem. I think there's a way to add a logical operand that, if present, pops the article into the parent, otherwise it places it into the specific year.
So a call of: {{comicsyr|year|forced sort|parent=}}
Runs through:
[[Category:{{{1|}}}s comics|{{{2|{{{PAGNAME}}}}}}|
[[Category:{{{1|}}} in comics|{{{2|{{{PAGNAME}}}}}}
And {{comicsyr|2000||parent=}} would place it into Category:2000 in comics and {{comicsyr|2000||parent=y}} would place it into Category:2000s comics.
- J Greb (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could do - it shouldn't be any problem to use our own bespoke solution - my concern is that it highlights a slight issue with the naming where other projects have it consistent enough to hand things from - so 1990s in comics is the main article for Category: 1990s comics both linking through to things like 1991 in comics. Making our own version might just be papering over the cracks and the better solution (although a little more fuss) would be to move the categories so they include the "in". From the examples it seems there is no preferred way of doing it but the important thing is they go for one way and apply it consistently. As I say I think the "in" version is more flexible and useful but the more important thing is to have one version through the structure. (Emperor (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
True... and as a side note, I did cobble up the image one as {{Comicsyrimage}}. - J Greb (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't seem like a bad idea to change the categories to including "in," and surely there's a way to rename and reroute everything without having to laboriously do it all be hand...? ntnon (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. If we run it through CfD then a robot gets tasked to the job - Hiding has one that I'm sure we could look into using for such tedious renaming. (Emperor (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Character bibliographies

Black Mask was up for AfD the other week and now a number of others have been proposed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Catwoman (2nd nomination).

I think it'd be worth kicking this around to get a consensus because if these are no goers then we could do with heading them off earlier.

As I say in the current AfD I can't really see the need or the use of having a long list of every issue, TV show and film they appeared in. IMDB covers characters like Catwoman in a more usable format and such lists fail WP:NOT. I'd have thought a handful of links would provide all the information anyone is looking for without having to drop large lists into an article.

What I would like to see more of is transwiking. While the information isn't the kind of thing most people think should be in Wikipedia it isn't useless and might be useful to someone and it strikes methat places like the DC database Project (in this case) is the right place for this, as it is that fine-grained level of information that is its raison d'etre.

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Personally, I don't see how this is different than any other list. And it's chronological by publishing/presentation (not "in-universe"), which, I would guess, would be another factor in its favour. So I think I'm fairly in support of such pages.
That said, I'm curious as to the source of the information. I doubt the average editor would have information from Batman #3, for example. Would someone be interested in checking some recent Overstreet price guides, for example, to see if we can determine if there may be a copy vio? - jc37 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what there is to be curious about - the DC Archives and Batman Chronicles allow most people easy access to the early (Batman stories from) issues of Detective Comics and Batman. And since it's just issue titles, those (where extant) are clearly given on the contents pages of those volumes. Now, if someone produced full character biographies for (say) Slam Bradley including his appearances in DC #1 and 4, I'd be most impressed (and envious)..! ntnon (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi folks, I have incorporated much of the information of the Life of Reilly website (the comprehensive information hub on that notorious storyline, with much insider info) into the page. Copyediting in Clone Saga is appreciated. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sim Hell needs attention

The Sim Hell article has a broken infobox and a broken image. Actually, I just looked, and all articles under Dirty_Pair#Comics are broken and many have no image. It appears that the {{Supercbbox}} infobox is broken and it's affecting an awful amount of comic-related articles --Enric Naval (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC) a IP had broken the template, I just corrected it[11]. The articles at Dirty_Pair#Comics still need images --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone had actually broken the supercbbox template and that has been reverted. Those articles are a cause for concern though. (Emperor (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Since you left it hanging... Why? - J Greb (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't leave it hanging - I went and flagged the concerns on the articles. They are all lacking references and claims for notability. I notice such tags were added to the Sim Hell entry and removed even though they haven't been addressed. On a broader front: I know manga is often dealt with by the volume but as it stands those are all pure plot and it might be better to merge them to The Dirty Pair with a trimmed down overview and work on references and notability there. (Emperor (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Actually, maybe a merge of all those comic articles into List of Dirty Pair comics would be better. Currently, they would overhelm the main article unless you trimmed down to almost nothing. Also, there is another problem with merge: there are two article that they could be merged into, Dirty Pair and The Dirty Pair. Moving all the comic publication info into a single artuicle wold remove a bit of duplication. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thing is you wouldn't merge them into Dirty Pair as The Dirty Pair deals with those specific publications. You also wouldn't need to trim the plot down much - as they stand all the articles are a wrapper around a paragraph of text and most of the "wrapper" is either not needed in Dirty Pair or it is already there.
I'm looking around other manga series (Blade of the Immortal, Lone Wolf and Cub, etc.) and they manage to deal with much more story arcs within the one article. I can't see why The Dirty Pair can't. In theory an argument could be made to merge the lot into Dirty Pair but I think it'd be fine as it is (although I think it is OK with just the two - the naming might need adjusting - I'd suggest "Dirty Pair (comic)") (Emperor (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Just a small point... But the Dark Horse series (Adam Warren's stuff) is American produced using licensed material. IIUC they aren't considered part or parcel of the manga. - J Greb (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The_Dirty_Pair deals specifically with Adam Warren's version. Emperor, is right, it fits all inside that article. I went and added merge tags to the articles to warn about merging --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trade paperback formatting

I recently brought up the question about the appropriate use of tables for trade collections [12]. I am not sure there was clear consensus (although it was suggested it wasn't appropriate for other things like plot - as here: Crossing Midnight).

Now nosing around I find this old templates and a new one:

The latter seems to have been created more with manga in mind but it looks like we can make good use of it too. It would also get over some of my concerns because if tables aren't deemed the right way to go about things then the template can be changed to update the formatting which (even if I am still concerned about the inflexibility) seems a reasonable solution.

I thought I'd throw this out so everyone knows about it (as I haven't run across either template on a comic page (see Lady Snowblood#Volumes for the example I just stumble across) and I also wanted to open the floor for discussion on what either template might need to make them flexible enough for our uses.

For example Hellblazer#Trade paperbacks and graphic novels (and the writer/artists sections after it) needs something doing with it. If we could introduce writer artist (inker/penciller) sections to {{Graphic novel list}} it would allow everything to be placed in a more accessible format and offer the opportunity for a quick plot sentence to be added in which I think would really help lift the page. I could sandbox an example for Hellblazer if this seemed the right approach.

Anyway thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Thought 1 - neither of those tables is particularly ideal as they stand now, so there'd need to be a new template made by someone clever with that stuff. Thought 2 - Story/arc summaries need to be separate from the TPB details. (So one section contains separately-headered summaries; another contains a table with the TPB information.) Thought 3 - The Lady Snowblood table is really rather good, except from a couple of points: The title should be in the top bar with the #number; the summaries should not be in the table; for western comics, writer, artist and inker (editor & letterer) should be included. So a bastardised Snowblood-table would be pretty good, for the most part.
Something like a well-tabulated form of this, maybe?
NUMBER -- TITLE -- (Release date) -- ISBN
(Main) Author/Artist/Inker (+ other author, artist, inker)
COLLECTS: Title, Issues included -- EXTRAS: Extras included (covers, interview, sketches)

John Constantine: Hellblazer
"1" -- Original Sins -- ? -- ISBN 1-56389-052-6
WRITER(s): Jamie Delano (w) -- OTHER: (+ Brett Ewins, Jim McCarthy, Alfredo Alcala) ((covers by Dave McKean))
PENCILLER(s): John Ridgway (p)
INKER(s): John Ridgway (i)
  • Hellblazer #1-9 -- ?none?
#4 -- Strength In Numbers -- Dec, 1998 -- ISBN 1417658584
WRITER(s): Grant Morrison & Mark Waid (w) -- OTHER:(+ Mark Pennington, Doug Hazlewood; Mark Millar, Christopher Priest, Christopher Jones, Joe Boyle, Mark Lipka)
PENCILLER(s):Howard Porter & Arnie Jorgensen (p)
INKER(s): John Dell & David Meikis (i)
  • JLA #16-23 -- ?none?
  • JLA Secret Files #2
  • Prometheus One-Shot
Printing errors, cover artist, variant covers, revised editions, hardback/softback... probably not vital, but may be worthy of a thought.
I'd say there's no need to specify story-arc titles in the table - either it's obvious from the title, or it could be mentioned in the separate summary which TPB the arcs are in. For Western comics, it's the issue numbers that are the key.
If you want to do the clever table-creation, I'd be happy to mess around with it after-the-fact...! (Took me ages to figure out how to code up even a fairly basic table quite recently... Templates would be even further beyond me, in all probability.) ;o) That said... if I have a few hours spare later on, I may make an attempt at rendering my example thoughts into a real table. ntnon (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Righto. I think the best thing is if we make an example table and can then plot out what we need. I can't say I have done a table as complex but I suspect it should be straightforward. If we have an idea of what we want I can take a run at it (I'd suggest we call it "comics-trades-long"), we can sandbox a few examples and see how it goes from there. The only slight change I'd make there would be to do as the comics infoboxes do and have a field for artist and then two for penciller/inker so if there is no artist it then fills in the two (I know on Hellblazer the bulk/all are single artist affairs) (Emperor (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I had a stab at tabulation. Thoughts? Seems perhaps a little unwieldly as it stands, but I don't know if that's simply down to clunky formatting, too much information or 'other'. ntnon (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not bad - I'd probably have the volume number on the left and the title spanning most of the lefthand column. What does the "with" section cover? (Emperor (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
"With" (because I couldn't think of a better term) is simply the 'other' creators. Not ideal in some cases, but where generally you have a "Main" author/artist/creative team, but also additional work by X, it's worth mentioning. For instance, the Essential and Showcase Volumes are often predominantly a couple of people, with odd fill-ins by "Other"/"& Friends". I've mildly revised the Hellblazer (left) example, but wasn't entirely sure whether that's what you were suggesting or not. ntnon (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that is good. You could probably fit the covers credit below the other creators. (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
One (or more) other thought(s) - cover artist (and covers themselves): It would be great to have an additional column on the left to put the cover image into, and that could also allow for variants (if gridded) and revised editions (e.g. Doom Patrol: Crawling From the Wreckage), plus it gives the opportunity to credit the cover artist. I was wondering how to address (or WHETHER to address) reprints: some have edited content (I think the first and/or second Sandman volume shuffled content at one point; DKR lost it's introduction, I think, etc.). But that could just be over-complicating to the nth degree! ntnon (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say yes to a covers area but not only might the covers issue cause complications I bet it'd start getting people worked up about fair use. Unless someone can find somewhere that says ths is OK I'd avoid it. (Emperor (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Unfortunately an image of every tpb cover fits the definition of excessive use of Fair Use Images... List of Valérian and Laureline books | then and now As you can see, the images were all removed. I would happy, if this wouldn't count as excessive use, since an image per book is informative. (Oh, I also agree on leaving out plot information in the table.)--Zoli79 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you can use images either. It looks to be similar to using the cover of an album in a discography, which is mentioned as against policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hiding T 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, although I'd hoped that 'for identification purposes' might be justification enough - particularly when there've been multiple covers by different artists. Maybe as and when ("if") all TPBs get their own pages... Shame, too, since the evolution of covers on, for example Byrne's Man of Steel is very interesting, and relatively little known.
Incidentally, is there a definition of what constitutes "critical commentary" anywhere? ntnon (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've monkeyed about with the table again, now including cover details and editors in a half-understood clever-coding explicit-width-parametered ALL NEW look. Plus, I appended a version with an image box just in case..! ntnon (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(N.B. I'm going to put another example up soon to test flexibility with other TPBs.)
Just a few questions:
  1. Are we planing on placing these on existing pages or creating TPB list articles?
  2. Are we seriously advocating indexing the TPBs?
  3. Is there really a need for imformation beyond: TPB title; publication date; volume number if there actually is one; ISBN; Short notation about what is collected?
- J Greb (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. My assumption/thoughts are that they'll be on existing pages, to show what's been collected and is available above-and-beyond the individual issues. Plus showing at a glance what's in which book. (Perhaps in the long term - since some series' books get their own pages - it, or a version of it, could be used on individual pages or TPB lists - maybe Batman, Superman and Spider-man, etc. would be best served with separate list pages, but that would depend on the number of TPBs feel like adding details for.) <--I presume that's your 'index' point, in retrospect? Then "Maybe, yes, slowly."
  2. Not sure what you mean by indexing them, but my understanding is that (at first, at least) a new table-template will simply replace and standardise what's already out there.
  3. I think so. In fact I'd say that author, artist and extras are more important than (particularly) publication date and ISBN, for an encyclopedia/reference guide.
If it's all linked through then it will be a simple matter to, for example, locate the published-in-tradepaperback-book-format work of any writer or artist (with enough information to set about locating it personally). It will allow you to ascertain which volume a certain issue was reprinted in; where the annuals/specials were collected (and then conceivably where the editorial team think you ought to place them in a reading order); and which volumes contain interviews or sketches. It will standardise the layout so that you can better find at a glance (once, perhaps, the layout is revised or "aestheticised") what you want to know from even titles you are unfamiliar with.
Obviously if you disagree, please suggest otherwise. :o) ntnon (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For examples of indexing see the Grand Comic-Book Database and Comic Book BD (and please note that these are considered secondary sources for aspects of the comic book articles). The nutshell is that an index provides:
  • What the book is — title, volume, and issue number.
  • Whats in the book — stories, featurettes, letters pages, editorials, ads, etc.
  • Who did what — writers, pencillers, inkers, editors, letterers, colorists, etc.
  • What characters appeared.
  • Short story synopsis.
  • And miscellaneous information — where a story/cover is reprinted/was reprinted from, cover price, cover date, annotations, etc.
For the most part, if I understand WP:NOT correctly, this verges into "indiscriminate collection of information" and dances around WP:OR. We would be creating a check list peppered with plot summaries. What real world context there would be would hinge on cross referencing dates and creators — also put into long lists with in the TPB list. (And yes, this is one of my fundamental beefs with story arc list articles). And this information, be it a section or article, would either be culled from secondary sources that are already indexes or from primary sources only. And in this case the argument of used for "Fictional character bios" and "First appearances" won't work. The created table will either be flat OR or an index "borrowed" from elsewhere.
As for the examples of the template you're working on — they use a massive amount of screen space. In the average article right now they would create a long dead space between the article body and the references, links, and navigation tools. On their own page, they would be tedious to try and find a particular trade much less sift through the formatting for relevant information.
I like the idea of setting up a template of some sort to handle the trade. By all means, since the section is fairly common it doesn't hurt to have consistency across the articles for it. But if the intent is to provide more information beyond the basics, we may want to look at linking the trade's title to an entry in an already existing on-line index. - J Greb (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To partially address some of your points/concerns - personally I only see a need for the first three of those six "index options" - at least in the TPB Template Table Thing as I see it. I have no particular interest in characters or plot summaries - I think characters should be covered adequately in plot summaries, and that plot summaries play a valid part in most series' articles - but not in a Trade Table. I see the Trade Table Template (I'll say TTT now for the sake of brevity) as being a more thorough bibliography, not (by your definition) an "index" per se.
I don't think the TTT as I envisage it in theory and use comes anywhere near being an "indiscriminate collection of information," and certainly no more than a bibliography which I think is an important feature of Wikipedian Author articles.
I sort of take your point about it potentially being a regurgitated "index" or Original Research, but I don't think it's the former (although it may need to be part-derived from the former, on occasion) and flat-out disagree that it's the latter. I may not understand everything properly, but might I suggest that the key point is not WP:OR, but WP:Verifiability. My understanding is that principle of evidence, sources and "verifiability, not truth" would be ably covered by the information for the TTT ultimately deriving from the tangible book in an individuals hands. Easily verifiable, and surely nowhere near Original Research. (A pedant might claim it to be based on an individual eyewtiness account, but common sense would label it derived from a primary source: the novel/book/TPB itself.
I do (partly) agree with you about the amount of screen space used, but - perhaps because I'm not an expert at tabulation :o) - I'm not sure how best to compact it down. You seem to argue for a paring down of information included; I might disagree with you though on what the "basics"/important information is. I don't think there's anything I'd feel particularly comfortable leaving out, information-wise. Maybe it could be somehow elongated sideways and compacted vertically to save space, but that might over-complicate things again. Not sure. I do think that it's an important collection of information, necessary to some/most/all comics pages for encyclopedic and reference reasons, and serves a different purpose to a straight-forward other-index-link, even if it will (necessarily) contain similar information. (Plus, the Grand Database seems sorely lacking in TPB indexing, and the ComicBookDB is better but also needs more on that front - naturally it's neither's primary role.)
Very much appreciate your thoughts and input, though. ntnon (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Squished it down slightly and rearranged it a bit. (See the new 'top' table for Hellblazer: Original Sins). The 'Original series covers' might be irrelevent, I suppose (or could go in 'Other Creators'), but otherwise I think it's all useful and necessary information. Plus, I think it's now quite easy to read - left-to-right gives you (Number&)Title, Author, Artist and Issues. Along the top is Date, Publisher and ISBN (the normal book bibliographical information in roughly the right format) and then there's the other individuals and other materials on the right. ntnon (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[de-indent] I am unsure how it could count as original research except that in the very broadest sense everything we do here is research (in that we have had to read the original item) and original (in that it hasn't ever appeared in this form before). If we were to remove bibliographies on those grounds then nothing is safe.

I do agree that height could be an issue but that is an issue we can deal with - I'd suggest we look into show/hide so that we get the basic information from the top row (name, year ISBN) with a show/hide link which reveals the details. I'd suggest that this will either result in no increase in "height" or (as in the case of Hellblazer) it would greatly reduce the length of the entry and result in a much more compact and usable feature (as it is if I wanted to know which artists appeared in which volumes (and I have, hence my conclusion something needed doing) it involves scrolling back and forth up the page.

So I think by formalising what is already happening (and making allowances for space - which we have the tools to do) we can provide a useful aid to the presentation of information we already have. (Emperor (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Show/hide. Good thinking. So then the top two lines could stay. Indeed, the top over-arcing title - JLA, JC: H, etc. - is only relevant when it's not on the precise page (e.g. "Sandman Presents" volumes might want to be listed on the Sandman page, and would require the header; Sandman would not), or when it differs from the page-title (e.g. "Showcase Presents", "Essential"). Not sure how, but I think it should be possible on a template to separate out that top line from the rest of the table and make it optional - as well as only needing to appear once in a list, of course.
With show/hide, is it OK as it stands? The "key" information (Volume, Title, Publisher, Date, ISBN) is already on the same line, so that could be shown, the rest hidden. Should I make a valiant attempt at cobblign together a template, or is it best to leave it to someone with more expertise..?! ntnon (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as an alternate suggestion: A current TPB table and a possible template derived replacement. Thoughts? - J Greb (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely got legs. (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Here is an example of a possibly simpler format without the need for table formatting (although I'd assume the image use would be a concern given what has been said above), as I am still not 100% convinced WP:TABLE suggests we should look to different formatting options like lists or definition lists, however, having it templated means we can change it later if need be - so everyone wins. (Emperor (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Certainly less large than my effort, which would help. (Although the show/hide suggestion might still better address that - depends whether it's seen as necessary to have everything immediately visible or not. If yes, then this alternate is clearly superior. If not, then it's more of a coin-flip.) I do think it needs the additional creator information, rather than an 'et al.' to be comprehensive, though (but you may just have left that off to get it presentable quicker). I think it of vital importantance to have a "main" writer & artist, but also the "additionals". I'd still prefer a space for extras, too. (Perhaps "Notes," which could then be used to note the inclusion of interviews & sketches, etc., but also to mention cases where the art is b&w - in Essential & Showcase volumes, etc.) Maybe I should cobble a hybrid together..? ntnon (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. How's this new hybrid (Top version) , which (hopefully) combines the best of all the variants so far? As per Emperor's suggestion, the secondary information (the second set of headings down) can be hidden for space reasons, but it would now include all the additional information that I think is important, which J Greb's suggestion does not. Moreover, I think it's perhaps a little easier on the eye than J Greb's alternate, and (at least to two pairs of eyes here) it's easier to find the information you're looking for. I haven't templated it properly because that confuses me, but I think it should be straightforward enough to be converted by an expert..! (N.B. I also think it quite important to have the content in a vertical list rather than a horizontal line, so that the different comics' titles (where there are any) can be easily separated from one another.) ntnon (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hitting some of the point you bring up:
  • Hidden rows — As best that I can tell there are only 2 things that can be "hidden", or collapsed down to a header bar: full navboxes and full tables (which the 'boxes are a variation of). What I'm finding leads me to believe that the only way to do what you're suggesting is nesting tables, if that will even work.
  • "et al" — This was a deliberate choice, and not for time. Essentially these tables are bibliographies or "suggested reading" lists. As such they don't have to be comprehensive or exhaustive of the content of the volumes. This is also why "various" pops up when no writer or illustrator is listed, some of the volumes in the example collect work that doesn't have a "main" writer or artist. This would also be the case with some of the Showcase and Essential tomes. The "full credits" (including the original editors and those of the trade) may be nice, but they aren't needed.
  • Notes — I'm thinking that there are 2 universal notes that could be added, under the table:
    1. Note: The full title of all volumes listed here start with "JLA: ".
    2. Note: The material published in Showcase/Essential volumes is black and white.
That's it. The extras really have no more reason for being here than noting "Forwards" and "Afterwards" in a list of novels.
And looking at the rework:
  • Date — For the most part, the trades are treated as books not periodicals. That means they would only have the year listed in bibliographies.
  • Title — Italicized is fine, bold and large though... These are not section headers, and they shouldn't look "dramatic".
  • Bulleted list — This is a space hog, and unnecessary. Listing the series in a sentence is just as effective.
I've tweaked the material in my sand box and the template mock up pages a little... Example, table header template, and table lines template. And I do have an idea how to do a nested table, but it adds a third template and a little more complexity. - J Greb (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trade paperback table


Thanks for your continued comments on this. Hopefully this is still a reasoned debate rather than a butting of heads..! On the hidden front, I haven't fully spent the time to try to understand tables, so I may have been working under a misconception regarding the hide-ability function, which is slightly annoying.
  • "et al."/"various"/full credits: I still maintain (and we may need to agree to disagree on this) that they are necessary in as many cases as physically possible. Obviously not everything will be fully accredited instantly. However, I tend to think that your reasoning actually supports my point of view: They'll be bibliographies and "suggested reading" lists. Therefore, they need to be rigorously credited. You wouldn't miss off a novel's co-author, for example. (N.B. It could be argued that anthologies are listed by editor and not always given a full contents list. But I would disagree on that score, too. ;o) I've been looking briefly to see if this is covered in a Novels/Books guidelines page - without success - but even if it's not covered elsewhere, I think it's important to cover here.)
  1. Bibliography: An individual's bibliography should include their contributions to collaberative works. An article about the collaberative work should list all individuals involved. A list of such collaberative works should either contain links or the information itself. Unless every TPB should have its own page (and there's no need for that presently - if ever), then the information must be on the list.
  2. Suggested reading: People will refer to Wikipedia for many reasons, and may refer to the comics pages for many reasons. Certainly a major use (to my mind) both actually and theoretically is the bibliographic function, so that you can easily ascertain the complete(ish) works of an individual. Many pages are incomplete. Most would list individual issues, but not TPBs and collections. Still more may only list titles and not issue numbers as yet. Therefore, the main series pages are surely bound to have people view them in order to find out which issues/collections feature a particular author/artist. So again I would argue for the tables to be as complete as physically possible.
  • Notes & extras. I'm much more willing to bow to your opinion on this score than on the credits front, but still think there's a case to be made. Indeed, in some senses more of one, since many extras will not be detailed on individuals' pages, nor on many/most/all comics indexing sites - especially if new to the TPB. Obviously mention of any extras would be entirely at the discretion of the individual adding the information, but, again for a "recommended reading" list it could be VERY germane. "Which volume of Powers has the big BMB interview?" "Did any volumes of JLA include examples of Howard Porter's pencils?" "Does The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen V1 include the letters from the individual issues?" "Did Kevin O'Neill produce anything novel for the collections?" "Which Sandman volumes include introductions by which people?" - I feel all of these questions are valid, all could and might well be asked of an Encyclopedia, and all could be included in an easy-to-read table format.
('These are in Black & white' should however be a separate note rather than an in-table "note", though, you're quite right.)
Your comments on my rework are slightly less contentious to me, though! :o) I agree with one, wouldn't be averse to another, and only disagree a bit on the third.
  1. The month of release was only on the JLA example because Amazon listed it; it's not, as you say, particularly necessary (and could - if TPBs were worthy of inclusion - be on the "xxxx in comics" page). Just the year is fine.
  2. Formatting of the Title...? I have no strong feelings over italics, emboldening or size. HOWEVER, doing it the way I did has several benefits: It stands out more, and draws the eye to the MOST important information; Since (on both of our example tables) the title box is several-rows deep, a larger font-size fills the space better and balances the table.
  3. Bullet points being a space hog? - "Yesish." Firstly, if that part of the table can be hidden, space hogging is irrelevent. More importantly though, as I tried to communicate previously, I do think that the sentence format is MUCH less effective, I'm afraid. Mainly because it doesn't allow for easy readability. (That is, of course, why we've both bulleted and numbered our comments here - so that our points (the tables titles/issues) don't get "lost" on the page.) "Which collection(s) includes the Secret Files & Origins issue(s)?" "Do any of the four Infinite Crisis lead-in mini-series' include issues that aren't part of their 6-issue main series?" "In which collections are the Annuals included?" - all of these investigative queries are likely to be part of the purpose of the tables, and would be FAR, FAR easier to ascertain if the information were in a list rather than a sentence. I feel it's lost on your table, but easily findable on my own. Obviously clutter is to be avoided where possible, but surely not at the expense of readability and information.
I'm afraid I don't motice any difference in your "tweaked" table..! Is it just the footnote underneath? To save you some considerable hassle, I'll try and look into this whole "nested table" stuff myself. :o) Again, your comments are much appreciated, thanks for taking the time to write so fully (and, if you've made it this far read so much of my own writing..). ntnon (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, the major tweak was adding the call and explanaition information. Also dropping the preformatting for linking... I realized there would be a major problem with the piping.
As for the "space hog" line... stop and think about this: using the bullets adds 1 line per series after the first. By itself that causes the tables to become taller, and in most cases awkward. That awkwardness is increased when more multi-row cells are added. - J Greb (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this one is a short cobble... 3rd option. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happens with four bullets under collects? Would it work better if the collects and credits were hidden? Also is it possible to put the hidden link on the top right corner of the first line so the whole thing only takes up one line? You could then click it to reveal credits and issues collected. Just a thought but things are certainly moving forward. (Emperor (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That revised version is much better, yes. Very much so, in fact. I still think there's a need for more credits, however, but the contents bullets go a long way towards making this far better than the previous iterations. Since there's the hidden option now, that should go some way to making space a non-issue, now, so great!
I also wonder (like Emperor) whether the contents should also be hidden - if you don't mind, I might try to commandeer the show/hide code bits and have another go myself later on.
I did have another thought which might be of use, (although it started out as a superb idea in theory, and then gradually became less of one when I was trying to get it to actually work in practice...): For some series (e.g. Preacher, Powers, Transmetropolitan) the basic credits are such that only one credits section might be required for ALL TPB details. So it would go something like:
  • 1 - Who Killed Retro Girl?
  • 2 - Roleplay
  • 3 - Little Deaths
  • All by Bendis and Oeming
Obviously now that you've managed to figure out the hidden aspect (Thank you!) it's a lesser concern, as I was thinking of it being more a space-saving move than a labour-saving one, but it would make it easier to enter details for some series if duplicate credit didn't necessarily require duplicate entries. Maybe. (Retroactively sign/dated. Oops.) ntnon (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further REVISED TPB TABLE OK! I've taken your excellent work with nesting/hidden bits; my continued thought that the credits need to be as full as possible (BUT, as with any table/template they'll be as extensive or optional as people deem necessary when they add them); I agree with Emperor that the issues could/should be hidden, so then I've replaced that section with a "Brief Creators" bit:

(Two points: 1. I couldn't get the "Writer" and "Artist" into their own boxes for some reason; 2. You/people might not see this as necessary, when there are full credits hidden below, so this column could be lost without too much argument.)

It still needs someone cleverer with the coding to stop the nested bits over-lapping, and you might think it unnecessary to have the double-nested bit: I like it, and it further saves space, but it might complicate the coding. I don't think it complicates the page or information, however.
I'm heading back to run through some more examples to test the functionality, but I like to think we're there now: Space saving, full credit possibility, bulleted contents, extras. (N.B. I also tried to get the "Other Content" list to centre-align, but it didn't seem to want to. Issues need to be left-aligned, but I think the "Other" would work better aesthetically centred.)
Fingers crossed. :o) ntnon (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Powers, JLA and the Batman: Knightfall trilogy all work to my liking, include everything I can think would be useful, etc., etc. Once the nested table can be better-fitted into it's box, and EITHER the "Brief creator" columns be properly sorted or removed, I'm pleased with my revision of J Greb's herculean effort. ntnon (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you look at the code for User:J Greb/Tool box/TPB credits, note that it is set up to include: inker(s), colorist(s), letterer(s), and editor(s). When churning through the change I didn't have the time to mine for the info to flesh out the tables. This can also be expanded to include credits for the trade cover and cover reprints.
I'm also going to try slipping in 2 other changes. - J Greb (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did actually notice that, but wasn't sure whether you'd want me mucking about with your coded effort or not..! So I opted for re-typing it all. That should cover pretty much everything, then, bar maybe:
  1. I would agree with User:Emperor about putting the "Issues" (contents) in the hidden-nested-table; <--addressed
  2. "Other content" - see my example of Powers for why this really seems necessary. Plus it would allow for notes such as those in my Knightfall example, that the covers/titles are different for revised printings.
  3. If there's going to be a formula for "Lead" (Pre-title/Series-title) then it should ideally place it ABOVE the table, not below
...I was thinking of something else, but it's slipped my mind now.
EDIT: Just noticed what are presumably your 2 new changes - the "Notes" and "Collects" on the right. I would suggest that "Contents" (with the leader "This volume collects the following issues:" and bullets) be underneath "Credits (and Contents)" in the main hidden table; and that your "Collects" under "Notes" become something like "Extra materials," which would fit better under an over-arcing "Notes" header and allow for both Issues (main nest) and Extras (small nest).
--Sure you've noticed, but it presently seems to be picking up the wrong information for "Collects."
(Nitpickery: I notice now that you've aready got pre-formatted text for the 'Issues collected'. I would perhaps suggest that there be TWO possibilities: One with something like my text: "This volume collects the following issues:", and one with yours "Collects stories from:" - then the former covers (e.g.) Powers, the latter covers The Greatest Stories Ever Told and Superman in Action Comics. Most series will collect full issues, but you've obviously currently opted for the more inclusive option for cases where only parts of issues are collected. I would say differentiate between the two, but in typing this I wonder whether anyone adding details would be able to necessarily accurately catch the difference, so maybe it's better your way.)
Generally, though: Excellent. :o) Almost there!
(P.S. If you want me/someone else to try and shoulder some of the coding burden, just say so. I think I'm improving..! :o)) ntnon (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not 100% sure when you were looking in on the examples page, but part of what you were seeing may have been my back and forth to try and clean up formatting and migrate the table since there was a change in how the templates are picking up information. And I'm all done with that now.
"Contents" would be a misnomer since there is an implication of sequence. The trades are used to collect the issues, and not necessarily in series order. You have a point though that an "above" section should be there with "Material, in whole or in part from:".
And I've set it up to have 2 separate "Notes" fields. The always present one being for single, short things like "2 printings", "Hardcover", "British edition", and the like. The "long_notes", which is in the credits box, is for longer things. Differences in the printings, inclusion of commentary sections, that the reprints have been altered from the originals, and the like.
- J Greb (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not 100% which version we are on but looking at User:Ntnon/TPB shows things are moving along nicely. Things I'd suggest:
  • Only have one hidden section for credits and contents - I think the nested show/hide is probably confusing (confused me ;) ) and unnecessary.
  • I still think aiming for one line would be the best if we can although it may be show/hide needs the link on the header of the hidden elements so it might be what we have is currently the best we can manage with what we have to work with (and as long as things are flexible enough if some clever innovation comes along we can adjust things - the beauty of templating it all.
Anyway good stuff - it should be a big help. (Emperor (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Yes, J Greb revised it further (and cleverly coded it properly, too) since that, so apologies for confusing the issue. ;o) Two lines is probably going to be the minimum - anything less and it will look very messy, confusing and probably sparse, so I say two. (Oh, and I confused myself with the double-nested bit! I was trying to find some show/hide table code I could co-opt to play with, and settled on one that was faintly bizarre to begin with...) That said, I think that there should be two hidden sections, but that they just shouldn't be in each other. (Which, again, J Greb has/is addressed/ing. ntnon (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This layout was refined after the one from Ntnon that you're pointing to.
  • The 2 collapsed navboxes are used to 1) limit the initial appearance to 2 rows for the entry, and 2) avoid the mess of either nesting, or odd layout issues.
  • The collapsible options are only the nave box or a full table as far as I can find. The 2 line works, and the 'bx headers do serve as a rule of sorts for readability.
Those said, I'm toying with changing the "Collects" into a table to allow for a bulleted list. Right now it won't justify properly with long publication titles.
- J Greb (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EDITED: I did catch you mid-edit, so I'll remove this bit.
  • I imagine you're already on top of this, but the "Collects" collapsi-box ought to be in the top line next to ISBN, not underneath it, with the "2 printings" bit on the line underneath. I think that would be aesthetically better. (I realise that when "shown" it will move the table around, but I don't see that as a problem - centre-align the #, title, pub., date and ISBN and it makes no difference on that score, but (I think) will look better.
Your point about "Contents" - (If I follow it right, then) I don't quite agree with your reasoning that it implies sequence, although perhaps "Content" singular would be preferable...? The extra bits are certainly often called "bonus content," so I think it a reasonable safe label. And some will say "Contains the following issues:" without sequence given, and "contains" & "contents" are surely from the same root.
I think it's a slight mistake to separate the "notes" fields in that way (short/long). I think there should there should be a short notes section, my constant clamour for an explicitly stated "Bonus content" section (Sketches, script, covers, etc.) and then an ability to have the short notes section lead to more descriptive footnotes. I think having:
"Two printings."<ref>The first includes the Jones cover, the second is by Deodato. In addition, the first printing includes the original covers, the s