User talk:Emperor

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Emperor/Archive 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Annotations

Apologies. Ignorance of the law is no excuse I know. I've taken off the links I put on the following pages in the last few days: Ian Edginton, Kingdom_of_the_Wicked and Judgment_Day_(Awesome_Comics)

The Judgement day notes can be found here All my other pages are linked from my scarlet traces homepage here As you know I had previously added links on: Leviathan_(comic) and Scarlet_Traces should i delete those?

thanks for the help. Ejclarke (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ok. thanks again.Ejclarke (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of publishers' publications

I don't want to side track what looks to be a good discussion at the WikiProject.

But basically, I was intending on breaking up the DC and Marvel ones the same way that the DC and Marvel characters lists are split. (It's been on my "to do" for a while.) Just want to throw that out there while you're discussing a ReOrg. - jc37 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible.

The only niggling issue is that if some series weren't thought to meet notability, as it stands, we can't merge them into the publications lists. This might not be seen as a big deal and possibly all the Big Two's titles are notable (or strictly speaking we can probably prove notability for all of them). The same technically goes for characters as the solution to WP:FICT is to merge them with a list of characters. Might not be a big deal, or something we can deal with in the future but it might be something we need to keep in mind while expanding. (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Just as an FYI but I have started splitting of publications - first is Talk:Image Comics#Split and I'll move on to IDW Publishing if that works out OK. (Emperor (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Equus

Sorry. I looked through your edits to the article, and couldn't find where you'd used it. Which info did you add from that site? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The References section is for a list of the sources used when constructing the article. Not verifying it, which is a different activity. Wouldn't it make more sense to refer to that as an External links seciton? Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting moving it, just a more accurate title for that section, that's all. Nightscream (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear Emperor...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mills & O'Neill

Did you see this interview...? Talking - mostly - about Marshal Law, and the prose novel collection Titan is/has published/ing. But did you know (I don't recall seeing it mentioned) that Moore is "finish[ing] up the finale to his suburban vampire goof, The Bojeffries Saga..." Intriguing... Plus Top Shelf are putting out a massive Marshal Law Omnibus/Compendium next year, which is always good to see repeated, lest they forget! :o) ntnon (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm mildly pleased that this isn't just a repeat of 'old news,' then..! ;o) I certainly hadn't heard anything about Bojeffries (which of course leads to the logical phrase "..hope that's accurate"), but then if Mr Moore is working with Top Shelf/Knockabout, there could be all kinds of bizarre old things dredged up..! Reprints of Maxwell might be nice, and if he doesn't mind (although I think he may) the Sounds strips/articles being reprinted and thus made available to most people for the first time... but that's idle hoping.

'Apparently' (as QI so hates), via Rich Johnston, comes the surprising, but believeable suggestion that Moore renounced Watchmen BOOK royalties as well as film monies and whatnot. So while high sales are exceptionally pleasing (why haven't DC put the previuosly-in-Kingdom Come CD sampler of their Archives and other works in the back of the new million(!) copies..?), I suspect he was free of financial concerns - if he has any: few expenses, by many accounts, and obviously does well work-wise - quite some time ago. But the Bumper Book, Century, Jerusalem and now Bojeffries are certainly all eagerly awaited. (And, well, most have been for some time...!)

Yes, the Bojeffries article (as with so many - and yet the time and effort is spent debating the minutiae of guideline interpretation...) does need a lot of work. I was(/might still be) heading back, but then my Tundra collection is in parts foreign; I have no idea where my Warriors went, and A1 is definitely in a box in a separate foreign locale. So I'm strapped for (re)sources..! Infobox-wise, though I'd say slap a series box onto it: it was a serialised strip first and foremost, so "comic book title" should do. "Superteambox" might do, but it doesn't seem like as much of a fit.

Mills, Ennis and Warren Ellis - none of them sound very fond of superheroes, but the latter two have done some pretty good work with them (Ennis more on the non-costumed anti-heroes, but he does write the more superheroic people well as extras). I'd say the Marshal Law picture has to be #1, so I'll go do that next. And then I'll leave you to worry about whether the correct box is being used later! ;o)

(Unfortunately I'm busy at the weekend also, since I've literally heard in the last two days that Mr Moore will be signing in London, which would be a perfect opportunity to hound him for information. On a personal, rather than here-research level.)

Kevin O'Neill leaves a bit to be desired, you're right. No "main" links, no art editor, no sources. I'll try and give that a look, too... and inevitably forget and cede it back to you. :o) ntnon (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (that's probably the best word, even though it's harsher than it should be!) I wound up being otherwise obligated, and missed him. Which is rather galling. (It's also looking likely that I'll miss the Harrods-held comics art exhibit, completely, too... Just one things after another to do and places to be, and...!)

I seem to be running out of time far more regularly than I used to, too. Hopefully that'll turn out to be proof of alien abductions, rather than more mundane time dilation/perception and menial things..! :o) I trust/hope your family event went well..? ntnon (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bojeffries

I was able to get hold of a Compete Saga a week ago, and finally had time just now to add in/tidy up the broad facts for The Bojeffries Saga. The best picture is probably this one at International hero, but I can't instantly place it - an A1 pin-up, perhaps..? Otherwise, the picture of the family from the back cover of the Complete Saga would work, but I remember some mumbling about whether it was permissable to cut sections out of published pictures or not, so I decided not to do that yet. Any thoughts..?

Also, on the projected list for what will be included (comics-wise) on the DVD of Wikipedia... I don't know precisely what you think, but I fear that some of the projected articles are currently still pretty terrible facts & content (and sources)-wise, and either need to be left off (bad choice) or included shoddily (potentially worse). Not sure what to suggest - or whom to suggest it to - on that front. In particular, Hellboy and Dark Horse (as you flagged) ought to be included, but really can't be "as is." Also key to comics, but possibly not up to scratch are: All-Star Comics & New Fun Comics; Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, Martin Goodman, Max Gaines, Julius Schwartz, Bill Finger, Bill Gaines, 2000AD, Spider-man 2 (..why Spider-man and 3 but not 2? Odd.), DKR, Secret Wars, Frank Hampson, Wally Wood, Gardner Fox, Jerry Robinson, Dick Giordano, Carmine Infantino, Vertigo Comics; Crime Does Not Pay, Vault of Horror, Young Romance and Our Army at War (a representative of each major genre). Then Creepy, Eerie & Warren; Goscinny, Uderzo, Art Spiegelman, Alex Raymond, Chester Gould, Dave Sim, Scott Adams & EC Segar. Any thoughts, additions or suggestions on how to try and avoid this embarrassing the comics project..?! ntnon (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up that interview. I ordered the Mindscape direct from Shadowsnake, but it was a pleasant surprise to then see it in a regular HMV advert(!) (albeit probably in the FT, tailored to their audience), and then get an HMV e-mail, also..! I think it's already been out a fair while (at least in the UK), has it not...?

I must not be thinking straight..! But thanks for pointing out that the Bojeffries picture was from the mooted Terror Tomes... Atomeka as a whole, though, yes. Shame. I remember reading a fair bit about all that at the time, largely because Mr Elliott posted reasonably regularly at Newsarama (or wherever). I think there was a wave of desertions - certainly Mr Richie launched Boom! Studios off the back of helping relaunch Atomeka. Certainly their initial output was predominantly reprints, so there's also plausible scope for rights/royalties issues - since a lot of it was early Warrior things, I suppose there could even be MiracleMan-level rights confusion, perhaps. But that's editorialising. I thought I'd read that Atomeka is not officially dead, merely resting... but then editor Dave Elliott is currently back in comics with Radical Comics, so who knows? Maybe Top Shelf will reprint Laser Eraser and the rest at some point.

Regarding this Wikipedia-point-something farrago (...short deadline...), I think the whole thing is a very bad idea. I will be amazed if there isn't something that sparks a libel suit if and when this occurs. (Pessimism vs. realism vs. miscontruing legal terms!) I've been thinking/discussing with various folk about whether it will reflect better or worse on the merits of Wikipedia and/or the competence of the Comics Project if: a) Articles are included and are wrong/rubbish/brief/pointless or b) Articles are not included. If Dark Horse isn't on the disc, it'll be ridiculously algorithmically-biased, and utterly pointless. If Dark Horse is on the disc, as is, it'll be equally pointless. I think this will also have (as you say) a knock-on effect whereby vast swathes of semi-sourced information will be gutted. Plus, I think it highlights that the addition/creation/correction parts of the comics project have been downplayed in favour of petty arguments and widespread removals of various (difficult-to-source) information.

Hellblazer is poor. Interestingly, it also reminds me of a lot of the criticism I got when I rewrote Vertigo.. and yet it's still about in this form. The trade-template (which I think we eventually got off the ground, although it barely went anywhere..) should definitely help. As for Hellboy - how's this for a suggestion (that might be me putting my foot in it!): throw it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises. We may or may not be able to get anything done by the deadline, but it might be worth mentioning Hellboy to Lady Aleena and seeing if we three (plus whomever else) can thrash out something with Hellboy that will benefit Hellboy, comics, franchises and Wikipedia as a whole. (Having suggested that, now may not be the best time to say that I've become unexpectedly busy.. again... and may be sparsely involved for a while. Or not. Remains to be seen...) ntnon (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, the new Bojeffries prepared for Atomeka will now be coming out from Top Shelf.

Akin & Garvey

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my entries for Ian Akin & Brian Garvey. Couple of issues, though. For their bibliography sections, those are selected listings. They each have a lot more credits, but they tend to be short runs or one-shots, so I didn't bother listing them (That's what the Comic Book DB is for!). But it really is more correct to specify that those are selected bibliographies.

The other issue is that I have no definite information that both of them are American. I can't find any specific reference, but for some reason I thought one or both of them were actually British. So it may be a good idea to take out the references to them being American in nationality, and placing them in the American comic artists category.

Thoughts?

— Stoshmaster (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hippolyta (comics)

Looks more like it should be marked as a SIA page rather than a regular dab. Also, look at what links to there. Seems that some of the redirects would be better of targeting the actual characters. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Emptying and deleting categories

I see you have emptied and deleted Category:Works based on games and Category:Works based on television programs (both of which I started). I've been busy and may have missed the discussion on this but, as I've said before, emptying categories and deleting them except in cases where they are mistakes, does tend to remove other editors abilities to actually discusses these changes. (Emperor (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

And Category:Novels by source. I assume this is to do with cleaning up Category:Media based on media but it was the "media" categories that were clunkily welded onto to those already existing categories and my thinking on this was that it was those later additions that needed changing/removing not the other way round. I also think a (well-publicised, of course ;) ) CfD would have been preferable so more people could have had their say (unless there was one and I missed it, which is possible). (Emperor (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Also I won't be around for a few days so no rush in replying (and if you do then apologies for a late reply). (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Right I just found this, the fundamental problem is they aren't adaptations of the works but they are more usually based on the characters and fictional universes (hence the naming structure) - straight adaptations are rarely given much of a mention as they contain pretty much the same content (like Alan Dean Foster's adaptation of the Alien film). Things like Buffy Season 8 aren't, for example, adaptations. I seem to be coming to a lot of these discussions late which is a pity as the result strikes me as incorrect. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

(De-dent) - First, my apologies for any confusion.

The categories were a mess. In looking over the edit histories, this "tree" seems to have been 3 or 4 separate "schemes". One of which was started in Feb of 2008, which I noted had had quite a few nommed for deletion. I even found a cat which had been around since 2005, as it was apprently intended to be a large cat, solitarily grouping all the related pages. Which would be duplicative of the other 3-4 schemes. So after going through it a bit, I attempted to merge the schemes.

I basically went forward with the idea that "Works by source" was the top level, and "works" cats were always a level higher than "media" cats. I also created several cats to cleanup navigation, and for accuracy. (For example, plays are not "media", and mythology and fairy tales are not "works".)

In doing so several categories had only a single member - a single subcat. In most cases, it seemed better to upmerge. The cats can always be created if there is a need. But atm, many reciprical branches of this tree do not exist, so there's little reason to try to attempt "reciprical completeness" at this time.

For example, I believe novels by source and books by source both each only had a single subcat. So I merely upmerged them.

I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that "games" was like a tree of 3 categories deep (subcat of, subcat of...) And when I got to the "bottom", there was a single subcat which had members. I upmerged the subcat, and removed the branch.

All this said, obviously please feel free to (re-)create, if you feel it's appropriate.

Also, something I found in wading through all of these is that there was a mess very inconsistent of conventions. I tried to make some sense of it, but I do think it's more complex than it needs to be, which I think is an hindrance to navigation.

So, what would you think about all the "Media based on..." and "...based on media" cats to be nominated for upmerging/renaming to change "media" to "works"?

And further what do you think about standardising "based on" and "adapted from"? (On this point, I'll likely waver based upon the discussion.)

Again, my apologies for any confusion. - jc37 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - partly my own fault I suspect ;)

I agree that the "media" articles needs... something - it caused a lot of consternation when it was bolted on to the existing structure but attempts to remove it have been difficult. Problem is with all the recent changes that have taken place I suspect I am "out of the loop" so don't feel I am best placed to come up with a good solution to this. Time is limited but I will try and re-familiarise myself with the way things stand and, hopefully, in the process something might suggest itself to me. I'll let you know if I have a Eureka moment. (Emperor (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Marvel Girl

Shouldn't Marvel Girl (comics) redirect here and not at Jean's article? Inclusively, what should I do with Marvel Girl (Marvel Comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Way I see it, having Marvel Girl (comics) target the SIA would best. That about right? And just curious, but why categorize this as an alternative misspelling when we could use {{R comics naming convention}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. What exactly of the redirect Marvel Girl (comics)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I just noticed that you have edited Marvel Girl (comics) to target Marvel Girl. Anything else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian

I'd like to ask if you would be willing to help mentor him in dispute situations. If you agree, I'll leave a request on his talk page that should he become embroiled in any future contentious situations (even if it be 2RR, or a contentious talk page), that he drop a note on your talk page. - jc37 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I suspect I am not a great choice for this as I have edited a number of pages he also edits and I suspect you'd need someone more independent than me (after all I can't complain to myself!! OK I can but I'd rather keep it to a minimum if anyone is watching) and potentially someone from outside the Comics Project, as they'd be able to come to the whole thing fresh and be able to judge the situation without any preconceived notions.

I do think it is doable - these problems have rumbled on for years now and I have seen him change, albeit slowly. So I wish you luck finding someone, I just don't think I am that someone. (Emperor (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I wasn't necessarily looking for you to be the "neutral" voice for the situations (I guess that's me atm).

But, from what I can tell he trusts your opinion/perspective. (And I know that I (and others) do as well.)

Mentoring (in this case) just means being another set of eyes and ears.

Someone he can come to when in doubt, or potentially in contention.

Anyway, it's up to you : ) - jc37 04:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well OK - I could (provisionally) go with that and just see what happens. I'm always available to give a second opinion on anything and from what I've seen the problems seem to largely be from interpretations of guidelines (often overly strict) and communication problems (which is far from unique), rather than things that are more difficult to address, like point-of-view pushing and the like. I have his talk page on my watchlist anyway but will keep a closer eye on it and if there is anything I can help with then drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. (Emperor (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I've left a note on his talk page. Please look it over to make certain I haven't misconstrued your offer in any way. - jc37 08:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I've left a note there and also read through the various threads surrounding this and it seems to be the same problem reoccurring so we can try and address that and the fact that the situation has improved over the years means there is some hope we can get this all sorted. We'll just have to wait and see. (Emperor (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

You know, this has touched me. I was really wowed by the impartial way in which the other administrators handled this. Very fair and forgiving... That said, I'm taking the advice of jc37 and posting here. I'm guessing he and Hiding will read it anyway. Mentoring? If you like. I don't think there will be any issues with my edits per se, as most would have a hard time proving they are detrimental as opposed to beneficial to the articles. Methodology is a different case, and here we get into the grey area of how Wiki guidelines are perceived - the source of so many arguments. No, I don't (heh) have a medical condition. Unfortunately, I have a lot of pride and particularly so in my hobbies, one of which is comics. Having a photographic memory and being able to pretty much cite off the top of my head character appearances does make me a tad arrogant. I have to work on that. As far as I know, I'm the only one that actually rewrites whole FCB's accurately, and while this is great for Wikipedia I sometimes forget that others may contribute in different and smaller ways, as these efforts are no less important.

Nightscream? I bear him no ill will. We'll have a chat on the relevant pages about style, but that can be worked out. I think he perhaps took the styles changes that Tenebrae and I pushed for in Ultimates the wrong way, and seems to have "followed" me ever since. As jc37 has spoken to him about wearing the admin and editing hat at the same time, I'll leave that alone. Anyway, feel free to throw anything else you'd like to say to my Talk page.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Asgardian again removed the material in question during his rewrite of the Ultron article. I restored it, though in a more brief form, and tried to incorporate it more smoothly into the passage. I thought I'd let you know before/rather than confronting him myself, but if he keeps this up, deleting material that does not conform to his aesthetic whims, without even trying to do what I did himself, or solicit discussion from others, then the problems with him are going to continue. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all things being equal, that's what I would normally do. But since he has shown little interest in discussing things with me in a constructive, civil manner, that's why I figured I'd alert you instead. Nightscream (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've made numerous efforts to speak with him, and he's usually dismissed my statements, particularly of late. The fact that he's mentioning his edits on the Talk Page doesn't mean he's necessarily trying to speak to me. But if he continues to delete that info, I'll try to talk with him again, and if it doesn't work, we'll cross that bridge there and then. Nightscream (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If the idea here is that he's going to try a new approach in how he responds to me that is distinct from his approach prior to his ban, then yes, given that rationale, I would be more than happy to speak to him. I certainly hope that is the case. Nightscream (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7

(cross-posting)

I have started a new page to help keep track of the articles which have been selected. If you wish, we could move discussion to that talk page, or we could just direct people there? I forgot to add the articles which appear only on workgroup pages, so I'll get to that now. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I've been trying to keep up on that page with articles you have assessed; hopefully I got them all.  :) BOZ (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was moving Phantom (comics) as you were responding to me. :) I don't think there's any particular priority, as I count 87 more articles that need a B-class assessment - on the bright side, there are now more on the list that have been assessed as C or solid B than have not, which I count at 102 total. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think having a list of "key" articles is an excellent idea. You are right that the algorithm is crude, but it's probably the best that it can be - I bet that if we had the "importance" part of our assessments kept up properly, the results it turned out would have been a lot different, for instance. In fact, we could review specifically what needs to be on "Top" (all of which would be in the "key list") and the "high" (many, but not all, of which would be in the "key list") and make sure that really imprortant articles be rated as such. Keep in mind, that the whole point of the assessment scheme in the first place is that it is being used to decide what will eventually be in the 1.0 print run!

As for the Marvel matters, well you are correct that I do have a lot of Marvel Comics knowledge... but I have to confess that nothing comes to mind immediately on the items you mention.  :) I know that Jean Grey was known as the Black Queen before Selene took on the role; the one you refer to seems to be an alternate world version of Jean? Red King I also know nothing about. Doctor Nemesis, I'm not sure either of them are all that significant either - Phineas Horton is well known as the creator of the Human Torch, and I was unaware that another character had anything to do with that. :) BOZ (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Great - you're a good fellow!  :) Keep up the good work, as always - sincerely! BOZ (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the video game either, but I agree that something somewhere should be said. Do you think the comic was based on Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects? If so, do you think it would be best to put a section in that article, or create a stub? BOZ (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a fair amount on the internet: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22MARVEL+NEMESIS%22+%22GREG+PAK%22&aq=f&oq= BOZ (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Either that, and/or turning the redirect into a disambiguation page. Your second diff is probably not what you intended. :) BOZ (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, then, adding some info on the game page should be sufficient, and linking the writer's page to that section should suffice.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to start the 300-ish list. It may take a little bit of time to put together (not a very long time), so please bear with me.  :) Ntnon's list from the project talk page gave me an idea... First thing, I'm going to move the chat to the subpage I created, as I've been threatening to do. :) BOZ (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm nearly done. :) BOZ (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done - check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7‎#Articles by Type. BOZ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - meanwhile, I think I'm done doing any serious work for the day. :) Whew! I'm exhausted. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think sorting it that way shows where things are too heavy and too light, and it shows the holes where things are missing fairly well, as Ntnon tried to do. BOZ (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What's missing

Care to edit/shuffle and add to this list...? :o) ntnon (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Hellblazer or John Constantine, though..? (Incidentally, I had a stab at adding to JC yesterday, but couldn't locate a source for the Moore/Delano claim.... indeed, I couldn't locate any trace of major Delano/Hellblazer interviews, which is odd. Probably not looking hard enough.)

I don't know in what form - the long list is awkward, but it won't table too well with my asides in there! - to stick my fairly arbitrary/arrogant list up anywhere, so advice will be welcomed. ntnon (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Emperor for keeping cool and maintaining peace, defusing a potential dispute regarding the Legion of Super-Heroes category. Nutiketaiel (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a little token of thanks from me for keeping this situation regarding the category thing from getting out of hand. From what I can tell, you make a habit of helping out with these little issues, and deserve some recognition for it once in a while.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, just let me know if there's anything I can do to help make things like this less likely to recur. Actually, on that note, is there anything you think I should have done differently to help prevent this situation from occuring in the first place? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is reassuring. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comic Book Publication Dates

Hi. If a comic book cited as a source is described with its volume number, and a user know its month and year of publication, should the volume number be deleted in lieu of the date (an Either/Or situation), or should both be included when they're known? Has there been a ComicsProject discussion/consensus on this? Personally, I think they should both be used, since they're two different things, and volume number can be important, especially for verification purposes, regarding comics that have had more than one incarnation over the decades. Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters by politics

Since you were commenting that you felt you often weren't in the discussion until "late", you get to be my first stop with this : )

Category:Fictional characters by politics - This whole tree would seem better listified. What do you think? - jc37 04:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - its a tricky one. I am wary of "fictional 'anything'" as you'd need to prove it - it can be proved in some articles (V and Anarky have discussions on their status as anarchists) but I'm sure some are marginal (the fictional fascists category strikes me as being especially tricky). That said the Nazis sub-category should be straightforward enough as should its comics-related child and you can bet your ass a list could have similar problems to the category unless policed hard and could be wide open to getting deleted (or turned back into a category!! We've seen that happen before). So I'd be tempted to leave it alone but check through the members of the categories and if none of the articles even mention the topic then remove them. It seems the approach less likely to result in a big headache. (Emperor (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

As I don't have the "cool tools", I tend to nominate, so that the bots can help : )

That said, if you have such, please feel free to do as you suggest. - jc37 12:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no cool tools either. That said I can't see they'd help much with checking articles to see if they qualify - that is just something that is going to take time to work through (unless someone has a zoooom cool tool which means you can fast forward through such dull tasks - and if they do then why did no one say earlier!!). (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Wonder Man (comics)

I would say this is better off as a SIA instead of a redirect. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Vampires

• Category:Fictional vampires
• Category:Vampires in comics
• Category:Marvel Comics vampires

Some merging/cleanup may need to be done here. But since you created one of these, I thought I'd ask your thoughts first : ) - jc37 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted - the last one was only added recently so I've shuffled the three together and sorted the Marvel vamps out to the subcategory - seems to work out OK. (Emperor (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Fine with me. Note that there are still several members of Category:Fictional vampires which probably need to be diffused. - jc37 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got the obvious ones - I'm sure there are others but they'll get picked up eventually. In my rounds I spotted this: Category:Marvel Comics Witches, and the others like that which I have seen haven't been capitalised like that. Might be worth looking around for others. (Emperor (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23 for that one and several others. - jc37 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

COI tag

Hello, my name is cat yronwode. I saw that you recently discussed the COI tag added to the page about me. I believe that this tag was added as the result of an edit war in which i recently found myself. I think that my record of editing the article shows that i am not engaged in COI, but that i was simply attempting to supply refs where they were requested, ad to correct a few errors. The COI notice gives the appearance that i engaged in underhanded or immoral editing; i believe that it is not necessary, as there is already a perfectly valid Notable Wikiedian template on the discussion page. I would like to work with an editor to resolve this situation, with the goal of getting the COI notice removed. Any help or suggestions you can provide would be gladly accepted. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)