Talk:Aquaman

OYL Aquaman

I've started a paragraph about the "New Aquaman" It's just a placeholder with the current information on "Sword of Atlantis". In time I think we can have, like on the Superboy page, an herobox, and if the page grows two separated pages. For now if anyone knows any previous appearence of the Dweller in the depths could spare them. DrTofu83 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that, BUT...

...Where Kurt Busiek has stated that the Dweller is indeed Orin, the original Aquaman? Personally, I wasn't aware of that interview.

FlavioTerceiro 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally didn't add that info to the OYL Aquaman Section. I found it, then I only "rearranged" the given info between the Orin and the Arthur section of the article. So, I think I too must ask to a confirm. I didn't remove the info 'cause it seemed to me possibile.

After reading it I found two possible traces

[[1]] Busiek talking about a "brand new role for Orin"

[[2]] Fans complaining for the new role

DrTofu83 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. But it's not certain.
Personally, i think we should remove it, or tag that section with something similar to the Civil War article:

This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain tentative information and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available.

Because, well, until Dweller says "I'm the original Aquaman", it's especulation. =D

FlavioTerceiro 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article size

This article desperately needs to be reduced (WP:SIZE). There are too many unencyclopedic (useless) and repeated info. Take a look at sections "Modern Age" and "Modern origin and history". —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One section should eventually be broken off into a separate article, which will cut down the size: the Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis section. The "Modern origin and history" section should really be broken up and merged with both the "Silver Age" and "Modern Age" sections following Aquaman's publishing chronology as a guide, and presenting the "Modern Age" origin in that section to note how different it is from the Silver Age one. Other than the origin, there really isn't much difference between the Silver Age and Modern Age histories of Aquaman. Kaijan 14:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've integrated the "Modern origin and history" section with the "Silver Age" and "Modern Age" sections to remove some of the repeated information, but it still needs work. Kaijan 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created a sub-article (Cultural impact of Aquaman) based on a Chris Griswold idea on Wonder Woman's talk page. I think it's a nice solution in order to reduce the article. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the reference to it into a "see also" category... maybe a subarticle about history can be made... check back with me in 10 minutes. EDIT: Nevermind, instead I moved the characters section. Vellocet_Malchickawick

What about the extreme detail presented in the Golden, Silver, and Modern Age sections? It seems like these parts are awfully long, and too descriptive for a character article. Is there any desire to condense/stream-line these sections? That would reduce the size considerably.

Bhissong 18:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Agreed! —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the article should not be too long, however, it is important that the main article gives a complete overview of Aquaman. We can't just split off characters and pop culture articles have have them in a "See also" section. The characters section is pretty short, so I merged in back in. The pop culture scetion is great, but it still has to be mentioned in the main Aqua article, which is now done. The characters section is far too small to break away. If anything, break away "Character history" and write an overview in its place with a link to the sub article. Davey4 08:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, the introduction is excessively long as well. Davey4 08:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of undoing things already decided and done, don't you think you could help in some other way? For instance, trying to reduce the excessively long introduction? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• "decided and done" - What does that mean? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, as I did, and I explained my actions which make perfect sense. You cannot just break off articles like Characters, as it is an important part of the Aquaman article. There are ways to deal with long articles, and that was not the right way to go about it. If you break away sections like Pop culture and Characters, don't just leave the information for dead on the main page - that does not help anyone. Davey4 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dweller in the Depths

Assuming that (reading at what Busiek said) the Aquaman mantle has passed on, and if we're not sure if the whole Dweller in the Dephts thing is permanent, at least we knows it will be long-lasting, why don't we put a redirect from Dweller in the Depths to Aquaman page? Eventually, if we decide to divide Aquaman between Aquaman and Aquaman:Sword of Atlantis, the Dweller Page can point to the First Aquaman, as a significant alias, like Vox (comics) to Mal Duncan DrTofu83 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have a redirect: Dweller of the Depths. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Long?

Does anyone else think this article is a bit lengthy? It's listed as one that needs to be condensed, and I have to agree. After all, this is meant to be a wiki. character article, not "the definite analysis of Aquaman and all things Aquaman." Anyone of the same mind? And if so, any ideas on what can go? Bhissong 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Bhissong

We've been talking about it. Take a look at Article size -- two headers above. ;) —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I skimmed right past it. I'll post there. Thanks.

Bhissong 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Entourage?

Someone is taking it upon themselves to delete every piece of information relating to the Entourage/Aquaman link. I find this to be frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.94.13 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The information about Aquaman's connection to Entourage hasn't been removed from Wikipedia altogether, it's just in a different place. It is located in the subsidiary article Cultural impact of Aquaman. It's always a good idea to check the history list of article changes; in this case, the person who removed your edit from the main article noted his reason and provided a link to this separate article in his edit summary. Hopefully, that lessens your frustration. Cheers, --GentlemanGhost 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think having separate linked articles like this is convenient. Unless each section that exceeds a certain length is referenced elsewhere, it seems to be a confusing layout. It means you have to follow a bunch of links to get all the currently relevant information about the topic. And a current pop-culture reference is surely a big reason that this article gets hits. --24.151.131.65 06:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is convenient either, but we have rules and recommendations to follow. And there's not a bunch of links. This is about one single link: Cultural impact of Aquaman. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I am not talking about this article specifically. If you read what I wrote, that is pretty obvious. Please point out where there is a rule that declares that it must be this way. The Batman article, for example, has a section with actual information in it called 'In Other Media' which gives information without forcing a link-out.24.151.131.65 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked info on "Other media" that would've to be added in here? Have you checked how this would affect this article size? And please, do not compare this article with Batman. That is a featured article, while this one is not. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no worthwhile debate here, I see...plenty of attitude though. Obviously Batman is a better article because it is better in almost every way. Especially the fact that it has information in each section and not just a link-out when it comes to something like the character's importance in "Other Media".

The Cultural impact of Aquaman article (which doesn't come up in a search if you forget to capitalize the "A" in Aquaman or if you *do* captalize the "I" in "impact", by the way) has too much information in it anyways. For example, it contains too much about the Aquaman plotline of Season 2/3 Entourage, which could easily be found by following an Entourage (TV series) link in an "Other Media"-style section. 24.151.131.65 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

1. Batman is a featured article.
2. All capitalized. Check Cultural Impact of Aquaman. Good point! Done.
3. You think there's too much info in there? So work on it! Go over there and edit it in a way it gets better! ;) Cheers —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"You think there's too much info in there? So work on it!" I am so tired of seeing this arguement. The person commenting isn't the one who put the articel together. YOU DID! You "WORK" here, not us! If you don't want to put in the time just say so.

Orin/Dweller

Because this has been questioned since May and no evidence has been provided to support it, I am removing all references to Orin being the Dweller. If you want it in the article, find a citation. Otherwise, it's out. No speculation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages 08 and 18 from Aquaman 45. Is there any doubt now?
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1119/aquaman45p08vc8.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4083/aquaman45p18qa9.jpg

Split

I'm not entirely clear on how or why this article is being split. NetK, please explain your work here so everyone can understand. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, the golden age Aquaman was distinguished as a completely separate individual from the silver age version according to DC Comics publication references, specifically in All-Star Squadron and Who's Who. On 17 June 2006 UltimatePyro created an entry for Kal-L as a separate entry from the main Superman entry without contest, and this split works under a similar principal. Additionally, after events in the Crisis on Infinite Universe, the origin and much of the core persona of the silver age Aquaman was stripped away as the character was rebooted to his modern day version. Hope that helps. NetK 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I must point out this in an in-story split. In actuality, Aquaman stories were written under the assumption that they were writing the same guy the entire time when they were originally published. It's basically an editorial No-Prize to account for the actually new versions of guys like Flash and Green Lantern. It can also be argued that the reason Kal-L is a seperate page is because DC has used the character ever since Crisis as a tool whenever they wish to write stories about big events (the Kingdom, Crisis). From a promotional standpoint, he's notable, so he gets his own article. Of course that article should only cover the character from when he was first introduced as a different individual from the main Superman (an issue of Justice League, if I recall correctly) and the changes to his past incorporated later with issue citations. WesleyDodds 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The weight should always be on real world publishing history rather than fictional character history. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris and Wesley, I definitely agree that delineating between the two Aquamen is far more difficult than Flash. However, within the real world publishing history was at least a handful of appearences by a golden age Aquaman. As significant as Kal-L? Not hardly. But lacking merit? This is a slippery slope...at what point do we determine this? One perspective is not universally shared where this is concerned.NetK 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think a probable and concise solution would be to make an "Earth-Two" article. Not separate pages would exist, but the earth two-versions of the characters can be mentioned on that page. WesleyDodds 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good idea.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Imo the External links section needs a little clean up. Is 12 websites really needed here? How many are notable/needed?Davey4

Article should be more like Superman

Superman is a featured article, and from what I can see, is the way a comics character should be layed out. I don't like it how Aquaman is just one massive in-universe biography, and stuff like supporting characters and pop culture and thrown out as See also links. There should be a section on creation and publiction in the Aquaman article, and a SMALL fictional biography. If all that info is really encyclepedic, then a History of Aquaman may be in order, but a huge in-universe bio should not dominate the main Aquaman article. What is most frustating is that Characters of Aquaman is only a See also link, whereas it should be like Superman#Supporting_cast. Sections like Superman#Adaptations_in_other_media and Superman#Musical_references.2C_parodies_and_homages are also good examples of what the Aquaman article could be. Davey4 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Split Between Orin and Arhur

Shouldn't Orin's Page and the New Aquaman Have different pages, because they are different characters? Also to free up room from this cluttered page. RyuKlinge 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not.

First step would be to run over all sections of the article to make sure it's nice and tight, no cruft, no redundancy, clear and cornice.

In doing that, care will need to be taken to proportionately weight all three characters.

After that, if it's still overly long, propose the split, but a reasonable one.

— J Greb 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Before think about a split, an article resize should be considered. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Animal sidekicks

Didn't he have a sidekick or two that were not humanoid? (Seahorse, etc.?)

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

no specific animal,everytime Aquaman needs he can call a different sea animal

tv show section deleted

real encyclopedias have complete sentences.

Homeworld?

I'm opening a section on this. I'm torn between the two sides, esp. in DC when I think of things like Hex in the future, Kamandi on Earth, Warlord in Skartaris, Amethyst of Gemworld, and so on. However, I also concede that Colu, Braal, and Tamaran are more likely to be the intended listings. Is it possible to find a clarification at the WP:COMIC page, or by asking there? Or is it worth considering a template wide change to 'Place of Origin', which would far better cover alternate earths, extradimensional 'areas', like General Zod's son, born IN the Phantom Zone, which is NOT a world, or Tefe, who I think was concieved within the Green itself. Instead of edit warring, let's figure this out. Atlantis is clearly ON Earth... 1? Prime? Earth? whatever it's called. It's a 'recognized nation' but it's such a different place, can it count as a 'world'? Well, since the Subdiego storyline, perhaps it can't. Esp. since we've learned of Poseidonis, and the numerous other cities under the sea. Thoughts? Policies? opinions? ThuranX 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting here since the start is a bit more indepth than the one at the project talk page.

I think this is more an issue with the template than this one article, but we can deal with it here if you like.

Nuts-n-bolts of this seems to be squabbling over the name of a variable the the vast majority of users will never see. The article presents the line as "Species" in the case here, and in most cases where species/race/nationality and point of origin are entered. If it is a burning issue, the variable and the PoO only heading can be changed.

If that is the case, may I suggest adding "Point of Origin" as a variable and changing the the default header to the same. That way we don't need to have a bot run and change every "Homeworld" to "Point of Origin" in the code. - J Greb 05:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea, but I'd suggest PLACE over POINT, just for ease of comprehension among most folks who are less likely to associate 'points west' as geography, when to even me, point of origin suggests either Geometry class or a parcel post. ThuranX 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "point of origin" it is an elegant solution, but I think we need it there alongside homeworld, instead of using it to replace homeworld. It is a variable no casual viewer ever sees, but Lesfer doesn't seem to get that. So what I'm going to do is just walk away from this one until consensus decided that the template be changed. --Basique 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What about establishing, on the templat itself via comments, that Either Homeworld OR Place of Origin is to be used, thus allowing significant specificity without confusion? ThuranX 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the PoO is added, it would make sense in the 'box verbiage to state "Use either...or, not both." It would also have to be spelled out that the PoO isn't supposed to be any finer than "Nation/region". I think the last thing we need all the 'boxes to sprout city designations... - J Greb 07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Aquaman merger

Someone has proposed merging Characters of Aquaman with Aquaman. I am not so sure this is the best idea, as the Aquaman article is large enough already. The characters article could be cleaned up a bit, however, and I propose treating it like List of Batman enemies, Batman supporting characters, List of supporting characters in Superman, and List of Superman enemies, except that supporting characters and enemies are on the same page. Perhaps a table could be added? And also first appearence of character? Just a thought, but the page should not be merged. Rhino131 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Rhino, and that's a pretty good idea. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a move to "List of supporting characters in Aquaman" would keep things in line with other similar entries. I'd rather like to avoid turning it into a table - they do have their uses but a more prose-based approach tends to be easier to read and is also in line with other similar entries. But definitely a big no to the merge. (Emperor 14:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, I'm not so sure about villains as "supporting characters", but of course supporting characters are not villains, and there can't be seperate pages for both, so its either moved to a supporting characters page or kept as it is. As for a table, if moved to supporting characters page then no table, like batman and superman supporing characters page, but if its kept, then I would say yes. However, assuming we would make it like the batman and superman villains tables, then a first appearence for each character would need to be found, and that might be hard to do for some of them. Rhino131 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bump: Orin/Arthur Joseph Separate Articles

Because of the extensive length, and since the last discussion was inconclusive, I am aiming for another discussion on a separate page for Arthur Joseph Curry. Thoughts? --CmdrClow 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep what I've said before: Before think about a split, an article resize should be considered. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Has one not been considered in the extensive amount of time that has passed? Besides, the size of the article would be considerably shortened if it were to separate the two iterations of Aquaman. --CmdrClow 19:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support shortening the article, esp. in light of recent issues and previews, implying that Arthur's actually Orin's clone or some magical simulacra... In light of such, the entire 'Arthur Joseph Curry' thing may become a relative footnote. Further, Cmdrclow, no one's stopping you from making an effort to shorten. ThuranX 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but I wanted to feel it out to see if I would be contested if I followed through. Since that is apparently not the case, I will move forward. --CmdrClow 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Aquaman (Arthur Joseph Curry) --CmdrClow 08:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that WAS the case. that's why two people wanted you to consider a shortening. Way to work as a team. Thanks for listening. ThuranX 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, why asking for opinions if you just ignore two of them and end up doing whatever you want? Nice. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one to see it that way. ThuranX 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're definitely not the only one. - J Greb 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with what I did then say so plainly. You said that no one's stopping me from shortening. I did shorten by moving the new character to a specific article. If you don't like what I've done, feel free to revert me. I thought I was following what you had wanted me to do. If not, then I'm sorry. No need to draw this out in some adolescent game of sarcasm. It's beneath all of you. --CmdrClow 01:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Throwing your choice back on us with an 'I;m only doing what you said' vibe is insulting to all of us, and to compound our distaste by saying sarcasm's beneath us... Self-revert. Shortening is NOT the same as splitting, and you are experienced enough to know that. ThuranX 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If one lends itself to the other, then what harm is done? You're putting words in my mouth, I am not saying that "I was only doing what you told me." I'm saying that perhaps the meaning that I interpreted was lost in translation, and I have apologized for that. Regardless, the new article has already garnered a "B" rating from WikiProject Comics, and seems to provide easier access to the information about the new character. Again, I'm not seeking an antagonistic relationship with any of you. I just saw this as an opportunity to both shorten this article (yes, through splitting) and present a simpler avenue for information on A.J. Curry. If for some odd reason that offends you, then I apologize, and if you feel it serves the needs of the encyclopedia to re-unify the articles, then be my guest. I will not contest you. But it seems that the article is doing well on it's own. You have even contributed to correcting it, Thuran. --CmdrClow 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut the sophistry. You asked for opinions about splitting the article to reduce it size and got two replies to compress it first. Before there were anymore voices added, you decided to do the split then justify it as it "compressed" the article. And you're acting surprised that the editors that voiced holding off on splitting, and another who didn't even get a chance to voice an opinion, are upset with your action. You did what you wanted to do and damn the other editors. I have to wonder why you even bothered asking for input. - J Greb 06:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, cut the melodrama. I misunderstood you guys and apologized for it. Just cut the extensive and useless comments, say you don't accept it, and do something about it. Or don't. People like you make the experience on this place completely unenjoyable, especially when an honest admission is met with such hostility. --CmdrClow 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't accept it, and we're offering you the chance to make things right by self-reverting. You seem intent on ignoring this to provoke, or prolong a disagreement. ThuranX 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of this response on my talk page from a member of WikiProject Comics and my growing distaste for this whole process (as well as your actions on participating in editing the article, Thuran), my desire to self revert has been eliminated. --CmdrClow 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see... You consider an opinion in your talk page supporting your split, but ignore three opinions against it in the article's talk page. I am a member of WikiProject Comics as well. So are ThuranX and J Greb. Curious... Anyway, at least I see your point now. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he actually listed the reasons for why it was a good change. Give me reasons pertaining to the article about why it's a bad change and your argument will have actual merit. --CmdrClow 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm distinctly NOT a member. I had a long drawn out problem with Phil Welch, so I refused to join up when invited. I work along side the project, but i've also argued with it. The fact that i edited the page doesn't mean I support it. I was reviewing it to look over what you did, and noticed a couple things, so I touched them up. It doesn't imply even a tacit approval. I'd still like to see it remerged. I've already done a bunch to shorten this article, shavign off I think about 1.5K in the intro and golden age alone. Further reviews of the silver and modern eras could take off an additional 1.5 or more, I believe. This would mean that readding the 5.5K of the other would put the total at about 34K, well below the 40K benchmark for split consideration. ThuranX 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By normal standards, it would still be a very large article. Unless there are some reasons to avoid malignance of some kind in either article, or if it somehow serves the readers better to have two (as of now, anyways) different characters, then I oppose reunification. The size issue has just become known to me through Maple Leaf's comments, so now I fully stand behind my decision for the split. --CmdrClow 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're bluntly saying you don't care about consensus, you did what you want, and that's that. Understood. ThuranX 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

With that statement, you're saying that there is no reason for the good of the encyclopedia or the article that the two should be one. With the size issue now brought to my attention, I oppose reunification. If you're so passionate about reunifying the articles again, put it on the A.J. Curry talk page. If not, then what's done is done. Let's leave it at that, unless you plan on doing something about it. --CmdrClow 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. ThuranX 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the page was at 35.8K before split, the new article took about 3.5, this article dropped to 32.2 after split, was further edited and revised to 30.6, readded article, now 4.5K, and after further edits, entire page is down to 34.2. This means that despite net increases in the Arthur Curry section, the entire page now contains more, tighter info at @1.5K in reduced size. There are still major sections needed edits, including history from Silver Age on, and power, and so on. I think that some careful revision an editing can get this page down to a respectable 30 - 31K, well below the size for any split. Further, given the speculation (which I removed from this article wearing my editor hat, but agreeing with in my fan hat), that Orin will soon be back, and given that Arthur's series has been cancelled, I think that in the next few months, we'll find that Arthur's a footnote, not a successor. ThuranX 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Joseph Curry

Hi there. It is not my intention to create dysfunction but I have noticed that there has been a lot of discussion with regards to Arthur Joseph Curry. I agree that Arthur is probably a footnote and not a successor but I feel that there must be a way to keep both sides happy.

• From the outset, if further discussion results in the decision to keep the article intact, it is important to respect the consensus.

• Curry must be part of the main article because he is now part of the Aquaman mythos. At the same time, I feel that it is important to respect the article size.

• Based on article size, there should be two or three paragraphs about Curry, but a separate article for Curry is reasonable. This is based on the premise and/or rationale that there can be further elaboration about the character.

• Case in point, one can observe the article for both Green Lantern and The Spectre. Each article discusses all the characters who have portrayed Green Lantern and The Spectre but each character has his own article as well. One could definitely make the argument that Crispus Allen is a footnote to The Spectre and not the successor as well, but he does have an article too.

- I am merely putting out some ideas and trying to ensure that all the points are explored before deciding whether to merge an article or have separate articles. Best of luck!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple Leaf (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign my comments. Maple Leaf 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These space concerns were noted in the above section, and consensus was not. In fact, YOU were invoked directly as trumping our consensus, which doesn't put fault or blame on you, but gives a sense of how things were handled. As you can see from my summarys, and the histories themselves, a great deal was done already to accomodate the space issues. That said, 33K or so is hardly too big for an article about a major DC character. 33K about say, Kilg%re or Kilowog (to name two DC characters starting with Kil, lol), would be ridiculous, but this article does a great deal in that space, and editors continue to improve it's size:value ratio. Had a solid, reasonable case been made, perhaps consensus would've changed. Unfortunately, the editor became obstinate (-ant?) instead, and so we reduced size, tightened the article, and then re-inserted the Arthur content. Despite all that modification, the article is still smaller. We will continue to tighten up, and thus negate the need. I could make other arguments agaisnt a separate article, including recentism, but I think that the good faith edits of multiple editors to accomodate all the info in one article speaks for itself. ThuranX 03:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside voice

CmdrClow asked me a couple of days ago if I would, as a regular WikiProject Comics editor with no previous experience with the Aquaman article, if I would weigh in as a outside voice.

From what I'm reading, everyone seems pretty much on the same page regarding the actual article content, which needs some tightening and, even with some additional material to plug in some holes, and can be made shorter. Everything looks resolved, in fact, so this might be taken as a post-mortem.

The area of contention seems to be a miscommunication regarding a section on the "new" Aquaman, who may or may not be a separate entity than the original. This section was split off into its own article on 07:52, 28 August 2007 — after a question was raised about whether it should be split off, but before any consensus was reached on that question. The consensus was against a split, and the section was merged back into the article on 03:11, 31 August 2007 — but only after much contentious discussion.

I think CmdrClow misinterpreted that there was a consensus; he wasn't hiding his efforts, and in fact wrote "Done" on this talk page. I believe he made an innocent error, which can happen even with someone who, like him, has been a Wikipedia editor for two years. ThuranX — with whom I've collaborated and have found to be a reasonable and honorable editor — and Lesfer — whose work I know in passing and has seemed solid — reacted with sarcasm. This provoked a defensive reaction in CmdrClow — who acknowledged his error and apologized for it, but did not self-revert.

I believe it might have been better for CmdrClow to have given action to his acknowledgment by self-reverting. But people generally do the right thing when they're properly encouraged and when we appeal to the better angels of each other's natures — and I think the sarcasm and unnecessarily harsh language in the immediate replies weren't in the spirit of good faith, and contributed to the snowballing effect of harsh words on both sides.

Again, I'm an outside voice only commenting because I was asked to mediate informally. The editors worked it out among themselves, so I provided post-mortem comments instead. In summary (and I've been guilty of this myself), harsh words were used when diplomatic and supportive language would, I believe, have gotten the same results sooner and with less acrimony. What the hell, it's like our moms always taught us: "Talk nice. People will listen to your more."

I hope this helps in some way. On a content-oriented note, I might suggest keeping the Arthur Curry section very short until many more settled facts emerge. But then, I'm not a big DC guy, so what do I know?  :-)     --Tenebrae 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New Arthur Image

IS the new arthur image really better than the old one, in terms of the WP:COMIC guidelines? the new one is full body, so was the old, this one's mostly frontal, as was the old, but this one's dark and obscures the figure more with shadow than did the old one with water spray. Thoughts? And before anyone says anything, I'm not looking to pick a fight, go after, or drive awayCmdrClow. I just want to discuss this. I'd prefer to go back to the old one, but since I'm underwhelmed with all the art in the Sword of... stuff, I won't revert without consensus to revert. ThuranX 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with the points made. I'd also go as far as to say that the water spray is a less objectionable issue than the shadows and shifted colors in the one currently in use. - J Greb 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I just felt that the OYL image was just...better. It seems that the cover of Sword of Atlantis 40 is in a more iconic state. The other one seemed a bit too campy for the moods and stories associated with the character. If there was to be another main image for him, then you might consider the cover to Sword of Atlantis #54 [3]. That image is better in quality, and it's a bit more iconic. --CmdrClow 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that as a good compromise. Dodson's line is strong, his colors good, and the picture DOES depict a younger, more idealistic, and less ... scarred(emotionally)... character. It's slightly less frontal than the 'original' out of water image we had, but the clarity of color, line and atmosphere more than make up for that. I"m good with it, but let's allow 24-36 hours for J Greb and others to weigh in to build a stronger consensus. And thanks for understanding that I'm not after you in any way. ThuranX 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The cover image to Sword of Atlantis #54 is a nice choice. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the Sword of Atlantis #54 cover art (or cover) is a better fit thematically than #43. And given the character design, the angle and pose aren't really covering anything in the way of a chest design. - J Greb 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --CmdrClow 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

a fictional character cannot be a 'victim' of satire

n.b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"n.b." means what? And yes, subject works fine too.you really could've done that as an edit summary, not as a section here. ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge: The Atlantis Chronicles

A drive by tagging for Merge of the The Atlantis Chronicles has happened. I'd oppose the merge, as the series is about the Atlanteans, not Aquaman himself. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Chronicles doesn't belong here. It may not be much of a page, but merging into Aquaman isn't an answer.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the merge to Atlantis (DC Comics). Seems a better option. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Far better, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. On the subject of the Atlantis page... the history, to me, makes no sense and needs fixing. (I've mentioned it here because I think this discussion page gets more traffic that the Atlantis one) Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)