Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

To-Do List

	Pending tasks for WikiProject Comics:	edit this list - add to watchlist
	Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Please check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Task template for list of tasks. Assess : Update classification of articles in Unassessed Comics articles. Be sure to add articles to any appropriate task forces. Copyedit : Wikipedia articles needing copy edit in Comics Deletion sorting : Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation Expand : Articles to be expanded in Comics Infobox : Comics articles without infoboxes Merge : Articles to be merged in Comics NPOV : NPOV disputes in Comics Orphans : Orphaned articles in Comics Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs of comics Split : Articles to be split in Comics Stubs : Add the appropriate stub tags from Comics stubs to all Stub-class articles.

Archives
5 Dec 2004 to 4 May 2005 5 May 2005 to 26 May 2005 27 May 2005 to 17 June 2005 18 June 2005 to 6 July 2005 6 July 2005 to 24 August 2005 25 August 2005 to 1 November 2005 23 July 2005 to 18 December 2005 19 December 2005 to 1 February 2006 2 February 2006 to 31 March 2006 Archive Contents List

Succession boxes

I've noticed a user Dave175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not vandalizing, but adding succession boxes to certain articles, such as various Flash and Robin entries. I don't think those make much sense for something as fluid as fictional, comics continuity. Can we get a quick consensus "vote" so I can be justified in removing this stuff? Or do I stand corrected?
No succession boxes, obviously. dfg 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No. —Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Succession boxes make sense in certain instances, obviously -- editors of Marvel, presidents of the United States -- but they're getting out of hand. —Tenebrae 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Agree with Tenebrae. Succession boxes don't make sense for fictional characters in general, not just in comics. --Pc13 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No. So who's volunteering to remove them? - SoM 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Son of Vulcan

I started to add a superherobox. Apparently there have been two characters under this name. Does it need two boxes? (And can someone look and see if it seems right?) RJFJR 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, two boxes are needed since the two Sons of Vulcan are completely unrelated characters (but neither one is important enough to deserve a Wikientry just for himself.) I'll check out the article, see what I can add. Wilfredo Martinez 01:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with Hellfire Club (comics)

Ok, I cleaned up the SHB, but the page is still clogged with lists of all the members from its incarnations, and needs a cleanup. --DrBat 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

X-Men:_The_198_Files#The_198_Files

Re: X-Men:_The_198_Files#The_198_Files - isn't this a bit much to copy from the issue? - SoM 13:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which part? Do you mean that huge table? I'm behind on my X-Men reading, the last issue I read was when they assasinated Prof X, um, #293? If that huge table is what you mean, then that's blatant copyvio and should be removed. Steve block talk 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I meant the huge table, and just wanted a second opinion. Ta. - SoM 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Inkpot redux

Hi, all. Steve block has helped, but we sure could use more of y'all to take turns cut-and-pasting the Inkpot Award winners from that article's commented-out alphabetical list to the the Wikipedia year-by-year list. It's done so far through "I" (and "S" will be a bee-yatch), so any contributing hands would help those remaining pros get a little more deserved recognition linked.

Also, on a separate topic, a St. John Publications article is now up for anyone wishing to help flesh it out. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 20:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

user 198.111.167.130

It seems like almost all the user's edits are inserting his own pov into the articles. --DrBat 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Including unsourced criticism and speculation. --InShaneee 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the guy a note about POV and weasel words; hopefully he takes note. dfg 23:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe 207.74.168.127 is the same user, also. --DrBat 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, WHOISing the two IPs says they might well be. - SoM 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep reverting his edits until he stops or an administrator do something about him. By the way, both IPs are registered to Merit Network Inc., so it's probably the same guy. Lesfer ^(talk) 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, but I think we should wait at least a day for a response on either page; I hit the 207.x anon's talk page with the same warning as 198.x's. dfg 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll let you guys keep an eye on it. If you need an admin, you know where I am. I think it's best to let the user respond to concerns, we shouldn't bite the newbies. If it carries on, maybe an rfc; there's talk of using them to propose conditions under which an admin can block. Steve block talk 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(Franco-)Belgian comics

One recurrent issue about Franco-Belgian comics article is its lack to point out specificities of the Flemish-side of the country. Hence some attemps to create a separated page for Belgian comics that would explain these regional specificities. It has already been discussed in both articles discussions whether it was a good idea or not, and there is a sort of consensus that it is not a good idea, but that the Flemish comics should deserve some increased attention. I have therefore created a temporary page here to gather facts and content about Flemish comics that could be later on added in Franco-Belgian comics article as a new section. This a call for colloaboration on this issue. If there are some experts around, feel free to contribute, add, reformat, rewrite, comment, ... Lvr 10:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Super-Skrull

Does anyone think the 'appearances' section are npov and unencylopediac (sp)?--DrBat 00:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It reads like it's cribbed from a fansite, and is redundant with the above section.

Plus, given that Gwen was back within thirty issues in clone form (while they got cold feet in the end, that was why the original Clone Saga came about) and... well, see a new issue of one of the Spider-titles, well... :) - SoM 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Definatly long-winded. --InShaneee 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I just delete the section, then? --DrBat 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far...maybe a rewrite to neutrally highlight the high points of his career might be better. --InShaneee 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim Corrigan

Pretty much all Spectre hosts have gotten their own pages, and I think Jim Corrigan should have one too. It should include the first Corrigan, which would mostly be focussed on the development he got in Ostrander's run (which I will be able to add onto later when I get access to my run again), but also the second one, which I'm sure some will be able to add onto.

I took the liberty of making the page already, adding a box and some info. Kusonaga 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronogical Reading Order

Recently I've come across these Chronological Reading Order pages, notably on the Phantom Stranger page and Spectre page. I've put the Stranger Order up for deletion already, and deleted the sections from the articles. If nobody else puts up the Spectre Reading page up for deletion, I probably will. They are unnecessary and copyvio to boot. Kusonaga 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Promotional

Hi. I'm running into commercial superhero art and cropped comic book covers tagged with Template:Promotional. Please don't do this. Template:Promotional is for material that comes from a press kit. Commercial art is only covered under Wikipedia:Fair use when in an article discussing that artist's work. Book / magazine / DVD covers that we are using should not be cropped to remove publishing information and trademarks. I'd like to encourage everyone invovled in this project to be more cautious with copyright-infringing material that we are claiming "fair use" on. See Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for more policy information. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to an example, since what you may think are cropped comic book covers are actually promotional releases of the cover art, released digitally by the companies to promote their work, and thus would be promotional rather than comic book covers, since they are not the actual comic book cover in its physical existence. This has been discussed quite a few times, with Kelly Martin stating that If these are truly promotional images, then the fair use argument is quite good, actually better than for scanned images of the covers. Such images should be tagged as {{promotional}}, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not. And they must be sourced or they will be deleted. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive07. Hope that helps. Also, could you link to the discussion regarding commercial art only being used in articles dicussing that artist's work, ta? I'd quite like to contribute to that. Steve block The wikipedian meme 09:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright guidelines look great. User:Kelly Martin certainly knows what she's talking about, and when it comes down to what kind of unfree material is preferable to other kinds, I am likely to defer to her judgement. But let me point you at an example that I found while going through FAs. Image:Cap.Marvel DC.jpg was tagged as Template:Promotional. It has no source information beyond the artist's name. There is no indication anywhere that this image was released to the press as part of a press kit for wide distribution. In fact, it looks like we are republishing commercial art that would be sold as part of an artist's gallery of works, or could potentially be transformed into a poster for re-sale, etc. It has no Fair use rationale. As for cropped covers, I don't know if Image:Bzemo.png is one or not. See "Counterexamples" in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, specifically the example about cropping an album cover to use an image from it, as one mention of concern about using crops from art to illustrate the subject of the art instead of the artist's work. I note that Wikipedia:Fair use isn't as clear as it could be why, for instance, a pastoral painting might be "fair use" in an article about the painter, but not in an article about picnics. I hope the above helps explain my concern. That said, your unfree-material use guidelines look very good, and should be used as a model for other WikiProjects. Jkelly 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the guidelines, I hope they help and that they get used. Okay, I figure Image:Cap.Marvel DC.jpg is from the DC website, that's the sort of thing people are likely to call a promotional image, since it's been released to promote the poster, and the image is released to the trade press. Image:Bzemo.png is a cropped version of an image from a news site, that's a solicitation version of the cover art of Thunderbolt's #104, as seen on this page. The understanding is that cropping is allowed to better embed the image in the text in a transformative manner, which we thought allowed a better fair use. There was a limited discussion with GMaxwell about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright, which led to the insertion of In addition, the scan should be altered if necessary to focus upon the specific aspects of the image which are being discussed, rather than merely reproducing the original in digital form. into the guidance issued by the project. But further discussion on any aspects of all this are welcome, it's a bloody tricky area to get right. It'd be better if there were rationales added, I'll grant you. I get the point about pastoral scenes and picnic articles, and album covers and roses, that's because the work in question is not being commented upon but rather the image portrayed. However, when you stray into illustrating articles on comic book characters, any image is going to be used on a fair use justification. Further, the art is produced specifically to illustrate the character in question, whereas a pastoral scene isn't produced solely to comment on a picnic, but, (some might say), purports to a higher ideal of art, and an album cover containing roses isn't being used, issued or sold as a depiction of roses, so couldn't be used in an article on roses in which the album didn't receive critical coverage, and certainly shouldn't be cropped to do so. The argument is then, which image is the best one to use. There's a current which argues that the most up to date image should be used; on that issue I remain ambivalent. I'm not sure where the fair use argumnent lies there. Steve block The wikipedian meme 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Force Works

I've done some minor wikification on Century (comics), but I've seen that some of the other characters in Force Works have much better bios. I don't know much about the subject, so perhaps someone here might be able to have a look. Kevin 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) There's an extensive bio at the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Check that out for a little help in writing up his bio. --DoctorWorm7 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:QuintusCinna/Batman

So what exactly should be the response to this? Near as I can tell QuintusCinna just copied several DC pages and added his name.

That can't be fair use. Can one of the copyright gurus here take a look at this? --InShaneee 01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The user is interested in creating a wikiproject for the DC Universe. I'll invite him here to discuss concerns. Steve block The wikipedian meme 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that. I'm worried that he's either trying to do it in his namespace, or is planning to copy/paste the articles to Wikia should the project be approved. And as I was trying to imply above, I don't think you can use fair use images in your namespace. --InShaneee 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria#Articlespaceonly - Yup - SoM 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm hoping to get a response from the user on what's occurring. Steve block The wikipedian meme 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

An invitation to all members of this project

WikiProject Arts
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!

HAM File:Icons-flag-wales.png 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(The) Man of Steel

I've redirected The Man of Steel to Man of Steel as they were informationally equivilent and Man of Steel was closer to the WP:MOSDAB standard. Since The Man of Steel has your template on the talk page (and Man of Steel did not), I thought I'd let you know. Feel free to adjust if you think me mis-guided, but let me know on a talk page somewhere why! John (Jwy) 05:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See Lacks: Talk:Epic Anthology

Rather than nominate this article for WP:AfD I thought I'd shout here for some TLC. I've asserted both CLEAN and EXPERT templates as documented on that talk. Looks like Categories need attention too. Best regards, FrankB 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be merged into Epic Comics in my opinion. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems the best idea, although Epic Anthology Presents is a redlink on that page which suggests this is where the content might finally lie. Steve block The wikipedian meme 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Pencillers

What is the consensus on including articles on comics pencillers? Do they pass the notability threshhold? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's too general a question. Generally, yes. Most comics creators garner enough press within the media covering the scene, all of which would qualify at the better end of reliable sources, to allow articles to be written. What specific examples did you have in mind? Steve block The wikipedian meme 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Yardley. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen your response. A merge seems the best approach. Steve block The wikipedian meme 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thor (comics) -> Thor (Marvel Comics)

There's a discussion going on over at the Thor talk page about moving the bulk of Thor (comics) to Thor (Marvel Comics) and turning the former into a summary or disambig page. I thought I'd mention it here so people can join in if they wish. CovenantD 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Couple new articles

Fred Kida and Frank Springer, for you Golden/Silver Age fans. There's a lot there, but they can always be fleshed-out more. Stay well, all. -- Tenebrae 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

...Annnnnd, longtime Charlton Comics penciler Bill Fraccio makes my 50th contributed comics-creator bio. Jump in! -- Tenebrae 21:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image-removing anon

There's a semi-frequent vandal anon afflicting comics-related articles by removing all images from articles - rarely or never the same exact IP, but usually the IP address starts with 4.244

If you see one of these IPs editing an article on your watchlist, please check it AND, if it is the image-remover, please revert and add a note (including the relevant IP address) on Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#4.244..2A..2A. Thanks. - SoM 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hawkman

We need opinions and suggestions in here! —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 18:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

New Fun Comics vs. More Fun Comics

A few months back, an editor merged the former article on New Fun Comics into the article on More Fun Comics, the rationale being More Fun is the better known title. New Fun Comics became a redirect. I personally feel this isn't the way to go. New Fun Comics ran for a full year before changing its name, and under the name New Fun Comics it was historically significant as the first major DC Comic publication. On top of that, the image used to illustrate More Fun Comics now is the original image from New Fun Comics, so is no longer accurate. I would like to suggest that the two articles be essentially taken apart and recreate as separate articles, as they were before February. I considered simply reverting, but there has been additional edits done to More Fun Comics since the move. Now that there's a WikiProject on comic books and their history, what are people's thoughts on this? 23skidoo 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of new categories

A few people have been going through the comic book characters and creating all kinds of new categories, like US-Themed, Batman inspired, Plant characters, cold characters, Fictional giants, etc, etc, etc. I'm having some problems with this because in some cases they dup already existing ones (Fictional giants and Giants) while others seem based on subjective reasoning with no apparent proof (Wildcat as a Batman inspired hero, for example). Thoughts? CovenantD 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thought I have is that this is way out of control. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been getting on my nerves for a while. Anyone got the energy to WP:CFD some of these? - SoM 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not tonight. I just left a message for one of the main culprits on his/her talk page. CovenantD 06:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And geez-a-lou are you both right. Category:Fictional martial artists and Category:Fictional ninja parses it so unnecessarily closely that it's more cluttering than useful. Category:Daredevil love interests seems absurdly narrow while Category:Fictional vigilantes is so general that thousands of superheroes would fit there. Category:Fictional mutates? According to its page, that's every superpowered character who's not a mutant. And on and on. Category:Anti-heroes is another that seems to get everything lumped into it, from literary characters to overwhelmingly superheroic characters as Daredevil.

I'll be glad to help in any way I can. How do we go about suggesting policy and guidelines for something like this?

"This looks like a job for ... WikiProject Comics!" --Tenebrae 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Count me as part of the consensus against those poorly conceived categories. We should make a list of the offending categories here, group the ones together that fail because of a common flaw (e.g., the love interest categories), and then work on concise and well-reasoned explanations for deletion to post on CFD. Postdlf 17:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First on the list Category:Female heroines with names derived from pre-existing male characters. I can't begin to express how appalled I am by this name. Also Category:Fictional bug-based characters, Category:Femme Fatales, Category:Fictional cold characters, Category:Fictional speedsters and Category:Fictional mutates. Those are just off the top of my head. CovenantD 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Fictional teenagers is absurd! Should we categorise Sherlock Holmes there because at one point he was a teenager? This is categorisation gone mad. Steve block Talk 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actaully, I think Category:Femme Fatales is alright. That one just needs to get populated, it's a fairly common archetype and isn't just comic-based. And uh, that first one. (Category:Female heroines with names derived from pre-existing male characters) Wow. No way.--Toffile 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the 'female characters derived...' category is probably part of some feminist project. I have to admit, while it shocked me too (mainly from it's length), it does seem to serve a purpose. In a lot of cases, the original heroes are male, and rather come up with unique new heroes, female versions of preexisting ones are made. There might be some exceptions though... Wonder Woman for example, wasn't she around before Wonder Man? Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the categories, I am the creator of -Category:Fictional speedsters- which extends beyond english comics, also to TV shows, manga, anime, and potentially novels, if we can find anything. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

-Category:Fictional bug-based characters- might use a name change. I used 'bug' because it is a more easily recognized term. As it mentions on the page, it is meant to contain anthropod-themed characters. Bug is just easier, not to mention shorter and easier to write. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

-Category:Fictional cold characters- might use a name change as well if there is insistance. 'Cold characters', 'cold-themed characters', I just picked what seemed appropriate. One category where I have noticed some overlap with the majority of cold characters (though for some reason not all...) is Category:Fictional elementals. While that is an interesting category, I feel it is too all-encompassing. If possible, you can put cold and flame inside elementals, but distinction should be made. Temperature-themed characters as a category is far too big. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As for -Category:Fictional giants-, I didn't make that, but I can see the necessity. Without 'fictional', the category might be used to classify humans of very large height. For example, the man who acted in Big Fish, Andre the Giant, or the Big Show. I'm afraid I don't really understand femme fatale, mutates (what's a mutate?). In regard to Wildcat being batman-inspired, I'll admit that might have been a mistake, in which case that can be removed from him, but most others do apply. Wildcat was iffy because I think they came about at roughly the same time. Batman was 3 years prior though. Wildcat was created by Bill Finger, who had an uncredited hand in creating Batman, so it's possible he recycled some of the ideas in Wildcat. They are both unpowered martial arts fighters in black animal costumes with ears, it does seem like a bit of a coincidence. They are of course wildly different today, but to say he's batman-inspired isn't really a big jump. Tyciol 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Batman inspired is not a suitable category for Wikipedia, as categories don't allow annotations you can't annotate why someone is added, and since category inclusion should be self-evident and non-controversial, I don't see how it can pass muster. The rest are just an example of over-categorisation, to my eye, but maybe that's best decided at WP:CFD. Steve block Talk 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the "fictional" categories are probably unneccisary. "Fictional widows and widowers"? What's the purpose? --InShaneee 22:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's a literature thing that goes beyond comics. It's just like you have fictional african-americans. They're methods to categorize them for people who are researching the subject, like african-americans in modern literature, or, widows in literature, studying the stereotypical representations and stuff. Tyciol 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's for research, then I would suggest lists would be better, categories are generally created for navigational purposes. Building lists would allow entries to be described and annotated within the context of the list's purview, which could also be better discussed and quantified than in a category, and thus suit the researcher's needs better. Steve block Talk 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to start off, I'll volunteer, consensus pending, on A) blending the category "fictional ninjas" into "fictional martial artists" or B) creating the article "List of fictional martial artists". Any thoughts? -- Tenebrae 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, either way works for me. I'd probably prefer the blending since I do like Categories (tend to be easier to find), I just like them to have an underlying logic and structure and not be some sprawling mess..

Also in the starting off vein, several of us have put up the Fictional character by hair color" categories up for deletion and I've asked that Daredevil love interests be merged with DD supporting characters. Slowly but surely... CovenantD 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man or Spider-Man (Ultimate Marvel)?

I know naming conventions can be tricky, but I'm wondering if in keeping with the already in-place convention of following character names with parenthetical qualifiers like (Marvel Comics) or (DC Comics), the Ultimate character and team articles should be moved to articles with (Ultimate Marvel) after the characters' or teams' names. I recently created Ultimate Rogue and the thought came up. I figure this is the best place to post it. Psyphics 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is that the ultimate versions should be described in the parent article where at all possible. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive05#Ultimates.27_naming. We never got a consensus on whether to call them Spider-Man (Ultimate) or Ultimate Spider-Man. I lean to the latter. Steve block Talk 12:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. The most common name should be used when possible, and for the Ultimate characters that's "Ultimate [Name of character]". --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, just checking. I figure people would probably search by typing "ultimate so-and-so" more often than the other possibility, so it'd save on redirects anyway. As for speaking of Ultimate characters in their parent article, I've figured it works that way until the differences between the two become "enough" to split them up, which I realize is subjective. Psyphics 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Legion Wiki question

Hey, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to bring something up, but here goes. I'm a huge Legion of Super-Heroes fan, specifically, the post Zero Hour (roughly 1994-2004) version. I noticed that in the Legion wiki, if you click on someone like Cosmic Boy, who has had many versions, all the Cosmic Boys are covered. But if you click on someone like Gates, who only has one version, you get just him. Since they are listed by era, and in a sense, they are new versions of these characters, I think everyone should get an original entry. Example, if you click Starboy, you should get a profile about Thom Kallor, white guy who dated dream girl and grows up to become Starman, not Waid's version of him. I probably won't remember to check this, but if anyone wants to work with me on this, email me at LobsterAfternoon@gmail.com Best, Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs)

Use of covers

Anyone who has any fashion model or TV series article in their watchlist has probably noticed that certain parties at Wikipedia are systematically removing virtually every magazine cover from the site. This is due to an omission (I contend it's an error) in the Fair Use image tag that indicates that magazine covers can only be used to illustrate articles about the magazine, not the people/films/etc. illustrated on the cover. Since comic books are also magazines, I wonder how long it'll be before we start losing them as well? I mean, OK I imagine an article on Superman that uses the cover to Superman No. 1 wouldn't lose that illustration ... however the historically significant cover to Action Comics No. 1 would need to be removed because the article isn't specifically about Action Comics. Ditto Batman and Detective Comics No. 27, Spiderman and Amazing Fantasy, Captain Marvel and Whiz Comics ... see where this is leading? If these images are considered safe, how did comics get around this? 23skidoo 12:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. First of all, comic covers are more like book or DVD covers in that respect. Also, the issues you mentioned are important to the articles and explicitly mentioned within the articles, while the covers currently being removed often are merely used for decorative purposes with no mentioning of the publication in the article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to who is doing it. We've discussed this here many times, and the fair use notice on {{comiccover}} still allows them in articles on the character's. However, people should realise that, per the policy at Wikipedia:Fair use they need to start writing on the image description page why they are using it under fair use provisions. If you use a cover of Wolverine in the Wolverine article, you need to place text along the lines of the following on the image description page:

This image is used in the article at insert article name here under fair use provisions. It is believed this use qualifies as fair use because:

• It illustrates the fictional character in question
• The fictional character exists only in illustrative form, the appearance being subject to copyright and trademark law
• The image is a low resolution image of a comic book cover
• A comic book cover is used by the company as a marketing tool, hence making the image somewhat promotional
• The digital representation of the cover here will not prevent the marketing of the actual physical constituent parts of the cover in question, nor of the intellectual properties associated with the cover or the characters portrayed there-upon.
• The image is used in an article which discusses the character and comic book to which this is the cover in a critical, educational manner.
• The cover represents only a small proportion of the comic book as a whole, and again a small proportion of all images of the character in question.
• No free alternative exists, since the likeness of the character is copyrighted.
• Finally:
  • Either This image is being used to illustrate the character displayed (this use can only apply to one image)
  • Or This image is used to illustrate a point discussed in the article, namely insert point being illustrated here (example would be first appearance in a new, iconic costume, or character being relaunched in new series)

You should also place a {{fairusein}} template on as well to cover your back. If such images are still deleted, after all that, let me know and I'll start a discussion about this once again. The reason the cover to Action Comics issue 1 should not be removed from Superman is because the issue is discussed critically in the article. But bear in mind, whilst a comic book cover is fair use to illustrate an article on the character's portrayed, this applies only if the image is tagged to make it clear it is the cover to X-Men #24 and also explain briefly why that image is used, for example, Wolverine's first cover appearance in new costume or whatever. And articles should have the fewest fair use images possible without reducing the illustrative points. We outlined a lot of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright but I'll maybe have a look at how to update that. Steve block Talk 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought {{fairusein}} should only be used when none of the other copyright tags apply...? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. I do recall discussions to the effect that that template should be used in conjunction with others, in instances where the use wasn't covered by the tag or to strengthen the use of the tag. It appears the text at {{Comiccover}} To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use removes the latter point. Steve block Talk 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was a big DC fan for a few years starting with the Death of Superman and pretty much lost interest when my local store closed down after Kingdom Come. I've decided to start reading again, spurred by Infinite Crisis and 52, and the work of Wikiproject Comics has been invaluable in helping me catch up buying the miniseries I've missed and their various prologues/tie-ins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Bei (talk • contribs)

Superboy-Prime and Alex Luthor

Should their alliance colors be villain or neutral? --DrBat 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to go with villain. They were both willing to kill entire worlds to get what they wanted. CovenantD 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going for villain too. Kusonaga 08:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They were definitely heroes originally, but villains now. The change wasn't explained well, either. Wilfredo Martinez 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the Infinite Crisis Secret Files? --DrBat 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go against the grain on this one. Comics, like all works of fiction, exist in an eternal present. References to the events of CoIE should be in the present, just as references to the events of IC should be in the present.

As such, the color of the infobox should be based on the emphasis on the article. Does the Superboy-Prime article/section focus on his role in IC, or his entire life? Likewise for Alex Luthor; does it cover both CoIE and IC, or just IC? If the prose covers both, it should be neutral, but if the prose only covers the villainous role, it should be villain. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OHOTMU Strength Stats

Can anyone explain to me why OHOTMU strength stats are not okay/should not be added to character articles? I understand that they aren't necessarily kept to in the comics themselves, but the assertion that they aren't encyclopedic information or that they shouldn't be added under the powers and abilities section of the character's article is subjective, or at least not wholly objective. I'm wondering if there's a legal issue dealing with the copyright or license of the OHOTMU. I asked this question in Talk:Spider-Man#Enhanced Physicality and there's been a long running discussion going on there. As it stands, the Spider-Man article has been edited to include OHOTMU strength stats, as the consensus among those who at least purport to know about copyrights is that it is not breach of copyright to add them. If it is a breach of copyright, is it not also a breach to include information from Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Alternate Worlds 2005 in articles about Marvel Universes? I've heard this has been discussed before but I cannot find this in the archives, so an answer or a point in the right direction would be great. Thanks! Psyphics 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Copying the strength stat by itself could not be copyright infringement because it is too insubstantial, though it is certainly arguable that it is mere trivia rather than a key fact of the character, if the only place you can find it is in a fan reference. The problem with using "references" such as OHOTMU comes when their "information" is simply copied, even if rephrased/reworded, because that amounts to purely copying fiction without transforming it in a way that qualifies as fair use. It's the difference between stating "Spider-Man married Mary Jane", which is fiction, not a fact, to "Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21 depicts the wedding of Spider-Man to Mary Jane," which is a fact about fiction. The less the article merely repeats the fiction without transforming it by placing it in a real-world context of publications, writers, artists, and audiences, the more likely it is a copyright infringement. And certainly, the more that an article repeats fiction that originated in a fictional encyclopedia form, the more that article is completely unable to transform the copyrighted expression and instead just creates a derivative and competing copy. See my recent comments on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights to this effect, in which I've included a relevant court case finding that "facts" originating from within fiction are copyrighted expression, and so different than facts about fiction. Postdlf 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Postdlf. I appreciate your speedy response to my question. I may be wrong, but it would seem from what you're saying that the fictional biographies of (dare I say) most comic book characters on Wikipedia would infringe on copyright because so few are cited. If you said "In Amazing Spider-Man Annual #21, Spider-Man married Mary Jane," would that suffice to be a fact about fiction instead of a retelling of fiction? If all you are able to do is write as you did in your response, wouldn't it make it nearly impossible (or at the very least cumbersome) to state powers and abilities of superheroes. I mean, would you have to say "In <issue of comic book>, <superhero> was depicted as being able to <power>," for every character? If that's true, WP:COMICS has a lot of work ahead of it. Psyphics 16:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We do have a lot of work ahead of us. Specific instances would always be helpful, and I think we should be able to provide them in terms of what issue the power was first introduced in, and what issues may have changed, extended, or significantly tested the powers. In the case of Spider-Man, his ability to wall-crawl and his super-strength were introduced in his first appearance (I don't remember if his spider-sense was too). Any issue in which an outer limit of his power was explored would be helpful. Consider Superman for a solution to how this can be solved broadly without specific issue cites, as that article ties what the character is portrayed as being capable of to particular timeframes of his publication history. Something else we can do to further provide transformative context for the powers information is describe literally how the powers are portrayed, i.e., that Spider-Man's spider-sense is shown to readers by black wavy lines radiating from his head.

I think we'd be infringing if we simply copied the substance of how OHTMU described his powers, however, because it described it from a fictional perspective, and functions at the least as a creative derivative of the original fiction (and at most, new fiction in and of itself to flesh out details the comics never portrayed). Probably the most problematic are the "explanations" of how powers function that the OHTMU created. It might be appropriate to note, generally, that the OHTMU did provide an explanation and why it matters, but not to restate it in detail ("The OHTMU explained Spider-Man's wall-crawling ability as a form of static electricity. Writers subsequently took advantage of this explanation by allowing Electro to deactivate that power in ASM #XXX").

Put another way, it's the difference between publishing a fictional biography (which would be a derivative work that constitutes copyright infringement) and publishing the history of a fictional character (which is fair use, to the extent that it copies protected expression). An academic history of a fictional character objectively describes the works of fiction through scholarly commentary rather than a Reader's Digest version, and further transforms it by the context of publication history, the role and intent of artists and writers, and fan and critical reactions. Put yet another way, we need to discuss, not retell. Postdlf 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is "Fictional character biography" -- as I understand it a retelling of the character's fictional life -- should not be included in comic book character articles, correct? If so, there's a whole lot of deleting that needs to be done at Magneto. Psyphics 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They should not be added because the proper role of Wikipedia in discussing fictional characters is to discuss them in the context of the real world, not the fictional world they inhabit. Thus trivia relating purely to their fictional lives - i.e. their OHOTMU stats - is inappropriate on those grounds. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussing fictional characters in the context of the real world seems to relegate our articles to solely the publication history and possibly a discussion of their powers. Fictional character biography -- part of the exemplar offered for comic book character articles -- then seems to be copyright infringement as it relates purely to their fictional lives.Psyphics 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)