Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Fictional character biography: about rampant robo-editing |
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
::Check [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive 9]]. Bignole, DGG are commenting that the use of word "biography" is misleading. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
::Check [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive 9]]. Bignole, DGG are commenting that the use of word "biography" is misleading. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::A couple of people's comments aren't sufficient grounds for rampant robo-editing without first finding out if greater consensus already exists. [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>STOMP!</small>]]</sub> 10:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
:::A couple of people's comments aren't sufficient grounds for rampant robo-editing without first finding out if greater consensus already exists. [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>STOMP!</small>]]</sub> 10:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::I know that. I had no intent to skip the consensus and I am sorry for the upset I caused. Read above. I corrected my yesterday' s mistake immediately. Now the discussion is not about the edits but if the use of "Fictional character biography" is appropriate or not". -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 10:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
"Character's background" doesn't have the right connotation; it implies a backstory or origin as opposed to the sum total of events that has been portrayed in the stories. Can we get a third idea? [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
"Character's background" doesn't have the right connotation; it implies a backstory or origin as opposed to the sum total of events that has been portrayed in the stories. Can we get a third idea? [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 10:32, 12 October 2008
 | Comics Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
The FURbots are back...
And they're tagging on average 15-20 images in comics articals a day for either no FURs or disputed/partial FURs
Right now I'm up to the 14th (and it just hit deadline for that day), and still have about 20 or so outstanding images to fix. Anyone that is interested, please pitch in.
Here's the list:
Tagged on Spet 14:
Thanks - J Greb (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The 14th is clear and there were none for the 15th...
Tagged on Spet 16:Tagged on Spet 17:- - J Greb (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anything we can do about this from Liam Sharp: Image:Liam.jpg. The uploader is Tom Muller a graphic designer who has worked for Mam Tor (he designed their logo) and the image is used by Liam Sharp elsewhere. So it seems legitimate. Is the problem that the released as free template has been depreciated or is it just that not enough information has been provided and there is nothing we can do about it? (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
- Seems orphanbot has been doing a few of these. Also:
- Image:David Goyer.JPG - not much information but it is clearly from a comic convention and it might be we can find it on Flickr (it looks similar to the ones Hiding found previously).
- Image:Marko2.jpg.
- I'll keep an eye out for more. (Emperor (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
- Seems orphanbot has been doing a few of these. Also:
- Six cleared from the 16th...
Tagged on Sept 18:- - J Greb (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Mra2.JPG (Emperor (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
- Three more cleared from the 16th...
Tagged on Sept 19:- Tagged on Sept 20:
Tagged on Sept 21:- And that should almost be current... - J Greb (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- The 16th is cleared... - J Greb (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The 17th is cleared...
- And everyone helping out please note: FairuseBot is tagging all images that are used in an article and don't have a related FUR. This include articles that have been moved with out the image FURs being updated.
- Also be aware that the 'bot is designed to run the same list 5 days later and remove the images from the articles and the tag from the image. This is even though the category and tag indicate that the images are supposed to be held for 7 days.
- When reviewing image listed here, please check the history for the 'bot erasing its work and check the tag the 'bot added to verify all articles associated to the image. Also check the articles. The mages are being removed boefore there is a fair chance for the images to be updated. - J Greb (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- The 16th is cleared... - J Greb (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Sept 22:- - 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- And the 18th is clear... - J Greb (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Sept 23:- - J Greb (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you guys using User:AWeenieMan/furme? Recently, a user tagged one of the (non comic) images I had added a long time. Image:Flirting Scholar DVD cover.jpg It had a rational, although it wasn't a very good one. I asked them why and in one minute they told me it wasn't sufficent, and in another minute they added a very fancy rational to it themselves. I don't know how to use furme myself, but it looks like with a bit of practice fancy FURs can be added in one or two minutes. Anyways, just thought you should know if you didn't already. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And that should clear it for now. - J Greb (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Batman templates being misused
Recently I noticed several of the templates just being placed on articles that don't need them. From the edit histories: it seems like TMC1982 is doing this on a regular basis. If anyone has time, look through Category:Batman templates and check what they link to. He's added them to anything loosely related to the subject. One example: Batman: Arkham Asylum, he added villain templates to it, just because they are in the game. Another: Penguins in popular culture: where the Penguin template was added, even though more than enough information about the villain is listed in the article already. Even though the templates have a hide feature, that doesn't mean they should be cluttering up every Batman (and in some cases: very loosely related) articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I brought this up before. I see at most a need for two templates: the main Batman one and the Batman in other media one. There's needs to be mass cleanup and deletions. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also I want to point out: I left a note on TMC's talk page. He replied on my talk with just an attack. So talking with him about the matter doesn't seem to help. Also from the looks of his talk page: he has had numerous issues with comic related images he has uploaded. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You did bring his up and the situation was pretty poor and it has clearly got worse as there have been a number of new ones dropped in all made by the same user:
- {{Riddler}} - started September 18 - contains question mark
- {{Two-Face}} - started September 18 - contains coin flipping
- {{Penguin (comics)}} - started September 22 - contains cigarette holder
- {{Mr. Freeze}} - started September 22 - contains cryogenics
- I see no reason why the lot shouldn't be put up for deletion.
- Note there is also {{Catwoman}} that was started by a different user back in March (seems to be the inspiration for the others) - I don't see any reason this shouldn't be included too.
- We can then return to fixing the others with a merge and a trim but that lot needs addressing asap. (Emperor (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
These templates are worthless, but I am too lazy to TFD them. The creator hasn't made much of a case for their utility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
All the Bat-villain templates (save perhaps Catwoman - who's had her own title, among other things) should be deleted. They're essentially a list of appearances in "other media/works", including television, films, and rollercoasters. (And some trival inclusions, as noted above. Wow, I called something included, trivial. It must really be bad...) What here isn't already in each main article? And is there any reason that the reader will need each of the members of each navbox to cross-linked to each other? No and no. Strong Delete. - jc37 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone put the templates up for deletion yet? I would do it, but the last time I tried multiple related AfD noms at the same time I was quite confused. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- It would be TfD not Afd... and I think they would have to be listed individually, not as a group. - J Greb (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know, I was just pointing out that nominating things for deletion is kind of a chore. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, we can actually have that discussion here. Then, based on the consensus of this discussion, they can be kept, merged, deleted, etc., or even put through the additional process of TfD, at the closer's discretion.
I'll start a new thread below. - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this project's consensus is to delete, so let's just take the lot to TFD. There's nowhere to merge, anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with giving this a bit of time. - jc37 04:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Time until what? We don't need to vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion. This is an encyclopedia project, not an exercise in parliamentary procedure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a "vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion". WikiProjects can hold consensual discussions on whether something should be deleted/moved/merged/whatever. (This is not uncommon.) Though, as I mentioned already, whoever closes the poll, may subsequently decide to list the templates at TfD based on the outcome of the poll. However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so. - jc37 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Except for the deleted part. None of these are tagged for deletion anywhere obvious. TFD is not ZOMG TEH ONLY WAY TO DELETE TEMPLATES, but the TFD process makes sure that we're not having discussions in non-obvious places. Just take these to TFD instead of strawpolling here, geez. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a "vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion". WikiProjects can hold consensual discussions on whether something should be deleted/moved/merged/whatever. (This is not uncommon.) Though, as I mentioned already, whoever closes the poll, may subsequently decide to list the templates at TfD based on the outcome of the poll. However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so. - jc37 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Time until what? We don't need to vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion. This is an encyclopedia project, not an exercise in parliamentary procedure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Repeating: "However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so." - jc37 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think all belong in templates for deletion as soon as possible. I've had issues nominating multiple things before, so hopefully someone else can do it. It would be a lot better than just discussing it here. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - all six (Joker has since been created) are up at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 2 - J Greb (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
past ops) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)- {{Riddler}} - started September 18
- {{Two-Face}} - started September 18
- {{Penguin (comics)}} - started September 22
- {{Mr. Freeze}} - started September 22
For reasons noted in the discussion directly above, these templates should be deleted.
(On the fence concerning Template:Catwoman, which should probably be a separate discussion.) - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all as nominator. - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. They serve insufficient navigational purpose relative to the potential precedent for clogging every villain's article with these boxes. Doczilla STOMP! 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all (including Catwoman), however, is this being listed as a TfD? If so we might as well wait for that and do it properly. Have the creators been informed this is happening here? Has it been flagged on those templates? (Emperor (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
Other templates
I ran across this today: {{NYX (comics)}} but don't know enough about the series to know if it is worthwhile. (Emperor (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
- Another one: {{WildCATs}} it is skimpy and I'm unsure if it is needed (all those links are covered just fine in the main article). See my suggestion below about asking people to propose making templates before they start them. (Emperor (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Referencing Who's Who and OHotMU
I know that actual content (images, etc.) from those is inappropriate due to previous concensus, but are they disallowed as primary/tertiary sources? - jc37 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the context and content... My understanding is that the "Don't use" bar extends to quantification of powers. That is, we shouldn't be sourcing "Runs at speeds of X", "Can lift X", etc from them since these are fluid based on story, writer, and editor.
- The same argument has been applied to the character history points that are only brought up in them. I'm a bit leery of that since all backstory elements are open to being ignored or retconned based on story needs or writer/editorial whim. If we're going for a "canon" history, then we're going to constantly be looking and asking "Does this point fit the characters most recent appearance?" of anything drawn from all primary sources.
- All of that said, there are some items that could be worked into the articles if the sections were pulled out of an "in story" POV. Spider-Man's ability to stick to walls comes to mind. Marvel didn't really give an in-story explanation of how the power worked prior to 1985. They created a very detailed on for the OHOTMU which, IIRC, was never really repeated afterwards. When the first movie came out, the explanation changed. If the power section's tone were changed, then using the OHOTMU material could be incorporated, ie "Writers have described the mechanics of his 'wall crawling' as...".
- - J Greb (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Did anyone ever manage to dig out the old discussion on this..? I think I remember asking last time round, and it not being easy to find... mind you, since I last asked about it, I've read the Hulk material in the Prelude to WWH TPB, and the power levels seem so utterly arbitrary as to definitely be pointless, because they simply don't make sense.
- But, it would never have occurred to me to use the Official Handbooks and Who's Whos for that kind of information. So, under J Greb's extrapolations, can I reasonably assume that OH and WW are acceptable sources - just not for comparative drivel, speeds, weights and eye coloring..? Certainly the character history summaries are helpful summations, and do include "behind the scenes" information (as evidenced above). Plus, if 'canon' is ever to be discussed (and it probably shouldn't be, but...), the official histories can definitely help arbitrate. ntnon (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify:
- Power benchmarks should not be referenced from the Handbook or Who's Who any more than "Character X is faster/stronger/smarter than character Y" comparisons should be supported from the primary sources. The benchmarks are mutable to the needs of the story and whim of the writer.
- Character histories may have elements that were first, or only, mentioned in the Handbook or Who's Who. In writing an in-story POV history (read "plot summary"), the primary sources should be used as cites/refs over the Handbook or Who's Who.
- Canon is a deadly topic since it can change on an editorial whim ("Brand New Day" or Crisis). The material in the Handbook and Who's Who may be decades out of date and no longer "correct" based on current stories. That alone makes them suspect as a standard for "canon".
- At best, the Handbook or Who's Who can be used to cite attempts by the publishers to have characters fleshed out. That's real world context and should be presented in that manner. So, a minor character that got a large write up in one would have that reflected in their publication history — "Marvel highlighted the character in 1988 with a listing in they Handbook which added details to the character's origin and laid the ground work for his appearance in Whatever the following year." Or a power that they finally "explained" would either go into the PH or force the "Powers & abilities" section in to a real world formation.
- - J Greb (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good explanations, J Greb; your last paragraph gives a good example of proper treatment. It's all a matter of resisting the urge to treat the Handbook as documenting what is "true" about the character. The Handbook is itself a work of fiction, which just uses the conceit of an encyclopedia format to feign factuality. Such entries are really just depictions of the characters no less than the narrative comic book stories. Postdlf (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- ntnon asked about previous discussion - there is quite a bit on using images from the OHOTMU (which should remain verbotten) but here is the more general discussion when this has cropped up (oldest first - I can't guarantee it is comprehensive as I just scooped these up from the "what links to" page): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Enjoy.
- Just to clarify:
- I think J Greb sums it up well though: We don't want things like stats but there are times it could help verify something and there are sometimes clarifications of the status of characters (see e.g. the fifth link above which about the names of the Nasty Boys) - I have just been noddling on Black Knight (comics)-related areas and was unsure where to fit in the Black Knight construct and if the comments are right (that the OHTMU says it is the earliest in-universe appearance of Merlin) then that could be useful. I am also unure about the status of the Black Knight shown in the Otherworld Saga (which ran in Marvel UK's Hulk Comic) - it is currently mentioned under Black Knight (Dane Whitman) but I am unsure if it was explicitly stated (I am missing quite a few issues - although he is listed separately here) and I suspect if it is ever to be clarified it may have to be done outside of the comics, presumably in the OHOTMU. So it could have its uses although we should be careful. (Emperor (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
How is this guy's last name pronounced? Van Skeever? Sky-ver? Siver like the sci in science? I know how it should be pronounced in the original German, but his family might have Anglocized or otherwise Americanized it along the way. Doczilla STOMP! 08:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- As per the truant synonym, apparantly: Skive/er.. (or, yes "Sky-ver"). Are you adding pronunciation bits, or just curious..? ntnon (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be worth adding pronunciation in if it isn't clear or they prefer something that isn't obvious (like Hyacinth Bucket). I find it helps when reading something and it could save someone from queuing for quarter of an hour only to walk away feeling like a proper bell end (not that it has even happened to me but it is the kind of thing I'd do given the opportunity). (Emperor (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
- Reply to Ntnon's question: For myself, I need to pronounce his name correctly when introducing him. For Wikipedia, it would be good to clarify the pronunciation when it' isn't clear. That way, Wikipedia can be a good source for the next person who needs to know how to pronounce it. What I hate is that I've been telling a family member that he's probably saying it wrong; if that article is right (thanks for that source!), he gets to nyah-nyah at me over it.Doczilla STOMP! 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't do an Eddie Campbell whatever you do. He reportedly spent so long practising Bill Sienkiewicz's surname that when the time came to introduce him he blanked on his first name. ;) Hiding T 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Reply to Ntnon's question: For myself, I need to pronounce his name correctly when introducing him. For Wikipedia, it would be good to clarify the pronunciation when it' isn't clear. That way, Wikipedia can be a good source for the next person who needs to know how to pronounce it. What I hate is that I've been telling a family member that he's probably saying it wrong; if that article is right (thanks for that source!), he gets to nyah-nyah at me over it.Doczilla STOMP! 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Page moves
Catiana and Set (serpent god) seem to have been moved without prior discussion? Just wondering what others thought about this. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The former might work if what they say in the edit summary is true (that she only used that name as a joke once in the first issue) but I don't read the series so... The latter is more mysterious, I suppose they might be right but it isn't a name mentioned anywhere in the article so I think that'd need some proof. (Emperor (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
- Interesting. Do we know which is the correct standard to be used for each? Any sources to point towards? 67.173.11.90 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is no cast iron rule that can be applied to every case and things like that come down to the names they are best known as.
- With Catiana, if the editor is right in their summary "She only called herself Catiana as a joke, revealed in the final issue when she judges herself. Should she stick with it, then we revert" [8] then it seems they are correct.
- Set (serpent god) is even trickier. The Appendix (which is usually pretty good on such things) gives Set's aliases as "Apep, Apocalypse, Father Set, the Great Serpent, Lotan, Leviathan, Ophion, Serpent God, Serpent Emperor of the Waters, Tiamat, Flood" [9] so the actually name is up for grabs I suppose. However, the article makes it clear he is often called variations on Set the demon god which makes it clear we should be aiming for some kind of Set (X) name - serpent god doesn't seem unreasonable (Father Set seems like some kind of honorific like His Holiness the Pope). I doubt we are going to find a title that suits everyone. The only alternative to the one we have is "Set (Conan)." (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
- I'm afraid there is no cast iron rule that can be applied to every case and things like that come down to the names they are best known as.
- Set (Marvel Comics)? :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Set is originally a Robert E. Howard creation that found its way into the Marvel Universe through the Marvel adaptations of the Conan stories so I don't think that would be an acceptable solution - the redirect is there because Set eventually became a Marvel character but it isn't a reflection of the characters creation and early history. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
- (to Emperor) which is why it was at Set (serpent god) in the first place, I imagine. Hmm, interesting. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Although her was mentioned in a REH story, the article is about the comics version of set almost exclusively. Unless DC or someone has a Set, we should use Set (Comics), else use Set (Marvel Comics). Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions it should be what's most recognizable to readers. Using Serpent God sounds like it would link to Set (mythology), although I guess he wasn't as snake like as I thought. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see it working - it is a character who appeared first in fiction and later appeared in comics and I think we should avoid disambiguating with a class based on either medium. I still don't see what is wrong with Set (serpent god) - it is accurate and flexible, if for some reason that isn't acceptable then... "Set (character)" perhaps? (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
- His only "appearance" in fiction as far as I can tell from the article was that Thoth-Amon was a follower of "the serpent god Set". I've read it, but not in a while. It sounds like Set doesn't appear in any REH books. It sounds like his first appearance is as a comic book villain unrelated to Conan. They then retconned the comic villain into a conan comic villain with the same name as mentioned in a REH book. It seems like he's a comics character all the way. Maybe Set did stuff the article doesn't mention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you are getting that information from - he appeared in a Conan story (this was in the days of pulp fantasy/sci fi anthologies so a lot of stories appeared in that form first) and then was introduced into the Marvel Universe via the Conan comics: "The "god" was later extensively used in Marvel Comics' various Conan series starting in the 1970s." (Emperor (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- His only "appearance" in fiction as far as I can tell from the article was that Thoth-Amon was a follower of "the serpent god Set". I've read it, but not in a while. It sounds like Set doesn't appear in any REH books. It sounds like his first appearance is as a comic book villain unrelated to Conan. They then retconned the comic villain into a conan comic villain with the same name as mentioned in a REH book. It seems like he's a comics character all the way. Maybe Set did stuff the article doesn't mention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Authors in comics categories
Is there any guideline about adding or removing authors from categories about their main works? E.g. Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel are not placed in any Superman related categories, meaning that when going through the Superman categories, you will not find their main creators (they are in the navbox, so it's not like people reading about Superman will not find them, but still...). Similarly, Edgar P. Jacobs is not in the Category:Blake and Mortimer. On the other hand, Bob Kane is in the Category:Batman and Hergé is in the Category:Tintin. I would support having main authors in either the main category for their creations, or in a dedicated subcategory (Superman authors or whatvere you would prefer), but some consistency would be good, and I'll rather not start adding lots of authors to categories only to hear afterwards that they should all be removed. Fram (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's a bone of contention, but there's nothing concrete in writing. I would prefer to have the main authors listed in the categories, certainly the creators, but other people feel that isn't what categories are for, and that the article or a navbox should suffice. It's complicated. You get into questions as to which creators should be listed, and why, and what the category structure is ultimately for. Hiding T 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)
- The consensus that came out of multiple CfDs was to not categorize "preformers by preformance" or "by employer" since the general trend for both is that there will be multiple categories attached to the bio articles. This leads to clutter in the category sections. This has gotten a broad interpritation, so categories like "Batman writers" and "Action Comics artists" are non-starters.
- Hergé is a good example of an exception — it's unlikely that he'll be catted outside of Tintin, or that others will be included there. Kane, Shuster, and Segel could be seen as pushing it. Their inclusion can be seen as opening up the Batman and Superman categories to the inclusion of other writers and artists. And look at Stan Lee and Jack Kirby for examples of just how many categories could wind up being added to the bio articles (count the navboxes).
- - J Greb (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. So basically only add it if the series is a major aspect of someone's life and series and author are closely associated with each other? It's basically what I had in mind, to add Jacobs to Blake and Mortimer but not to Tintin (he collaborated on it, so it would not be too farfetched, but they are not a major aspect of one another). Fram (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd tend to support the inclusion of important people in categories - a good guide for companies might be seeing who is in the founder or important people fields. I think it would be odd having a Marvel category without Stan Lee but think it would be distintly pushing it to include Bendis. (Emperor (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
Comics characters debut-year categories
A recent talk I had with User:Sesshomaru has had me questioning the way I've been adding these categories, so I thought I'd open up a question to other members of the project and see what they think.
Multiple-character entries
This is especially pertinent with DC Comics, which has so many legacy characters that re-use the same names over and over again, and for which we often combine into one entry for simplicity's sake and because they share histories. Take for example Bulletman and Bulletgirl. He debuted in 1940, she, the year after, in 1941. Solution 1 is to merely add both 1940 and 1941 debut categories to the same article. This is what I've been doing. I think the potential for confusion here is low, although it exists. The bonus to this solution is that it is simple and uncomplicated and requires no work other than the addition of the category to the article. The problem with this solution is that it is somewhat vague and unspecific. Solution 2 (which I think Sesshomaru leaned towards) is to add, in this case, the redirects Bulletman and Bulletgirl to the categories instead. This seems like not a terrible solution (in this case), but can potentially get very messy with, for example, characters like Clayface, which would require several new redirects to be created (e.g. Clayface (Basil Karlo)) to add to the category. (Basil Karlo is already a redirect, but if you saw that in a category with no context, who the hell would know who that was?) This solution is very specific, but means these categories would be filled with an uncommonly high percentage of redirects instead of actual articles. And the redirects would just send you to the same article you would have wound up at in the first place, with the same ultimate problem of having to read the entry to figure out which debut was meant.
Also--and I think this is the reason that puts the nail in the coffin of this solution--if the categories were on the redirects it would prevent access to the categories to people actually at the article. No good.
I, obviously, think solution 1 is the wiser course, but I don't think it's impossible to argue in favor of the second option, or an option I had not previously imagined.
- I suppose I'd tend towards the first option if it was just this issue, as the infobox/PH would quickly clarify who it refers to but there are other issues where you have a range of characters with their own categories. See e.g. Electro (comics) which has fictional robots and fictional communists, Timely Comics characters, etc. and you'd have to read through the article carefully to find out which is being referred to. I think we should consider such articles as if they were something like Ant Man, all of which have their own articles so the main article is kept stripped down (with an alias infobox rather than the full comic character one). In which case you could flag the categories that apply to the overall character (so the first appearance of the name for example) and establish redirects which could then hold the specific categories. So the article would still be categorised but with a more stripped down set of categories. The fact that you can categorise redirects is often overlooked but it is a useful tool that could help refine some of the categorisation. (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- Some thoughts...
- I can see the positive to the redirect solution, but it really is just a half step. So id just linking the articles with multiple versions. Ideally both would have the links. Using Clayface as an example:
- The article would be catted into 1940, 1961, 1978, 1987, and 2003
- Clayface (Basil Karlo) would cat to 1940 and point to the Basil Karlo section
- Clayface (Matt Hagen) would cat to 1961 and point to the Matt Hagen section
- Clayface (Preston Payne) would cat to 1978 and point to the Preston Payne section
- Clayface (Sondra Fuller) would cat to 1987 and point to the Sondra Fuller section
- Clayface (Johnny Williams) would cat to 1940 and point to the Johnny Williams section
- It may wind up with a few double appearances in the cats, but it allows the best functionality. And the sorting should wind up with the redirect under the article.
- And as Emperor points out, is a character is split off into its own article, the cat should be removed from the "hub" article, so articles like Atom (comics) would have some but not all and those like Huntress (comics) would have none, or at best one.
- - J Greb (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is an interesting approach, and even though it creates some extra steps, it probably is the best fix from a functionality standpoint. Ford MF (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good example - it shows how it can be very handy for two characters of the same name in one year. It also makes linking much simpler and when linking to sections it makes it easier to update the single redirect rather than trying to hunt down links (worth placing a comment in the section too so that editors know they should update the redirect and that there is a redirect they can use). Also remember it is worth adding a redirect reason (I have a little list of the common ones I use) so in the case above you might also add {{R to section}}.
- This could also be used for different series (handy if they are in different formats - graphic novels, one-shots, limited series, ongoing) although we'd need to come up with a system for the naming (based on films or TV series going by the starting year: "Justice League of America (1987 comics" or something similar. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Debateable first appearances
And what about those rare characters who are mentioned before they're actually in the comic? Take, for example, Foxglove (DC Comics), who is spoken of as early as 1989, but isn't on-panel until 1991. In this case I'm inclined to take "first appearance" to literally mean just that: the first time the character is, in some sense "there", that is, present in some way on panel. (I don't want to say "the first time we see the character" because this could trip up in the case characters normally invisible, or, say, cosmic entities that don't ordinarily or at first have physical form.
So...thoughts? Ford MF (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think you'd have to go with actual appearance as just being mentioned in the text could be vague and open to interpretation - I suppose some first appearances might (for example if they appeared in the background in a scene) but they will be rare and is something you could either find a source on or thrash out on the talk page and come to a consensus. As in the foxglove article it is worth flagging this issue in place that allow more flexibility. (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- I tend to agree with that... and care should be take with "behind the scenes" comments from annotators or writers.
- There are also two other categories that will cause problems:
- Last page/one panel cameos
- Obscured appearances
- Personally, I take the last page cameos as the "first appearance", period. That's when the character is first revealed or "put into play".
- The other though is harder. Some characters are presented as "teasers" leading up to the reveal — only a shoulder or hand shown, always in shadows, only a voice over a phone, and so on. More often than not, I'd say those "count" when trying to pin down the first appearance, but there's always the "How do we know that really was the character?" hanging over them.
- - J Greb (talk)
- I asked for comments on a related/identical issue here a little while ago, but it got sidelined because I was also asking about the multiverses... Simply: some characters "debuted" in comics that were not printed, distributed or generally ever seen - so should those count? Does the proto-Captain Marvel (which alternate name, secret identity, etc.) from Whiz #1 - which barely exists anyway - matter? Does Motion Picture Funnies Weekly "count" for Namor? Surely not. ntnon (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Short answer? Yes, ashcans count. Yes, Motion Picture Funnies Weekly counts. These are publications printed to secure the rights for the characters, so they are where the characters first appeared.
- Keep something firmly in mind, a good chunk of the comic book characters currently in use don't have clear "reboot" points". At best, retconed in "alts" or "variants" have an identifiable "1st appearance". For example:
- Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27 (1939), that covers the character appearing up to the current day because the Earth-One, post-Crisis, post-InfiniteC, and post-ZH versions don't have clean start points. The only variant that does is the Earth-Two version: Justice League of America #82 (1970) - A version created get the writers out of a continuity mess.
- Captain America was only one version, starting with Captain America Comics #1 only until someone pestered about the stories from between 1945 and 1964. Writers then "inserted" other character: William Naslund (The Invaders #14 (1977) made a Cap for the mid `40s in the same year); Jeffrey Mace (Human Torch Comics #4 (1941) made a cap for the late `40s in 1977); and the "Grand Director" (Captain America #153 (1972) filling in the 1950s Atlas stories).
- There are others that follow this same pattern. It's best if "first appearance" means just that, the first appearance of the character, period. No attempts made to apply current continuity. - J Greb (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7
Hey there! :) It's not too late to put some work into discussing getting things done for the Wikipedia 0.7 release. Check out the articles that have been selected so far from the comics project. BOZ (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Storm - good article?
Hey, I was wondering... on the talk page for Storm (Marvel Comics), it is listed as an A-class article for the comics project, fine. However, there is also a note about it being a GA for Language and literature - so, should we have it rated as an A or a GA? BOZ (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well A is better than GA but I am not 100% sure if the A class review has been done properly and I think someone who is more experienced in these should look it over. It went for FA but failed and it seems some of the comments have been taken on board it is just the actual review process that I am unsure about.
- Seems it could be one that could be polished up to FA standard fairly easily though - might be worth another shot. (Emperor (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
- I'm always confused on that one - so A is better than GA, or the other way around? :) I'm have other plans, as mentioned here, but yeah getting more FAs would also be nice for our project. 10 is good, but we have plenty of potential for more! :) BOZ (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- A-class is above GA class. Speaking of more comics FAs, if when I'm done with the Watchmen FAR anyone wants to work on The Dark Knight Returns, I'm game. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Great - the more, the merrier. :) I'm going to try to get as many comics articles up to GA as I can manage, and we can work on getting more to FA from the other end. BOZ (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Could you (Wesley) put up with me helping out again..?! ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- A-class is above GA class. Speaking of more comics FAs, if when I'm done with the Watchmen FAR anyone wants to work on The Dark Knight Returns, I'm game. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm always confused on that one - so A is better than GA, or the other way around? :) I'm have other plans, as mentioned here, but yeah getting more FAs would also be nice for our project. 10 is good, but we have plenty of potential for more! :) BOZ (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Superman's dad is dead...again"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/08/supermans.dad.ap/index.html
Just thought this would be amusing to the project members, and helpful to trot out in the next inevitable debate about why fictional deaths should not be categorized or why "canon" is ephemeral. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
List of Spider-Man Bibliographies
According to one of article's talk pages, the issue has come up before, but unfortunately there is no link to the discussion. So, do we really need both a List of Spider-Man comics and a Bibliography of Spider-Man titles? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- These cover the exact same ground, and have probably 90% the same text; someone should do a careful merge. I would expect list of Spider-Man comics is the preferred title? Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has removed the personal information from James Robinson (comics) claiming to be James Robinson (although confusingly using the user name Terrysloan) the first one being reverted by another SPA named Robinsonfamily. For example: [10] [11]. Note also that other WP:BLP-violating material was added earlier by an anon IP which was removed [12] (they also corrected some other details which might be treated as suspect too).
I have dropped them a note on their talk page (although I'd appreciate someone double checking to make sure I've covered the bases) and while it is being sorted out what is really needed are more eyes on the page to make sure the version is kept to the one that lacks the personal details until this is resolved. (Emperor (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Proposed renaming of indie comics categories
See Categories for discussion entries here, pertaining to Category:Indie comic characters, Category:Indie comic creators, and Category:Indie comics. Postdlf (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comics supporting characters categories nominated for merging
Category:DC Comics supporting characters and Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters; see CFD here. Postdlf (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Note that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board#Deletion_discussions. (I'll freely admit to being lax lately about adding.) - jc37 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statistics Issue
There's been a discussion going on for a while over at the Powers and abilities of the Hulk page regarding the use of statistics. A few months ago, and later a few weeks ago, I removed stats taken from an old Marvel RPG from the article and User:David A is obviously an advocate of them. I believe he is the one the posted them to begin with. His most recent post on the article's discussion page suggests that he's trying to play word games with the policy. statistics rule He's trying to claim that since the rule uses the word "discourage" rather than "forbidden" that it should be circumvented. I know that nothing is set in stone here, but it seems to me that the project obviously doesn't want them included, otherwise that particular rule wouldn't exist in the first place. Now, while he hasn't placed any of the stats into the article yet, I just have a feeling that it's a matter of time before he does. I can't say for certain that he will or if he's just trying to make a point. However, he strikes me as an editor that wants things the way he wants them regardless of policy or consensus. Maybe I'm being too rough on the guy but I've tried reasoning with him but his responses tend to become these excrutiatingly long rants about whatever he thinks is wrong with Wikipedia.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, a few things. I don´t use sockpuppets, _ever_. I find them vile, weasel-y, and thoroughly dishonourable. The eternal bane of Wikipedia. A few times I have been unwillingly logged out, but always try to make a specific edit note when this happens. The ip likely doesn´t even match my area. Someone else clumsily reinserted part of my old addition without even referencing itn. Second, I am not trying to "play wordgames". I am trying to check through the oft-cited regulation and say exactly what I read it as. Third you didn´t even bother informing me about bringing our discussion (?) here. Fourth I was waiting for you to read through the regulation, and respond, and wasn´t about to insert anything until that agreement. Fifth you hardly did a fair and balanced summary of my points. It´s about the entire section going into the same observations I had done on previous occasions, and additionally your recent explanation of why it was established (because most p and a sections turned into copies of the handbook). That the concerns are to not overquote to the point of copyright infringement, and to cite contradictory sources since fiction isn´t set in stone). Additionally, as I´ve noted previously it doesn´t make any sense to specifically exclude 2nd-3rd part references when the rest of Wikipedia favours them, given that they are approved by editorial. It´s stated in the regulation text that it´s ok to use handbook references if contrasted with contradictions in the works themselves. Meaning, this page is so extremely referenced from many 1st hand sources that it more than balances out. This in conjunction with avoiding to say that it is forbidden, made me draw the conclusion that it´s deliberate, i.e. a sensible regulation that can allow minor irregularities if this is warranted, in this case because it´s the only source I know of that establishes some kind of upper limit, and to get rid of the frequent "unlimited strength" inserts. As for the ´rambling´, I´m add and Asperger, as I think you are aware. I tend to consider several patterns at once in jumbled order, but make an effort to be thorough and honest when doing so. Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- ....why is there a "powers and abilities" page? That surely flies in the face of the guidance against using statistics and 'facts' and the like. However, if it serves a valid purpose, then surely that is one of the few cases where RPG and OHOTMU stats should actually have a viable home. Perhaps. ntnon (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Short answer? I believe it was to get the edit warring over a major "fansite"-esque section moved away from the main article. It worked to a degree, but... - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- More like that the section turned far too long, that creating a separate page was the best way to keep everyone happy, and that there existed a precedent of various far less well-reference P&A pages. The Superman page is littered with thin air claims for example, while this one is almost exclusively matter-of-fact. Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Short answer? I believe it was to get the edit warring over a major "fansite"-esque section moved away from the main article. It worked to a degree, but... - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't part of the discussion on the wording of those guidelines (as far as I can recall anyway) and my interpretation is that we shouldn't use them. The reason it doesn't say "forbidden" is that there may some unforeseen exception to this that wasn't envisioned when those guidelines were drawn up so I assume they didn't want to hinder legitimate use if someone ever came up with one. I don't see this being an exception an they shouldn't be used here.
- Powers and abilities are a real pain as they are kind of assumed to be common knowledge so are unreferenced but adding in stats isn't the answer. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
- Then why does it say that it´s ok to use minor stats inserts if contrasted with other sources? Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- That page shouldn't exist - it's a really long winded way of saying "the hulk is really strong and hard to kill" supported by cherry-picking the examples that support that reading. Should be merged. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Given that you´re a 1-sday account, somehow familiar with the Wikipedia community, and specifically target the by far most well-referenced powers and abilities page, that literally screams "sockpuppet" to me, but then I´m a paranoid sort based on automatically putting a large enouggh amount of previous experiences into pattern. In any case, the powers/feats/irregularities etc are an extremely prominent part of the character and its history, as is displayed on the page, and a massive amount of work has been done to gather it. A whole lot of viewers enjoy the feature, virtually everything is matter-of-fact referenced, and nobody is forcing anybody to read it. If they want the light version they are free to simply visit the main Hulk page. It´s quite strange that anyone would even be interested in suddenly specifically censoring/deleting it. Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed - the whole thing is a nightmare. The section is a real magnet for unsourced opinion and original research and if there is any specific section that is going to ruin a B-class assessment for an article it is the powers and abilities one (the only section that could attract more of this is "parodies and homages" but few pages have them thankfully). Such sections should be kept trimmed back hard to what can be demonstrated in the comics and, while I understand the reason for splitting off that section it is really just shuffling the problem off somewhere that it can fester and grow. Is there any chance we can take this out into the back paddock and put it out of its misery? Or has the monster got completely out of control and will no longer go back in the cage? (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
- It's completely over the top, we are not a marvel encyclopaedia, we give a general overview of his powers in the main article and that's IT. We do not get into "greatest feats" and the like because it's not important to us and place the character in a real world context and why he is important as a cultural figure. The article should be trimmed down to the bones and then merged back into the main article. We are not writing for fans (and I AM one). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I believe J Greb is right about that. The P&A section of the Hulk article was becoming an article unto itself. It was in a near constant state of edit war. I agree that it's worked to a certain degree, but the P&A of the Hulk article really has become more of an homage to the Hulk than anything else. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see it merged, I'd support it. I questioned the need for it overall on at the article's discussion page after it was first created. To be honest, I don't think the page really attracts all that much vandalism any more and edit wars seem to be nonexistent. After I deleted the stats for the second time, I added it to my watchlist and traffic has been very light. People might be browsing it, but there's been very little editing. I think that it'd go quietly into that good night except for one factor, User:David A. As I said, I believe most of the content in the article has been placed there by him and it's kind of a baby of his. Just be prepared for an advanced tutorial of Ranting and Raving 101.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I think the point is, we should *never* create sub-articles because it's an easier road but because it would result in a quality article. I don't think that is an example of a quality article and I don't think one could result from it's continued existence. I've set up the merge template but I actually think it should be stubbed there before being merged into the main article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can we have a bit more input? David A has removed the tags on the basis that it's "censorship" - how it's censorship to have a discussion about something is beyond me... --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Discussion", when I and User:Sesshomaru weren´t even informed? When most of the ´discussion´ I´ve seen is personal attacks, misrepresentations, false accusations in my absense, offhandedly conceited and extremely exaggerated offensive loose claims that it´s a "nightmare" and "should be put to sleep" (which makes little sense given the lack of references and low content for many other start-class character pages), and the first I hear of it when a completely new account suddenly inserts an overkill deletion tag, and doesn´t care about any of the other far less referenced pages? It´s a nice expansion, and intended as a complementary thorough information-source based on the entire history of the character. A lot of care has been put into inserting as many references as possible to make it reliable and fun for many fans of the character. It doesn´t force any casual fan to read it. It most definitely doesn´t harm anyone (beyond possibly a few fans of other characters, but I´ve said before that they could create similar pages to even it out). If someone actually has a burning motivation to specifically delete accurate information, when we´ve already handled this in the past, by ensuring that a ´discussion´ takes off in a very uniform attack pattern before any counter can be made by the involved editors (in my case tired and busy elsewhere) and even makes his first edits for this very purpose, and completely disregarding the amount of work put into it simply because ´it´s too exaggerated´ then yes, I honestly read the motivation behind that action as getting rid of information one is uncomfortable with, but I had this situation suddenly thrown on me at an inappropriate time, and tend to pattern incidents after sufficient similar experiences (as OB has noted Wikipedia people have started to flow together/turn hard to keep distinct for me), so I may misinterpret it. Dave (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can we have a bit more input? David A has removed the tags on the basis that it's "censorship" - how it's censorship to have a discussion about something is beyond me... --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- when I and User:Sesshomaru weren´t even informed? I did when I added the tags, I'm not required to message individuals, that's the whole purpose of the tags. In addition, you seem to have a WP:OWN problem. It's irrelevant if it's "inappropriate" for you because we operate as a community not on an individual basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- That particular point mostly related to me and OB habving a discussion, and him going off and misrepresenting my words in an official matter without informing me. What applies to you is making your first edit a few days ago, suddenly specifically fanatically attacks this page as your ´first´ thing to do, instantly quotes multiple regulations, and use terms like "we" and "community", while apparently only being concerned with "requirement"/regulation-calculation rather than honourable conduct. Meaning, excepting if JJonz was overtly cyberstalking me again, my sockpuppet alarm couldn´t ring louder, and I´d seriously like someone to ipcheck you before your agitation should be granted any merit, and if confirmed perm-ban all aliases. That said, no this isn't a community decision, just the few people who choose to focus on the topic, due to taking the opportunity when a mostly unrelated matter was brought up. There should also always be _very considerable_ reasons to actually delete an already created page, not simply _your_ personal convenience. Deletion-sprees are almost always driven by an agenda, and yes are generally complete overreactions, rather than, if necessary, gathering people to help restructure or improve the quality. Dave (talk)
- General comments:
- Removing maintenance tags without addressing them is considered vandalism (see {{uw-tdel1}} through {{uw-tdel4}}). The exception being a PROD.
- Merge tags are maintenance tags.
- Since the merge tag points to, or should point to, a talk page discussion of the merge, removing it can stink of ownership of the article.
- This is in addition to being it's own brand of censorship. Remember, consensus can change, especially when new eyes look at an article. If you feel that there is a recent, solid consensus to keep the Hulk P&A article, provide a link to it within the context of the current discussion.
- Clean-up: It's isn't proper to redact an article that you've tagged for merger or deletion before a consensus to merge or delete is reached. There is some latitude here for copy editing and items that are blatant violations of policy and some guide lines.
- Dave, is the above sufficient or do you need a formal warning dropped on you talk page regarding the tag removal, ownership, civility, and biting issues?
- - J Greb (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- General comments:
- Removing the tag was because the first thing I saw was yet another suddenly popped up/´new´ editor inserting a lot of changes and getting into an edit-conflict with Sesshomaru. I wouldn´t have done so if it was an editor I didn´t seriously believe to be a troll or sockpuppet specifically targetting the page for personal reasons. As for the civility, you´ll note that false claims, derogatory conceit, and insults were first levelled in mt direction and in my absence. This, along with an extremely suspicious just-created identity seemed extremely dishonourable to me. Why is that acceptable when taking note of this and honestly defending myself instantly gets a reaction? I really can´t get this kind of ´fortright honesty is worse than mean-spirited deceit´ kind of thinking. It doesn´t make sense to me. Dave (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't lie - I am not involved in any edit-conflict - he didn't like how I'd worded something, so I reworked it and that was the end of it. In addition, I notice that today he's reverted a lot of changes of mine but I haven't reverted them back, you cannot have edit-conflict with only one editor. Please stick to the facts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lie? As you most likely know given your overstated/repeated smugly taunting use of the words "lie" and "please" in both edit-history and thread, I´m the straightforward but observant type, who finds deceit akin to swimming in filth, so no, I get plenty of things wrong and am apt to jump to conclusions based on my observations, but lying is very alien to me. There are plenty of deletion-tags in the Ranma section that I don´t want there, but let be unless it was something we had already handled in the Talk, such as the use of images, which seemed to be the case here as well: something long over and done with that yet another sockpuppet-troll inserts without foundation. I also don´t see how seeing this and this in conjunction with the recurrent patttern of 'new' (usually JJonz) users or ips 'suddenly' deciding to attack the page, and trusting Sesshomaru´s judgement, and making a conclusion while not knowing that this thread already existed should somehow be a lie. On the other hand you still haven´t responded about creating an identity right before to attacking this page, or being able to quote Wikipedia policy, find this community page, while putting on a familiar "we in the community" tone etc. Dave (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dave:
- Add assuming good faith to that list. And in all honesty, if Cameron Scott were just working with HP&A, there might be grounds for your concerns about a single purpose account. He isn't so there really isn't.
- As for Cameron's comments with the content of the article, I'm sorry, I don't see a level of incivility there, nor is there a personal attack since the primary concern is the content of the article.
- The "in my absence" line is troubling. Bluntly, any editor can edit any article or seek advise from any one else without having to "check in" first. Editing articles that you have touched or asking for second or third opinions about the content of them is not restricted to when you are available to be informed. And the only guidelines that point to informing editors about taggings are with:
- Dave:
- None of these is the case here.
- - J Greb (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1) He is a supposedly new editor that just set up an account, did 1 previous edit, then suddenly decided to visit the community page and get an agenda against a page with a history of people using temporary identities and ips against it, while displaying experience with local jargon. It's easy enough to do a few simultaneous edits on the side to avert more blatant/self-proving suspicion in the JJonz style. In a way at least JJonz is usually honest about being dishonest, which at least from one angle probably makes him a nicer person than the people who try to keep it under wraps.
- 2) First OB said that I was the one who reposted the stats, and that it was likely only a matter of time before I re-added them, which is inaccurate. We discussed the original removal in my own talk page, and while I completely disagreed with the rationale it's not like I was heavily invested. (Edit: I reread the sentence, and he may simply have meant that he thinks I was the one who originally inserted them long ago, which I've consistently stated outright, and is completely correct, but I allowed him to remove them.) Much later someone reinserted part of it, and I noticed the following Talk discussion. There were some misunderstandings (editing from the mobile tends to make me grumpier than usual, since it's clumsy and frequently erases what I write), but I decided to seek out the regulation, and found that it didn't seem nearly as heavy-handed as usually described. Then there was the "playing wordgames" bit, which is also inaccurate, and would be extremely out of character. I read it as I see it. Then he misrepresented my argument by saying that I only had one point, and didn't inform me so I could defend myself. Then there was an editor who had only done 1 previous edit who extremely oddly suddenly decided to get an agenda at the community page, and was far too familiar with regulations and jargon to be new. Then my efforts with the page were called a "nightmare", filled with OR (this is something I've made an effort to keep aways, as it's far more well-referenced and matter-of-fact than any other powers page), that it would somehow ruin the ordinary Hulk page, a "problem" that "festers and grows", should be "put out of its misery", a "monster" "out of control" that should go back to its cage, "completely over the top", that it should "go quietly into that good night", that I am a major problem of "ranting and raving 101" (this when he is aware of my problem to keep things concise, and going behind my back). Additionally 'Cameron' had preivously said that I used "weasel words" for direc tly quoting the handbook to get rid of the frequent "virtually unlimited strength" inserts.
- 3) "In my absense" means that OB and I were in the middle of a discussion. I patiently waited for feedback, and then I find out that he's gone away to singlehandedly present the case in an unfair manner without informing me by finding out that this has caused the page to be up for deletion. Not 'being obliged to' do something doesn't mean that it isn't dishonourable to go behind my back, but I suppose that he didn't intend to push getting the page deleted. Dave (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dave: Removing someone else's comments is not a "minor" edit by any stretch. Please be more careful when you're fixing typos in your own comments. - J Greb (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- - J Greb (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be unhelpful to the Hulk article to merge all this stuff back. The powers article could be cut down to about half the size of its current obesity, but it's a reasonable fork.
As for RPG/OHOTMU statistics, however, I don't think their use is supportable AT ALL, in any context, on Wikipedia. It's essentially the same argument that prevents us from using artwork from those sources, that is, because we would be competing with that product and reducing the value of its source, however slightly. The stats in RPG books are the product. They assess characters as having certain stats for purposes of playing the game. They are not encyclopedic references, and should not be used as such. Period. Ford MF (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What was an issue was to use 1-3 sentences stating that the Hulk has had a maximum defined in an official source, state a few other characters to give a rough scale, and use nothing else whatsoever, while following the conduct described by the regulation of using conflicting 1st source references to contrast with. That's it. Dave (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've now made an effort to create a better and more compressed internal structure, along with deleting a bunch or duplicate or redundant references. Help to beautify the language flow and structure is appreciated. I also still don't think it would hurt to write in the stated upper strength limit, but it's not all that important. I also wonder about the image policy. I thought each page was allowed 5 images maximum or similar? Are 3 in total (1 each for the main sections) too much now? Dave (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- About the image...
- The policy points that generally affect comics articles are:
- WP:NFCC#2 - (short form) Replication of original use. This is why there's the "no go" comments about using profile page art. The OHOTMU is/was sold as a reference guide, the image commissioned for it were made for the purpose of illustrating Marvel's reference product. We cannot reuse them for the same purpose.
- WP:NFCC#3 - (short form) Limited number, limited use. This is where the normal "no more than 5-8 images" comes from. But it also addresses how the images are used, so that if there is already an image in the article illustrating a point, additional images doing the same cannot be added.
- WP:NFCC#8 - {short form) A significant point and significant in helping the reader to understand the point.
- These work hand in hand. So, yes, an article can have a "reasonable" limited number of non-free images. But those images must not be in conflict with NFCC#2, must not be redundant, and the must be a case where the lack of the image will significantly hinder a reader's understanding. For the Hulk P&A article, the only image that really meets/met these criteria is the one in the "Healing Factor" section. For the rest, the article text is sufficiently clear.
- - J Greb (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair use of scans
There are many character pages that don't have an image, and it seems fitting to scan an appropriate page or panel (for example, panel of first appearance) and upload it. I often come upon instances in which I can easily do it, but am not sure about copyright status. Does that fall under fair use? Patchwor (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on the image, but usually it's OK if no free equivalent is available and if the image is lo-res enough that it cannot harm the original publisher. Consult WP:NFC for full details, and make sure you give it a careful and thorough reading! Also, make sure you add a justification to the images page for EVERY page that the image is used on. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- A few other things...
- The Comics Project has a pair of refs that are relevant:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Guideline especially the "Images which cannot be 'fair use'" section
- - J Greb (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Patchwor (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Fictional character biography
As I'm sure you've all noticed a robot has changed "Fictional character biography" to "Character's background" apparently based on WP:WAF. However, I can't seem to find the justification there. If this is something we need to do then we will need to change WP:CMC/X, although I can't see this being a better solution personally. (Emperor (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
- It is also breaking links - see the last change here. So keep an eye out for this too. (Emperor (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
- Tenebrea and I both left notes on the 'bot's handler's talk page.
- Also of note:
- The 'bot is creating links out of "fictional character" everywhere. So it's likely there are some article where thephraes is linked in 2 or more times.
- It's been misspelling "background" in every one of its edits.
- - J Greb (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
My bot is reverting the last edits. Check my page for relevant discussion. My sincere apologies. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of a different policy in this project. I still believe that "Character's background" is better because "biography" is connected with real world. Moreover, many editors outside the Wikiproject Comics are influenced and use the same term for fictional characters appearing in TV shows. My apologies again for my last edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt correction of this but can you direct me to the discussion you based this on? I checked the talk page archives at WP:WAF back a few months and didn't spot anything relevant. It is, obviously, a discussion some of us would have liked to have input into to make sure we get a decision that works across the various affected areas. (Emperor (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC))
- Check Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive 9. Bignole, DGG are commenting that the use of word "biography" is misleading. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of people's comments aren't sufficient grounds for rampant robo-editing without first finding out if greater consensus already exists. Doczilla STOMP! 10:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know that. I had no intent to skip the consensus and I am sorry for the upset I caused. Read above. I corrected my yesterday' s mistake immediately. Now the discussion is not about the edits but if the use of "Fictional character biography" is appropriate or not". -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of people's comments aren't sufficient grounds for rampant robo-editing without first finding out if greater consensus already exists. Doczilla STOMP! 10:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Check Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive 9. Bignole, DGG are commenting that the use of word "biography" is misleading. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"Character's background" doesn't have the right connotation; it implies a backstory or origin as opposed to the sum total of events that has been portrayed in the stories. Can we get a third idea? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are right. "Character's background" is more like "Early life". In Tv series we also use "Storylines" or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A new way forward
There are several such lists. The problem is that while we can use the primary sources to determine that the characters were adversaries to the hero(es) in question, in most cases, we can't use primary sources to determine "main", "major", or "minor", as that would be WP:OR.
And so splitting the lists of adversaries up by any of those three terms would also be WP:OR.
We need to find another way to present these characters.
Appearance in only one comic or even one story arc? But what if we consider the lifespan of the Bat-universe a single over-reaching story arc?
One thing is clearm however, the constant editorial reversions for which editor has what preference to whether their favourite character may be a main, major, or minor "villain", needs to stop.
And I think that the fault is ours for not nipping this presentation issue in the bud.
So right now, I'm looking for "outside the box" ideas and suggestions for how to present these lists. - jc37 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Short observations:
- I agree, the constant "my fave" shuffling in the list articles and navboxes and any where a list of characters happens to be needs to stop. the same with "padding" the navboxes and "examples" lists.
- If we are going to go with "major", the sourcing should avoid both the "poll driven" and "fan pandering" lists.
- The same goes for "fundamental", "primary" and/or "pivotal".
- "Recurring" and "one-shot" have inherent problems: There will be movement out of the "one-shot" list and it can wind up including "pivotal" foes — Spider-Man's Burglar for example.
- Sorting also needs to be set, either alphabetical or chronological. Both remove the POV arguments, though they may be hard sells...
- - J Greb (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Outside the box solutions? Delete the lists (with a transwiki to the relevant Wikia entries)? Important foes will be mentioned in the relevant articles but these lists have unclear inclusion criteria: Do we include every enemy from every Bat comic? What about the ones who pop up fighting various heroes and have happened to cross paths with one of the Batman family? How few appearances count? There have been numerous Bat Family titles running in parallel for decades and often had a new villain pop up never to appear again and to try and include all of them is the road to madness. So there appear to be two criteria at work: exclusively Batman and number of appearances but I am unsure how strictly these are being applied.
- Let's look at Flash: His Rogues (comics) are a reasonably well-defined "group" but List of Flash enemies seems to be... some others.
- I'm sure I could dig out my Bat comics and find some villain in there who isn't on the list and I'm not clear why we include those we have and not some other enemy.
- Sort lists
alphabeticallychronologically, that way you are establishing a narrative. How to split the list is a little more problematic. My first thought is to use summary style, but that may be hard to implement. Basically, you have a top level list which summarises foes for which a number of sources exists, in chronological order. This list is supported by a further alphabetical list of all foes. Basically we then just need to keep tabs that any given foes entry is given its due weight. And if there is no name in the comic, then there's no list entry, so someone who snapped the aerial on the Batmobile isn;t counted. Someone who stole the tyres from the Batmobile is a little more interesting... Of course, to open a can of worms, define "foe". Batman versus Superman? But then with a good lead to the list, you'd explicitly state that: while superheroes are often pitted against each other, the purpose of this list is to... and footnote entries like Azrael or Anarky if we include them. Hiding T 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should think about listifying based upon a publication rather than by protagonist? So List of characters appearing in Detective Comics?
- Or the broader: List of characters appearing in Batman Family-related comics.
- The problem is that several characters (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) have been the main protagonist in a lot of titles. How do we say that concisely in a list name? (In order to prevent multiple mostly duplicative lists of characters - between Batman, and Detective Comics, for example.) - jc37 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Another option might be to take a page from Dick Tracy. As Emperor notes above, The Flash has a "Rogues gallery". So do several other heores.
- The problem becomes, obviously, defining the rogues gallery for each character, without straying into WP:OR. - jc37 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd imagine something official has defined the rogues (see discussion above for things like the OHTMU) and googling Batman and rogues I see there has been a Batman Rogues action figure line so somewhere someone must have a list. There is a list at UGO [13] and that is pretty much the list I'd come up with for Batman's rogue. Worth noting that the DC Database Project page is better than the one we have (IMHO naturally) [14] and if we could trim it down to just the Rogues I'd not have a problem with linking on to that if people want more. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
- Why is this still an issue? The shuffling a while back into 'mob', 'vital' 'semi-important' and 'other' (not the best terms, probably not the used terms, but effectively the correct terms) should have put this to rest. There will always be people pushing their favorites and making the case for moving up, down and sideways, but... so what? There's always well-meaning innacuracies put all over the place; Points of view pushed with or without tangible logic; rampant vandalism and stupidity. That's (unfortunately) what happens.
- The template should have been locked down ages ago. It's not original research; it's common sense. It's obvious. The only slight bones of contention are whether Bane, Harley, Croc, Hatter and Clayface have any business approaching Joker, Catwoman, Screcrow, Riddler, Two-Face, Penguin, Ivy, Ra's and Freeze. And the ultimate answer is: no. Those nine are known by everyone - comics fans, TV fans, film-fans, (some) non-comics fans. Joker and Catwoman streets ahead. Ivy, Ra's and Freeze pulling up the rear. Catwoman is a foe (and sometimes a friend/antihero/hero). Azrael isn't Batman, and BETTY KANE (Batgirl) HAS NEVER BEEN FLAMEBIRD! They're two different iterations. Fix it up; lock it down. End of problem.
- If other editors want to complain and argue for, say, Black Mask, they're welcome to - here, or on the discussion page of the Template. Any consensus can see an admin-person unlock, add and re-lock. Is that not reasonable...? With very few exceptions, I don't see that most people have any business editing the templates - the pages are fair game, but (most) templates shouldn't change much, or have new sources shed new light on things, or be seriously lacking in any areas.
- ...and that's only very slightly a sarcastic suggestion. ;o)
- As for the villains page - chronological or alphabetical might seem sensible, but are actually going to cause horrendous difficulties. For chronological, you'll be left with a list wherein you won't be able to find anyone unless you know their date of orign - or unless each has a separate section, and then the navigation box will allow them to be found more easily (barely). That would be unworkable, because the page would be impossibly cramped. In order to find the 'main' villains/foes (and they are the MAIN villains/foes), they'd need to be bolded or underlined - and that would put it back in the same situation of OR accusations.
- Alphabetical is even less workable. THE RIDDLER - R, (t), N or E? TWEEDLEDUM & TWEEDLEDEE - T or D? KILLER CROC - K, C, W or J? And whichever you pick, you'll need: a) Exceptions, and b) A lengthy explanation of how it might possibly be possible to find whomever you're looking for. Now, even the recent Batman Encyclopedia ran into this problem: TALIA was not under "T". Neither was she under "A"(Al Ghul) or "G"(Al Ghul). She was under "H". For "Talia Head". Ridiculous. And without even any notes or redirects... (Incidentally, the template is fouled up alphabetically-wise for the "supporting" folk - a bizarre hybrid of forenames and surnames combining to make the order seem, perhaps, importance-related. And even then, highly dubious...)
- (And based on publication would be an entirely different kind of farce - debut or most appearances? Most appearances in 'real time' or in flashback/insertion? Weighted publications, with Batman and Detective vying for precedence while Legends of the Dark Knight and Batman: Confidential appearances play second string? Unworkable.)
- I did piece together a complex algorithm for calculating notability, but it didn't go anywhere, and is probably open to as many challenges as the pages themselves. But it's not really difficult: longevity; cross-media (comic, TV, film.... (cartoons)) appearances; total appearances; key roles in major stories; 3rd party lists and references. Surprise, surprise you wind up with the main nine; a quandry over whether Clayface and the Hatter are high enough above the rest to move up, a major headache with Harley, and very few other issues.
- Also, ultimately - it doesn't matter that much. These pages serve a particular purpose - and the page as is does serve that purpose admirably, being basically a hybrid of what's been suggested be done to improve it. That people push their favorite or disagree is only natural - and in some cases admirable. But challenges of bias or original research should not detract from the FACT that there are "MAIN" villains/foes for Batman, and their names are known. There are "Minor" villains/foes (and, in most senses, of course, their names are lesser known). Everyone else is in limbo between the two. Three tiers. Very little contest over who goes where. No originality of thought involved, just basic common sense. ntnon (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- A few things in there make some sense...
- I'm a fair way from being sold, but there is a good start for arguing that the navboxes should be treated as some heavily contentious article space templates and locked. But such a step should be taken either when the templates are stable or a stable version is fairly obvious. Batman is close to that, but there are still sticking points. And frankly, it sets up the admins as arbiters for inclusion, and that could kick off uglier arguments.
- As for the lists... I honestly think that for the "bigger" names should have secondary sources that point to "pivotal" foes. Those cites should be used to point to splitting out of the "wheat from the chaff". Lacking either such a source, or a desire of editors to find one, the enemies do get run into one long list.
- Chronological order... Yes, there is the problem of finding characters in a list article using this. There is also a couple of other problems: "Legacy" characters (Clayfaces) and the potiential of "post-Event-reboot" versions (Catwoman). Alphabetic eliminates this problem. Again, it has its limitation since the context of who entered the series when isn't obvious. But then I'd prefer to have to work that out rather than hunt for a character in the list.
- As for "How do you alphabetize them?" — in the simplest way possible: Treat the names as titles, period.
- - J Greb (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."
- ntnon - most of your comments though would seem to suggest that we should employ WP:OR. As J Greb notes, we really should shy from any of us being arbiters of inclusion. The criteria is already laid out for us. We should be relying heavily on verifiable reliable sources, not what each of us (even if it's by consensus) may decide is "true". I've transcluded the quote from WP:V above, for reference. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- So anyway, as far as the supporting characters (and other types of information related to fictional characters) are concerned, it would seem that we all agree that we should follow/apply Wikipedia policy and require sources for determination of sections/terms like: "main", "major", "minor", "fundamental", "primary", "secondary", "pivotal", and other words on this list. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. Although I do have fundamental points of disagreement regarding what can be constituted OR, why it is inherently bad, how far things can/should be demonised/deleted/{{fact}}ed/etc. I disagree with some of the guidelines and definitions of tolerable, reasonable and 'good' sources. I mistrust the occasionally petty-minded diligence with which the spirit of some guidelines is ignored in favour of personal intreptation of the "letter of the law". However, that said and out of the way, I'm not pushing for original research. If anything, I'm counselling a hardline of using sources! Check the Template Talk page for Batman - I dug out some printed sources which point to five/six "main," "major" and "crucially important" Bat-villains. (Almost) every other source is a vague list, which are based on polls, questions and original research - and to allow, say, a Channel 4 poll of
idiots"the general public" but to disallow a poll of comics-bloggers; to OK the New York Times espousing comic-speak but to ignore the comic-geeks; to think that a list of 100 Fictional Villains is inherently less biased than an open [www.sporcle.com quiz taken by at least hundreds of separate individuals] shows a narrow-minded interpretation of what can be classed reasonable sources. The lines of logic ("if it's cited, it's OK, until then it's spurious...") over what is an allowable source are garbled in the extreme. BUT. They're there, they're guidelines (guidelines, not laws) to be worked with. So, logic dicates that Killer Croc be dropped. Mad Hatter and Clayface. Harley, Man-Bat, and... - Relying on an interpretation of the guidelines at WP:V, one can read much into this line:
- "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."
- So who is challenging that the Joker is the main villain? That Catwoman, the Penguin, the Riddler, Two-Face and the Scarecrow are palpably obviously next in line? Even if there weren't sound sources saying this, it's unchallengable by any logical degree. The next few may be challenged - and, because of the nature of most lists, sources will be VERY thin on the ground for anyone beyond those six. It's not OR, though, to point out that those six feature in the films. That all-bar the Scarecrow were in the first wave of films. That all-bar the Scarecrow and Two-Face were in the TV series. Similarly, it's not original thought or personal inpretation to say that, after Joker, Catwoman and Penguin; Riddler and Two-Face, the powers-that-be - the suits, producers, executives, polls, canvassing, scriptwriters and film-makers - settled on Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy for the generally-despised, but hyped and confident Batman and Robin.
- There's no personal preference involved in pointing out that it is the films that most older "normal" people think of when thinking of Batman, or sometimes the TV series. There's no original straw-poll that notes that Ra's and the Scarecrow and Two-Face and the Joker were the villains chosen to relaunch the film series. There is considerable debate over how much stock and credit to give to the cartoons. Award-winning, but not culture-permeating; popular, but larger among comics fans and animation-buffs.
- I've rambled; it's late. But hopefully there's another kernal of mild common sense hidden somewhere above... ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. Although I do have fundamental points of disagreement regarding what can be constituted OR, why it is inherently bad, how far things can/should be demonised/deleted/{{fact}}ed/etc. I disagree with some of the guidelines and definitions of tolerable, reasonable and 'good' sources. I mistrust the occasionally petty-minded diligence with which the spirit of some guidelines is ignored in favour of personal intreptation of the "letter of the law". However, that said and out of the way, I'm not pushing for original research. If anything, I'm counselling a hardline of using sources! Check the Template Talk page for Batman - I dug out some printed sources which point to five/six "main," "major" and "crucially important" Bat-villains. (Almost) every other source is a vague list, which are based on polls, questions and original research - and to allow, say, a Channel 4 poll of
- Short ones...
- "Pivotal" is something that should crop up in critical commentary, secondary source material. Lacking that, the only other criteria would be "recognizable".
- "Recognizable" can be something that is either arrived at by consensus, through secondary sources, or polls of JQ Public. The last might make a fans skin crawl, but remember the articles are aimed at JQ, not the converted.
- Batman honestly breaks down to 4 primary, recognizable villains (Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, any order) about a dozen "secondaries" (that list varies depending on who you talk to, what you're looking at, and your particular "faves"), and a few score of those that the "converted" can rattle off. Superman is the same, as is Spider-Man, Cap, and so on.
- List articles may very well need to just go to straight lists. From there it may be possible on a case by case basis, to sell a built consensus for a "highlight" group.
- Navboxes... I'm more of a mind to say "If someone honestly thinks Jerry shouldn't be in the 'box, pull the character and give it an airing on the talk page." Yes, that means coming down on pointy arguments of "If Jerry can't be there, pull 'em all."
- One last though... and if I catch up on the end of FairBots images tags I'll try to cobble up an example... it is possible to rework a template like {{Batman}} into a "targeted" format. That way the one template would have say, a generic, a "foes" content, and a "protagonist cast" content versions. - J Greb (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- As per the above, I've got a rough version up at User:J Greb/TemplatePaste 6 with examples of how it would look when oplaced at User:J Greb/TemplatePaste 6. - J Greb (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing that I think we should also (somewhat) take into consideration is that every time one of our higher used templates in edited it now does affect Wikipedia performance. The job queue has been staying fairly high lately. And our use of article templates would seem to be rather prolific.
Should we (at least) semi-protect protagonist-related navboxes, in order to help facilitate talk page discussion concerning sources for inclusion? (As an option, full protection by navbox section can be done through sub-page transclusion.)
See Template:Batman and Template talk:Batman for some lengthy discussion, and some possible solutions, including the usage of a /doc page. (And also see User:J Greb/Docs, which is a rough draft for some basic information to be included in all such /docs.)
I personally like the /doc page idea. It helps prevent bite, and should help provide well-meaning/enthusiastic editors some quick guidance for inclusion (since the talk page is often not seen prior to editing/reversion).
Whatever we do, we really need to find positive ways to "help" our editors use talk page discussion more, and edit-warring less. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support general semi-protection of such templates, full protection as necessary, and especially the usage of /doc pages. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I think we should aim for most of these to remain stable barring page moves, new things coming out, etc. - mainly to avoid advance dicking around with them. Could I make a supplementary suggestion? People should propose the creation of any nvaboxes footers. It doesn't have to be overly formal - just post a note here with an idea of the size and scope (possibly knock one up in your sandbox?) and see what the consensus is. There seems to have been an awful lot of these popping up (usually depending on the editor's enthusiasm rather than any need) and this would help put a brake on this. (Emperor (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
- We should require a reference for each villain included. Here's one for the top 30 [15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Disruption question
So the next question is: What do we do when faced with a (presumably) well-meaning editor who is consistantly adding names to such sections without sources. It (by definition) effectively makes them a POV pusher.
I shy away from blocking, but if they repeatedly ignore requests to "take it to the talk page", or "please do not re-add without a reference", should they be blocked? And further, what about situations where those requesting that they "take it to the talk page", are also reverting?
We've had several contentions of late concerning whether admins (and others) are "involved" in the discussions, even if all they were doing was reverting, and suggesting talk page discussion, per WP:BRD. Though Civility was abundant, and I think that the issues have now been (mostly) resolved, it was only through lengthy discussion, and pride/feeling apparently have been hurt, with editor congeniality strained. Yes, some of that is unavoidable, but I'm wondering if we should have a quick-list page here at the comics-project, to help lessen some of the bite, to even some not-so-new editors? Something that isn't massively long, but something that we could link to on a talk page to help guide well-meaning editors.
So I guess I'm asking several questions:
- At what point do we feel that editors should be blocked? Or rather, how egregious do we define POV pushing on something like the placing of the names (or other information) of fictional characters? Including the usage of terms or suections which use these terms?
- Should we create a bullet-point "quick guidance" page for such incidents? (And do we have something like that already?)
In my opinion this is rather important and I especially would like to hear from all the Project's admins on this, since we have the ability to act upon this by blocking, or page protection, among other things (such as "closing" talk page discussions). - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've said it before (and I'm pretty sure we have done it before) but I think we can define boundaries to force recalcitrant editors into engaging with others. If they constantly try and force their view on the page then it moves beyond WP:BRD and is infringing WP:CONSENSUS and must be pushing on WP:OWN. We have had cases where neither side would talk to the other which leads to pages being protected to force them to discuss this on the talk page, which seems rather a crude tool. We should be able to say "If you keep trying to force your preferred version into the article and not addressing concerns on the talk page you will be violating WP:CONSENSUS - please read WP:BRD. Further editing of X on these lines will lead to you being blocked for 24 hours." I'd much rather we forced editors to discuss this with such a warning rather than having to actual protect that page (which ended up in even more a mess last time we did this and ended making the situation even more convoluted, as well as obviously causing problems for ordinary editors who just want to try and get on with actually improving the article, rather than arguing over the wording or content of some specific section)
- The key though is that this has to done by an uninvolved editor and if the complaining party hasn't made any actual efforts to sort this out themselves then they should be made aware of the fact that this can cut both ways. (Emperor (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
- Have I misunderstood the topic of this section? My reply to the original post seems to have no connection with anyone else's and I fear I have got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry about that if I have. I'll have a read through later and try and find out where I went wrong. (Emperor (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))