Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com		 Eugene Lipov, M.D. - Biography and Wikipedia Entry
Eugene Lipov, M.D. - Biography and Wikipedia Entry
eugenelipovmd.org		 

WikiProject Comics

v • d • e
Home Assessments Discussion Clean-up Workgroups Improvements Notice board Popular pages
Getting Involved · Statistics · Article Alerts · Style guidance · Copyright and comics articles · Naming conventions · References and reliable sources · Comics related templates · Userbox



Archives

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archives

Contents

[edit] Progress on Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I had stalled on this for a long time because I didn't want to put the work in, but since I had the free time today I decided to get moving on things. ;) What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them here, or on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really coming along now; I think I can start it off within the next day or two. BOZ (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll most likely start it off tonight, if I have the time. BOZ (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Settling the OHOTMU issue

As one editor - Dave - insists in reinserting in Dormammu information from the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and making speculative judgements re: the material [1] I think it is time to settle this once and for all. The Guidelines state [2] that such a source is discouraged as it compiles fictional facts.

Further, the OHOTMU can't be used as it is constantly proven wrong by the comics. Strength is a classic example, with characters performing feats well in excess of their supposed power range. The same applies to other traits. It can't be a case of taking what we like and discarding the rest. It also opens the door to a litanty of subjective judgements about Powers and abilities by editors about fictional matter. Articles should be (where possible) encyclopedia standard. Thoughts?

Asgardian (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, as far as I know, the handbooks are fine when used in comparison/conjunction with other references, and this is the case here, as both the handbooks and the books they based the statements on are mostly used, or put in a pattern with multiple direct-sourced matter-of-fact statements of what happened in different comics.
For the second, as far as I have noticed no "speculative judgements" have been made that I haven't removed personally, just exact quotes of what's was actually said there.
For the third, the majority of the references are not handbook related, and you still remove all of them, and insert misleading/blatantly contradicted personal opinions such as "significant power" and "deemed worthy to challenge".
For the fourth, consensus is against your version, and an admin even warned you about deleting references, after which you left the article alone for a few weeks, but then returned and imposed exactly the same changes despite multiple pleas for compromise to prove that you are at least honest about strictly having a problem with the handbooks, and nothing else.
For the fifth the cited instances really are matter-of-fact accurate, not subjective.
For the sixth, as Tenebrae recently noted, you have a tendency to use terms like "wiki-correct" or "encyclopaedia standard" when this is inapproriate, and simply a loaded term claiming that he opposing party cannot possibly want this, and that you alone stand for this path. Meaning, of course I agree with the statement, but I don't see how reinserting inaccurate book summaries, removing a large amount of references, and inserting personal opinions will do so. You recently included a new 3rd party reference, which was helpful and maintained, but deleting others does not show the same respect in return.
For the seventh, you have no claim whatsoever to not making subjective judgements about traits in the P&A sections, as you tend to do this yourself. Quoting some of the most distinctive segments of the handbooks actually removes much personal opinion from the playing field.
On the matter as a larger whole, the handbooks are also the official editorial line by Marvel the company itself (Tom Brevort is the one who currently sets them, whereas in the past it has been among others, either Mark Gruenwald or Tom Defalco), and the strength ratings and othervise are simply symbolic and used for comparisons between characters. Also, there are multiple statements in the handbooks that actually specifically refer to a given storyline, which I have included along with the issue number i question, and does not relate to the "strength scale" matter that you tend to use to sweepingly include everything (and what else are they supposed to say: this character can lift 100 gogolplex tonnes?). Other communities relating to fiction are very welcoming to using any that are available. To censor against them "only" because certain fans consider their own opinions to be "better" and "more valid" than what Marvel the company says (rather than the original intent of the regulation, to not have character profiles only copy the handbooks without any other references, which leads to borderline copyright infringement) smacks of extreme bias and censorship. It is much preferable to simply contrast them with in-comic instances, to form as wide and coherent pattern as possible, which has been my intention.
Beyond this you have had a tendency to avoid the matter of why you are somehow warranted to delete the larger amount of references that are not handbook related on this rationale, and have repeatedly stated the claim "no matchups", which afaIk there is no guideline for, would remove the vast majority of useful explicit instances if taken too far, especially when there isn't much else available to go by, and you yourself regularly use character comparisons. Dave (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
As the guidelines state we should avoid using fictional statistics like those in the OHOTMU and things like scales, power levels and rankings ("X is more powerful than Y") should be avoided. Looking through the P&A section in that dif I think the main problem is the last paragraph (although there are a few minor issues earlier too) and I think that goes beyond what we should be doing. (Emperor (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
Where is it stated that all references to power levels examples should be avoided? I thought that this was the entire point of the P&A sections, and this is the way virtually every profile out there is constructed. The main issue was always no lies, and keep it matter-of-fact accurate as far as I was aware. It is extremely frustrating to spend a lot of time looking for references, and then have someone just overwrite it over and over with their personal opinions, with no references at all. Especially as my work is singled out, seemingly simply due to that Asgardian doesn't like certain facts I insert, given a general pattern of only cutting out specific ones elsewhere (such as for the Mephisto, or Odin pages). So do you have any ideas about how to keep as many references as possible/which specific ones I should cut out, to settle the matter? I have now cut away the "is less powerful than Eternity and the Tribunal" that you already suggested, as those are kind of redundant, although they were exact handbook quotes. And stating that the character is listed as a genius may be unnecessary. However, can I be given any guarantees that I am not simply wasting my time in even trying to find a compromise again? Because the previous occasions I have been involved in compromises, Asgardian still returned after a few weeks or months and completely restored his own version. Dave (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Couple of short thoughts:

  • In all honesty the P&A section should be the general outline of what the character can do. This can include what the character was originally presented as being capable of, major add-ins/changes made by writers, major themes that writers reflected in the powers, and significant plot elements related to the powers. It shouldn't be "The mechanics of Spider-Man's wall crawling is...", "Batman's costume is composed of (long list of materials)", comparisons, or "feats lists".
  • At best the OHOTMU and its kin are useful in a statement like "In 1986 Marvel provided a long, technobabble based explanation of the character's powers and equipment in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. While this information was provided in an in-universe tone, it was never covered in-story and was ignored or revised as writers felt the need."

With Dormammu... I think the salient point are:

  • The character was introduced as the lord of an other-dimensional realm and was able to perform feats generally associated with mages or demons. This included projecting bolts of mystic energy, transmutation of objects, changing his own form or size, deportation, and possession of others.
  • It was later revealed that the character is composed of mystic energy.

There is room in that to a whether or not the character produces the magical effect inherently, through vestment as ruler of his dimension, or through spells and to add refs as to where the specific aspects are first shown or revealed in-story.

- J Greb (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great input. Thanks for making the effort. Asgardian (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Asgardian has now proceeded to remove almost every single reference to replace them with his own opinions again, in much exactly the same edit he always does, regardless if said references had anything to do with the handbook. Meaning, regardless of closing "regards" or "thank you" statements, he didn't take any input whatsoever, he simply did the same thing he always does all over again. There is also the issue of him singling my additions out for consistent harrassment, whereas the vast majority of all profiles are structured much the same way, but less meticulously, and he has recurrently used this pattern himself when suitable (conflicting/insincere justifications, as seen in the Juggernaut talk wherein he claims that he has never been engaged in any edit-wars against consensus or "violations of the spirit of the 3-rever rule", regardless that even his ban history tells othervise, or that he was simultaneously engaged in doing just that with Dormammu) That said, I will try to do a rewrite that separates the handbook references into one single column, with the type of initial statement that J.Greb suggested. Protection of the article from there on would be extremely appreciated. I'm getting very very tired of this. Dave (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have now adjusted the description according to J.Greb's wishes. Also, according to Asgardian's initial statement of "one editor insisting on reinserting OHOTMU information and making speculative judgements regarding the material", beyond being factually wrong regarding that there are mostly non-OHOTMU references, and built on quotes, not subjective interpretations, other editors have reverted to my version, and stated support for this in the Talk, whereas Asgardian does not comply/is the actual aberration here, and continues to restate the blatant untruth contrasted to his actions that this is strictly about the handbook. Dave (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a lot of time this morning, but a blunt, blanket statement to both Dave and Asgardian - across all of the articles you two are feuding over - STOP. Also - Start dealing with ONE section and ONE issue at a time. No more full article reverts or reworks. And CLEARLY identify the specific issue you are editing in the edit summaries. - J Greb (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Seconded - there are clearly ways and means of making people thrash these issues out with each other before editing but they are obviously a bit of a pain and potentially disruptive so we'd rather not use them but there is a point where it is less disruptive than the editing. (Emperor (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
It should be noted that I always try to summarise the truthful reason for the edit in the summaries, and have tried to reason with Asgardian an extreme amount of times, or to find compromise upon compromise, or leave in every single new reference he inserts. The problem being that he almost shows none of the respect in return no matter how many chances I give him. My problem is almost always with the accuracy of an article. If he simply wants to restructure the information to flow better this is very appreciated, but he frequently reinserts inaccuracies, and edits out relevant and truthful refences, or uses underhanded tricks. That's my ongoing problem. I want these things to be quickly solved, but there doesn't seem to be any way to reason with him, and he's proven multiple times to me that his word cannot be taken as honourable. Dave (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta (film) FAR

I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category question...

I've done a shakedown of Category:Comics templates and was wondering... Do we want to round up the various userboxes into a category?

- J Greb (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asgardian RFC/U has begun

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

Any user except for Asgardian or anyone certifying the basis for the RFC may post an "Outside view" below Asgardian's response section, detailing their own feelings on the matter. Likewise, any user may endorse the main statement, Asgardian's response, or any other view posted on the page.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I just wanted to remind everyone that the RFC is up and running, so check it out if you have not already done so. If there is an apparent lack of interest in the RFC process, then I will not feel the need to mention it here again. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blackest Night #6

Whole lot of articles may need to be watched for the next week or so.

This issue was shipped this week, but with a Dec 30 release date. Right now there are torrents floating around of the issue as well as panels, pages, and spoilers cropping up blogs, forums, and review sites. CBR has noted that DC has asked those sites to remove at least the images. [3]

Right now I've reverted edits from 5 articles - Blackest Night, Mera (comics), Star Sapphire (comics), Wonder Woman, Publication history of Wonder Woman - and noted in those edit summaries that re-adding the info before 12/30/2009, the articles would be locked.

Given the scope of the story line, there's likely more than just these 5.

- J Greb (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Member

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, and merry Christmas! Cerebellum (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Car

Do you folks realize that "car", much less "cartoonist", doesn't even appear on that project page? What makes? I didn't search for caricature, but I'm pretty sure if "car" is not there, I'll be very disappointed! Unfree (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yoo hoo! A couple of proposals here!

Cartoonists and caricature. How's that? Good proposals, hey? Unfree (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Monitor image

Which image do you think should be used for the SHB box, the image from Flash v2 #149 or the image from Crisis on Infinite Earths #12? DrBat (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point a few notes:
  • The edit history for the article.
  • Both images hit the guideline points at WP:CMOS#Superhero box images. The diff being "Who likes which artist more".
  • This is in lieu of DrBat taking the case to the article's talk page, which is where it should have gone as per WP:BRD. And as was pointed out to him here.
  • One of the reverts to his bold edit (Dec 15) resulted in the Perez image getting deleted on the 22nd.
- J Greb (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The image was changed in October. You reverted it in December. DrBat (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
And I'll go over the same point as with Trinity - the bold edit was still your change to the infobox image. And the bold edit devolves down to "I like this art/artist better."
Changes based on personal a personal like or dislike of a particular artist are not a good thing. If the art hits the guideline points, there is very little reason to change it. The artist is not, currently, a criteria.
Even dressing it up as "The artist(s) that provided the art for the first appearance or created the character should be used" doesn't make it a good thing. What that essentially means is that, if accepted as part of the guidelines, the bulk of the character articles will be shifting to 30, 40, 50+ year old images in the 'boxes. That does run up against the idea of WP:DATED.
And while we're on the broader points, one last tangent - The "but this is the look from the last 6+ issue" (as used with Alura) is a bit of a contravention of the guidelines as well. Either the character has a pre-existing "universally recognizable" design or that look was "civilian clothes". In either case the change is almost strictly "new for the sake of new".
- J Greb (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
So basically, once a SHB box has an image it can't be changed?
Furthermore, we're talking about a character who's only made a limited number of appearances, not someone like Spider-Man who's appeared in hundreds of issues. I think it's better to show an image from Crisis, which he was an important part of, than to show some image from the Flash series. DrBat (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
At a very simplistic level? Yes, once an image hits the 'box that meets the guidelines, it should be kept "stable" or "static". Keep in mind that includes the image being properly sourced, having a complete fair use rationale, and not being from an "unusable source" as well as the CMoS section.
Does that mean there will not be cases where an image won't be retained? No. Some of the following would prompt it:
  • Erroneous/incorrect FUR that cannot be fixed.
  • A Who's Who/OHOTHMU or similar image passed off as something else.
  • A change in consensus one what constitutes the more "universally recognized" design of the character (there is a discussion of this going on with Dick Grayson ATM).
  • A change in the guideline criteria.
  • A consensus that the image looks dated and implies that a (generally) long running character only saw print during a particular period.
I'm not sure the "there's more material" argument is a good one. Basically you are arguing that the creators art and initial story is more important for an infobox for a minor or seldom used character than it is for more recognized characters. It seems a bit of a POV push - Perez's work on Anti-Monitor is important but his work on Raven or Deathstroke isn't.
And as for "...it's better to show an image from Crisis...", that is a loaded statement. For you, me, and most of those working within this project, there is a fairly good comics based perspective to have an image of the character and a separate image of the cover of the character 1st appearance or 1st cover appearance. Unfortunately that doesn't always work with regard to Wikipedia's policy on non-free images. If the infobox image is showing the character and is used to show their importance to that initial appearance or story line, we cannot justify the cover, period. Even with out that connection, it's damn hard to sell that the non-infobox image is actually needed - either the image can be covered by text alone or there is no actual critical discussion about the cover or issue.
- J Greb (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Masters of the Universe mass merger

These characters need to merged I wish to here opinions

Ninjor (Masters of the Universe),Icer and Scare Glow need to be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters


Blade (Masters of the Universe) and Gwildor need to be merged Masters of the Universe (film)


Snake Face needs to be merged to Snake Men (Masters of the Universe)


Heroes

Clamp Champ need to be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters


Zoar (He-Man) to Sorceress of Castle Grayskull


List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters needs reorganising

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comics characters by creator categories listed for deletion

FYI. Discussion is here. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots