Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PicketyFence (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 12 September 2007 (→‎Wikis: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:ComicsCollab


Pending tasks for WikiProject Comics:

edit this list - add to watchlist
Current activity →

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(1 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

New articles →
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-05-24 20:10 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

  • Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
  • Request Constructive Feedback: Lee Harris Artist for DC Comics 1940's, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Paper Girls
  • General: Remove OHOTMU/Who's Who material from character pages, provide fair use rationales for images.
  • Biographies: Check recent edits to biographies of living comics creators for changes contrary to policy. Click here for recent changes. Add citations to Unreferenced BLPs.
  • Article requests: Fenwick (comics), Khimaera (comics), Mutant Underground Support Engine, Bruce J. Hawker, Marc Dacier, Hultrasson, Frankenstein Comics, Dead of Night (comics) (redirects to MAX the Marvel imprint), Paco Medina, Mars et Avril (comics), Heart of Hush (now it is redirecting to Batman R.I.P.), Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper, Masters of American Comics, Robbi Rodriguez. more
  • Image requests: Andrea Di Vito, more
  • Expand: Arzach, Caspar Milquetoast, Clay Mann, Claypool Comics, Comics Britannia, Instant Piano, John Ney Reiber, Juan Jose Ryp, Mile High Comics, Natacha, No-Name, Ric Hochet, Richard Piers Rayner, Robert Loren Fleming, Ruins (comics), Scrooge's Quest, Sonic Disruptors, The Crusades (comics), Weird Western Tales, WonderCon, Super-Villain Team-Up, Tom Peyer, Kelley Puckett, X-Men Forever, Clan Chosen, Canardo, Kirby: King of Comics, Girl Comics, Le Vieux Nick et Barbe-Noire, M. Rex, Guillotine (comics), Renée Witterstaetter, Hal Jordan , more
  • Condense: Magneto (comics), Super-Soldier, Witchblade, Captain Britain, Mar-Vell, Tabitha Smith, W.I.T.C.H., Storm (Marvel Comics), Captain America, Deadpool, Man-Thing, Jamie Madrox (FCB section), Dial H
  • Update: Linear Men, Cable & Deadpool, Civil War: Front Line, Black Tarantula, Batman: Streets of Gotham
  • Clean Up: Comic Book, Darkseid, Iron Fist, Joker (character), Kingdom Come (comics), Raven (comics), Xavier's Security Enforcers, Spaceknights, Cerebro, more
  • Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
    • For proposed deletions and mergers, disputes, and recently created articles, check the WikiProject Comics Notice board.


    Archive
    Archives

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archives

    List of government agencies in comics

    1. It seems that there was an attempt to speedy delete List of government agencies in comics. When that failed the self same nominating editor decided to spam the page with maintenance tags, but not actually make any improvements to the article.
    2. This editor also seems to be questioning the validity of the DCU Guide as a source of reference in the Wiki.
    3. So I am requesting an impartial review of works and intentions by Project members, and will cease editing the contended article until that review is completed. --Basique 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The entry overall seems fine - it does need a good lead to put things in context. It looks like the DC and Marvel sections could be split off to make solid sections but the others won't and should stay. I am trying to think if there are any more maintenance tags that could be added - it looks horrible and I'd suggest using something like this: Charlie "Big Time" Bigelow. There don't look to be many big issues but I'll dig a bit further. (Emperor 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    And some of the tagging does seem OTT. 6 "ref/cite needed" tags (1 over all article, 4 section, and 1 misplaced, misapplied WP:SPS) is well beyond overkill. - J Greb 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried my best to consolidate the tags, but I put what was removed in the discussion section of the article so it's easy to add them back in if I messed it up. -Freak104 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good - nice work. (Emperor 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks everyone looks good so far. --Basique 10:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Real People And Fictional People

    I've noticed something we should all be aware of.

    For example, over in Spike Freeman, it used to say that Spike was patterned after Rob Liefeld re: looks. Problem is, the fictional Spike is a psychopathic murdering nutjob. Libel anyone? Certainly seemed that way to me, so I deleted it.

    And then today, I was over in Advanced Idea Mechanics and noticed a link to George Clinton, funk musician. Turns out that George Clinton is also a fictional terrorist...yet he was being linked to a real person. I removed the link.

    In conclusion, with the sheer number of names associated with villains, we should all be on the lookout. Too much can go wrong. Lots42 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Liefeld thing may be a bit touchy, especially if there is a cite from the writer or artist that the character was visually modeled after him. At that point it becomes a legal case between Rob and Marvel, but the information in the article would still be valid. See the "Tony the Twist" debacle McFarlane had.
    As for the Clinton ref, that just lazy editing. Names need to be checked when wikified to see where the link actually dumps out. Similar things happened with Steve Erwin (illustrator, but the article space was a redirect to Steve Irwin), Kent Nelson (writer of novels but the name was held as a redirect to Doctor Fate), and Eric Strauss (biologist with the same Dr Fate problem, who had vocally asked for the name to be delinked and was resoundingly ignored). - J Greb 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mole (comics)

    I just had to remove all the content of this article, as it was a copyright violation. I'm posting here in the hopes that someone can rewrite the article from scratch. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DC Animated Universe Wiki template

    Per a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates, I have created a template to make it easier to link to the DC Animated Universe Wiki. Please see Template:Dcauw for examples and feel free to replace existing links with this. —dgiestc 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Dibnyghosts.PNG

    Some editors are trying to have this image removed, saying it's not important enough to the characters' histories for inclusion. --DrBat 12:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the image seems justifiable. Reading the comments on your talk page it seems they want more on the justification front which shouldn't be an issue. (Emperor 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, I'm just looking for a better explanation of why the image is used. I tried to figure it out by looking at the article on Sue Dibny, but the article only has one sentence related to the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted that section can be expanded but most of the story is under Elongated Man#52 as she is dead (and un-ghostly) for most of the story arc and while a bit more plot could be added it would largely be a trimmed down version of what is already in the Elongated Man and wouldn't actually feature Sue (which might be a bit frowned on). (Emperor 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I'm still very uncertain of this. The nature of comics characters is that they go through lots of changes, some that stick and are important, others that are ephemeral. This is a recent change, but it's a change that has only appeared in one panel of one comic. Furthermore, I don't see what the image adds - there's nothing special or unusual about their appearance as ghosts - they're transluscent, like most portrayals of ghosts. So nothing seems to be being added to what's in the text by this image, and I'm unconvinced it's of particular significance as it illustrates one panel of one story, and, at present, no known future appearances of these characters are planned. Phil Sandifer 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikis

    There has been a few issues concerning linking to other wikis and I know Tenebrae has been catching some flak over this and I think it'd be best to try and resolve the matter to reduce the amount of work adding/removing links and any bad feeling this might generate. Now I know there have been various secondary issues (like conflicts of interest) but I feel the core of the issue is:

    WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13 states we should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

    Which justifies their removal. The problem is that it seems a bit vague. I've had a quick chat with J Greb and feel it is probably deliberately stated like that to allow the use of good quality wikis, while giving editors a guideline they can use to reduce linkspamming.

    Of course, this leaves us with the question of what the exceptions to that guideline and if left up to individual editor's opinions it seems to be an invitation to an edit war with no good weighting either for or against a specific wikis inclusion. These seems like A Bad Thing as there are good wikis that would be useful as an external link and this issue will get to be a big one as changes to WP:FICT mean we'll probably be transwiking material to specific wikis and we'd want to be able to provide a link to somewhere with more detailed coverage.

    So the solution seems to be that we discuss the various wikis and reach a consensus about the ones that would seem to be useful to the project so we can provide a basic level of approval as an external link (although the link still needs to conform to broader guidelines - if a specific entry doesn't provide anything more than we have hear then that specific link is redundant).

    So the wikis causing issues are:

    Given recent disputes I have had a chance to check all of those and feel they are all solid and can qualify as potential external links. (Emperor 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    The Marvel Database, at least, has a copyvio issue in that it's using information (in the stat boxes, Powers & abilities, and elsewhere) taken from the Marvel Comics Official Handbook. I don't believe we're supposed to link to copyvio sites. --Tenebrae 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have further details on that? Such things are obviously a big deal and important factor in any decisions. (Emperor 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Red Raven, the very first one I looked at. --Tenebrae 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean somewhere that says this is copyright violation. Given the fact that the infoboxes are fairly barebones it could be that you can arrive at the same point based on the broader body of data. Copyright violation is obviously easier to prove where sentences can be compared. {Emperor 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Tenebrae's concern stems from WP:EL#Restrictions on linking point 1 and, I think, the guideline on pulling information verbatim from other encyclopedias and this project's guideline on the Handbook being unreliable as a source.
    That being said, only 2 or 3 lines are at issue in the Red Raven example: height (also falls to fan spec), weight (same as height), and base of operation (which would need a cite ref here). And as pointed out, it hard to point to a source for these. Now if we were talking the "power levels" chart or some thing like that... - J Greb 18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about copyvios, but I was under the impression that editors published their work both here and on the Marvel Comics database project and the DC Comics database project. However, lately I got the impression that some people accuse those projects of copying from Wikipedia without attribution...
    As for the DCAU Wiki, you already know I find it useful, particularly to DCAU topic that don't go into much detail here. At least their most developed articles. In recent disputes, some editors suggested that each article should be judged on its own merit. Maybe you can come up with guidelines to link to open wikis? Like "do not link to stubs; you can link to featured articles"... etc.
    Overall, I don't think sites should be condemned due to localized disputes. --217.129.169.136 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While links will still have to be judge on their own merits as it stands the guidelines suggest you can't link to open wikis unless you first establish if they are acceptable - the wording suggests we have to first establish if any links to a specific wiki are allowed. Obviously the broad assessment just means links won't be removed without debate, it doesn't mean every relevant entry here has to be linked to a relevant wiki as they still have to meet other linking guidelines (if it is a stub or just material taken from here then there is no point in the link). (Emperor 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Agreed. At this point we're at the point of having, and I apologize if this sounds harsh, and active consensus of 1 adding the links and an active consensus of 1 removing them. It looks like the best way forward is this conversation to determine if there is a overall reason to either use or bar links to the three wikis in question. In that light, it may also be worthwhile to put the EL links to the "least damaging state", which is to remove the links until this is hashed out. That includes benchmarks as far as stubs, effective dupes of the Wiki article(s), articles expanded by fan spec, image use, and what should be in the link.
    For me, I'm seeing the following:
    • Articles in the wikia that are either Stubs or lifts only of Wiki articles or sections. There shouldn't be a link from Wiki to the wikia article in these cases. An EL in these cases is "See here for the same or less information.", which is less than helpful. This is possible going to be more of an issue for the DCU and MU wikia than the DCUE.
    • Articles in the wikia that are build on fan spec. This almost needs to be a case by case situation. I'd wager that a lot of the case will be that the spec is filling in holes, which shouldn't be a big issue. The problems will come from the articles that will be mostly spec or that the character name is fan spec/assumption. I can't see a Wiki article referring a reader to an article that is basically "we guess" or "we think".
    • Images. Looking at some of the DCU and MU wikia articles, they are almost galeries of images. There may be some debate about linking a Wiki article to such an article given the pains that we go through with the FURs and limited non-free image usage. I think such arguments would be weak, at best, but they can be made.
      There is one image related issue though that I am very leery of: fan art. Both the DCU and MU wikia have a "Random image" section on their homepages touting "With #### images on our database, there is no shortage of comic cover art, fan-art, or pictures of your favorite characters and teams." As I understand the requirements on Wiki for the use of non-free images, fan art is a no-go, mainly on copyright and trademark grounds. Having a link to a wikia article that uses such an image would seem to violate the EL linking restrictions.
      Also, though it may be moot since the restriction here is due to Wiki's potential to be published in paper, both the DCU and MU wikia are including images from DC's "Who's Who" and Marvel "Handbook" series.
    • Link contents. Definitely, the wikia article page should be in the link, but I don't think the wikia homepage should. Even if we hash it out that the wikia are worthwhile, the relevant link is the sister article, but the overall site, as an open wikia, shouldn't be.
    • Last thing, which Emperor touched on slightly. Since there is a push to reduce the in-universe and plot summary information, these wikia do offer a safety valvue of sorts. They are a place where the more detailed fictional character histories and story arc summaries can be relocated to. Yes, we would still have FCBs here, mostly for the iconics (Superman, Spider-Man, etc) and mostly character sketches, but the detailed stuff that honestly isn't coming from anything but the primary source can move to a more appropriate place. (And, no this isn't an attempt to be snobbish, or depreciate the information. Based on the fundamentals of Wiki, the articles here should be with a real world view. That should be the Wiki articles' main focus. If the wikia are doing a good job, then it makes it easier for us to stick to that focus and refer readers to the more detailed, in-universe information.)
    - J Greb 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All good points (possibly worth compiling things like that when we are done to give people some help in assessing things). I agree that until we can reach a consensus on the use of a specific image we have to default to not using it. Even if a specific wiki gets a thumbs up we do need hold each link up to the other WP:EL standards and possible run a few extra checks just to be on the safe side. (Emperor 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    This sounds like a good, measured approach. My concern is practical implementation. If a fan sees a link to a DCU wiki for, say, Superman, he'll want to add a DCU wiki link to his favorite character, no matter if it's a stub or filled with fan spec (which comics wikis invariably are — it's hard enough keeping it out of WPC). Having to go through this over and over, explaining why one DCU wiki link it OK and another isn't, seems impractical and time/labor intensive.
    That work might be worth it — but I have to ask: Are these outside wikis better than the actual sources from which they draw? In any kind of research, the closer you are to primary sources, the better. Why link to something that's one or more steps down from that, with all the attendant errors and POV that can get introduced with each step? Doesn't it make more sense to link to the actual source of the information? --Tenebrae 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "actual sources" of those wikis are comics and cartoons. How can we refer readers to Comic #123 or episode "321" for more information? Are we telling them that to read the actual comics or watch the cartoons if they want further details on the subjects? Then what's the point of those wikis? Let's imagine a comic book article here that has less information than its counterpart on the DCDP. Should we refer readers to that article, should it meet WP:EL standards, or should we tell people to buy and read comics if they want to know what happens there. Isn't it more reasonable to direct them to the article that already contains that information? The same with the DCAU wiki. An article here that doesn't contain much details because of WP:EPISODE. Should we refer readers to a detailed article or should we tell them to watch the episodes? Coz those are the sources. The content of plenty fan sites are similar to that of these wikis. Wikis shouldn't be penalized because they're wikis.
    I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of assuming comics wikis fall to fan spec. Things like character's height and weight normally are disclosed in Who's Who sorts of issues. But I do agree they would need citing.
    As for implementation, I don't think it would be "impractical or time/labor intensive". For one, a template would make it easier to track where those links are, and if there's a consensus-agreed-upon policy, then an improper link would be removed and a link to the policy supporting the removal would be posted on the edit summary, just like any other EL.
    J Greb's suggestions seem very reasonable and rational. --PicketyFence 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a good point but if a wiki is full of fan speculation then we simply don't have it on the list - that is part of the point of this discussion. Obviously if someone sees a DCU Superman link and wants to add something similar to another entry than that link still has to meet the external links guidelines (if it isn't adding anything and the page is of a low quality then it can't be added). A similar argument could be made for every external link - even if it is to a site that has some useful pages it doesn't mean every link to that site is suitable. What we are discussing is a more fundamental issue arising from "links to avoid" #13: which if any wikis is it appropriate to allow to be used as external links (as long as they satisfy the external linking criteria)?
    On your other point we aren't using wikis as sources - that is the reason they could only be used as external links, i.e. they synthesise the available information into a whole which (with the better wikis) should present a good usable overview. Which would tick the box for external links - that they can be used for further reading. (Emperor 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    In that case, I can't see any good reason to avoid any of these wikis. --PicketyFence 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)

    A couple of things...

    I can see part of Tenebrae's point. The manual of style for Wiki is clear that we aren't supposed to be putting full transcripts of comics or shows in a Wiki article (I know, there are television episode articles with that level of detail and we are having constant arguments on this point with the story arc articles). But that threshold varies with other sites. As it stands, the three wikia we're talking about, especially with the pages involved, do go farther than Wiki, but not to the point of it being blow-by-blow, line-by-line. If it were, or is the links were to archives of fully scanned books and/or rips of full animated episodes, I could see it being shot down immediately. That isn't the case here.

    As for the potential of edit warring over the links, that isn't much different than the edit warring over anything else on Wiki. It's a case where AGF should come in. For myself if it's an isolated add, and I don't recognize the editor as having had problems in the past or and annom, I'd let it go unless I know for a fact that the linked page is a problem. If it some thing that I see multiple editors adding a bad page back in, I'd make the link into a note, with an additional explanation as to why the link has been killed. Beyond that, we get into the problem of linkspamming. - J Greb 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel strongly that linking to other free content resources is a Good Idea - perhaps we could create some specific templates for this using Template:FreeContentMeta, even. In cases like this, I think that supporting other free resources is an ethical good, and that clearly flagging places that are more appropriate for detailed or fannish content is a practical good. Screw the EL guideline and do what makes sense. Phil Sandifer 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Screw the EL guideline and do what makes sense"? That's an old debate trick that implies that whoever disagrees with you is, ipso facto, being nonsensical.
    I would say that what makes sense is either A) following the guideline or B) working to change the guideline.
    Otherwise it's anarchy.
    Has anyone here who disagrees with the EL's "generally avoid open wikis" policy gone to Wikipedia talk:External links to ask why that policy is in place? --Tenebrae 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that "Screw the EL guideline and do what makes sense" comes across as very, very bad debate tactic, and a weak argument to accept the links, so does presenting an argument stance that comes across as "Read 'generally avoid open wikis' as 'never link to open wikis'." This thread is here to see if there is consensus, among the project that using these wikia would primarily affect, for them to be considered an exception to the "generally avoid" criteria. - J Greb 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with J Greb's take on this - the guidelines say that open wikis are allowable as external links if we feel they have enough good quality editors to result in as reasonable an overview as you might find on other sites out there (like the International Heroes Catalogue for example). So there is no reason to screw the guidelines as we can work perfectly happily within them. All we have to do is come to a decision here about what links would be generally acceptable (they would still have to individually meet the broader WP:EL guidelines - if it doesn't add anything to the entry then it shouldn't be included, which goes for any link). We need to get beyond the liking not liking the guideline (which needs to be addressed on the talk page over there). (Emperor 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    It seems like these wikis would be allowed under WP:EL to me. How long has each been around? Probably about as long as wikia, which people seem to think is OK, because of the Jimbo connection. The DC one is wikia's featured wiki right now, kind of like a FA. If an exceptio can't be made for that kind of wiki, which kind can it be made for. The marvel ones main page has been around a couple years, the DC one is a bit younger. Wikis in general aren't that old, so I believe were looking at 2 (don't know DCAU) of the more stable and substantially edited wikis. I believe they do have some copyright issues, but so do we. I would say don't link to any page that has a copyright violation on it. I don't think that would be too hard to police. People are usually reasonable about copy vio stuff. I would say if we can link to any wikia wikis, then we can link to these two. - Peregrine Fisher 06:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Since there's already a Marveldirectory.com that has encyclopedic articles about their characters, what's the point of linking to a Marvel fan-wiki? What substantive information will a Marvel fan-wiki have that the official Marveldirectory.com and Wikipedia together won't? --Tenebrae 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really use either, but it seems like they have a lot more information, like which comics characters appear in and whatnot. storm 1 storm 2 Is there a rule that what we link to also has to be encyclopedic? If so, the wikia ones fail a lot WP:NOT. - Peregrine Fisher 06:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Marvel site's information is going to be, on the great whole, reliable and accurate. The fan-wiki information may or may not be accurate or valid. I'm concerned (because I've seen many instances of this already) that the only information source for some Wikipedia articles will be fan-wikis that may or may not have the kind of encyclopedic information you can take to the bank, so to speak.
    That said, why don't we consider a guideline that disallows external links to a wiki if there are no references/footnotes in an article. I think tjos is logical since all articles have supposed to have references/footnotes anyway, and you can't have "for further reading" links if you have no primary-reference links. --Tenebrae 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be a kind of instruction creep that isn't good. I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Wikia of you want to see what a couple of people have said. One editor says read the article, and link if it adds info we don't have. Another thinks there should be some notability test. - Peregrine Fisher 07:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are a couple of issues here:
    • We'd not want to just use the Marvel site as you are getting the companies official version which might be biased and possibly not as comprehensive as another site could be.
    • Links to open wikis can't be used as sources. This is explicitly about their use as external links. If there are no references then the article is failing to meet the requirements and needs work - it isn't an arguement for removing external links (especially as these links may themselves help provide information that allows us to track down further sources).
    I don't think we need to add extra convoluted rules when they still have to abide by WP:EL. (Emperor 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Guys, my head's starting to hurt on this a bit.

    Tenebrae I need you to clearly state you opinion on this. Right now, the way I'm reading this, it looks like you are equating the "External links" section with sources used to support text in the articles as citations. Am I reading this correctly? - J Greb 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, J. To answer: A lot of articles throughout Wikipedia, not just in WPC, erroneously place under "External links" the links to the reference sources that were used to write the article. I think this is because people read "External links" and, naturally, think all external links go there. In reality, of course, "External links" is a section of "for further reading" links. But until editors understand better or until that section name changes, a lot of editors are going to continue to dump all their links — whether used as reference or for further reading — in a section called "External links," which will make outside wiki seems like reference sources.
    (It might in fact be time for us to advocate for changing the confusing "External links" to the simpler and more precise "Further reading").
    I hope I've helped to clarify. Ever since Wikipedia has appeared, I've seen mainstream articles about comics and comics creators be so much more accurate than before. I'd hate to see it go back to misinterpretations and inaccuracies because writers follow the links to outside wikis and take their authoritative-looking structure as meaning it has editorial vetting and standards. --Tenebrae 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, and it also shows a slight problem with part of the arguments you're making. WP:CITE#Further reading/External links is clear about what goes where. Instead of trying to apply the criteria for sources of citation to the EL, split the links between the two sections and cite the guideline. Otherwise, you're arguing to scrap the EL since anything that will be listed there is, or could be, a citable source for the article.
    Roughly, and not to be flippant, work with the guideline, try and educate others to it, and, if they have trouble with it, let them force a change to it.
    Within this context, the wikia are being looked at as what EL is intended for: supplementary information that Wiki would not, or could not, include. What has been presented would seem to satisfy the criteria that the three wikia are and exception to WP:EL point 13, so that guideline has been met. Nixing it because other editors are, either deliberately or through ignorance, not following through on a different guideline seems a huge step back. - J Greb 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for my apparently unfortunate phrasing. Let me be more elaborate.

    The "no wikis" rule in EL was actually only debated and added by about a half-dozen people, and sought little imput from the wider community. It is a very poor bit of guideline, in that it flies in the face of the whole point of the m:Interwiki map, which is the system that lets us do things like wikilinks to Wiktionary or Meta - or also Wikia, and also is done so that the links don't have a nofollow tag, which amounts to using Wikipedia's considerable heft to actively promote these sites.

    So on the one-hand we have a developer-created initiative to make linking to other wikis both easier and more effective, and on the other we have a single line of a guideline that got minimal consideration. Situations like this are why guidelines are explicitly allowed to be broken - the "no wikis" bit of EL really is an eminently ignorable bit of cruft. Especially because Template:FreeContentMeta - a template that creates a sister-project-like box link for other wikis - has survived TfD more recently than that deletion debate took place, indicating a clear lack of consensus for the policy of "don't link to other wikis." Certainly we should be careful about these links, and make sure we are using them in ways that benefit the articles - preferably by pointing to articles that expand on things we are unlikely to cover in our article (like detailed plot summaries). But if there is a clear benefit for doing it, the caution in WP:EL should not be considered a serious problem with doing it. Phil Sandifer 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me see if I understand this correctly: If a wikia is in the Interwiki map, which the DCDP and MDP are, then the Wiki system allows for linkage just like the other language Wikis? - J Greb 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is slightly beyond that - the guideline is there and if you object to it then work on getting it removed or reworded. We have to try and work with it because trying to ignore it isn't going to get us anywhere as other editors are perfectly in their rights to not ignore it and remove the links leaving us at the impasse that resulted in my starting this discussion.
    As I've said we don't even have to ignore the guideline as we can work within it perfectly well - all we need to do is come to a consensus about what wikis are broadly allowable as external links and everything should be fine. (Emperor 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Clarification: If I read Phil's comment correctly, there are two salient points:
    1. The software Wiki uses has a function that will place a properly wikified entry for a wikia listed in the map into a link similar to the ones other language wiki links generate.
    2. Reading past the map it looks like the function was put in place to eliminate using the EL to "advertise" the wikia.
    I'm wondering though if I read that right. - J Greb 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually the other way around. A normal external link doesn't help sites with their google rank, but these internal links do help. Probably so Jimbo can make some money on wikia. - Peregrine Fisher 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Jimbo conspiracy theory" has actually been widely theorized, but no - the interwiki map predates Wikia by a long shot, and Wikia was added to it for the same reason anything else is. The function was put in, originally, to allow interwiki links to function among languages and projects, and to make it so that wikis could play nice with each other. It was later decided not to apply the nofollow tag to interwiki links, but this had nothing to do with Wikia's inclusion on that list, and everything to do with the fact that we wanted to continue supporting other free content wikis in a way we did not want to support random SEO crap. Phil Sandifer 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Sandifer has been on Wikipedia since 2004, a year longer than I, so I do respect his perspective. But we cannot just unilaterally go against policy because he doesn't think enough people weighed in — maybe more haven't simply because they agree with the policy.
    The proper way to do this is to go to Wikipedia talk:External links, solicit input, and create a policy discussion. Otherwise, it's anarchy. If people really believe their positions are honest and true, then they should have no objection to having the whole community discuss it, rather than unilaterally proclaiming the policy is wrong.--Tenebrae 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not policy - it's a guideline, and an MoS guideline at that (which is, frankly, a lower tier of guideline than, say, WP:RS). Furthermore, it's a guideline that has actively failed to be supported by consensus at deletion debates. Furthermore, policy and guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. You do not need to go to WP:EL to get consensus - you're welcome to start doing things differently, provided it makes sense, and when that becomes established practice let WP:EL catch up. Phil Sandifer 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason not to go to WP:EL and seek consensus? I'm not sure why there's such seeming urgency here. What's the rush, exactly? --Tenebrae 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. The more I read this the more I feel like evoking WP:IGNORE. Seriously, what's the fuss all about? If these wikias have good articles and can provide extra insight that Wiki can't per all its rules and constrictions, then why linger on this rather elusive suggestion of "avoiding links to open wikis". If a page here can benefit from having an EL to another wiki, then add it.

    "If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PicketyFence (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we are sidetracking here. The point of this discussion is to decide if any of the aforementioned Wikias should not be linked to, merely because they are open wikis. The only thing that we should be asking is:

    • Do any of these Wikias fail to meet WP:EL?
    • Does #13 apply to them? ("(avoid) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.") Are any of them unstable?

    If there's no BIG reason to avoid these links then this discussion is pretty superfluous. I don't want to sound harsh, but so far no one provided any reason beyond "WP:EL says we should avoid linking to open wikis" or "it can lead to linkspamming". Lots of things in WP:EL lead to linkspamming.

    I agree with Phil Sandifer when he expressed his discontent to point 13. Saying we should avoid links to open wikis is a very obscure and generalized guideline. But I also agree that we shouldn't ignore it only because we don't like it. We can either get back on track with this discussion or go to WP:EL and propose a policy review to remove or clarify that "open wikis bar." --PicketyFence 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say I'm surprised by the fuss as my intention when starting this was pretty simple - and reading through all of the above I still believe it is simple.
    All we really need to know is people approve or disapprove of those 3 wikis I listed (and if they disapprove why). If we can get a consensus approval on any of them then it satisfies #13 of links to avoid and we are able to use it (providing the specific links satisfy the more general WP:EL guidelines).
    That's it. If people object to the actual guideline then raise it over there but we don't need to go down the route of getting guidelines changed or just ignoring them (which will only lead us back here anyway) all we need to do is address the specific issue. (Emperor 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I approve of the three wikis, and don't think linking to them goes again WP:EL. - Peregrine Fisher 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To restate my opinion above: I think all three have the size and stability required to satisfy #13 (although the individual links will still have to satisfy WP:EL). (Emperor 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I agree: the 3 wikia reach the level where point 13 shouldn't block their use. Each page though still needs to pass muster. - J Greb 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Though I have to ask: how and who would decide if each page satisfies WP:EL? Would we use WP:GF and let editors decide by themselves, or would we have to propose each link here and reach a consensus for each page. Coz I think the latter would be unnecessary extra work. I think that once the wikis are allowed then anyone should be able to post the links, however, if we come across a link that doesn't satisfy WP:EL (imagine it's a stub or copyvio) we could simply remove it and explain why. That seems simpler than actually having to approve each link here. --PicketyFence 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go along with the consensus, obviously, though I would like to have seen more than us six or seven discussing it.
    One note: Because of the previously explained conflation many pages have of "References" and "External links," pages without "Footnotes" or "References" sections should not link to third-party wikis. Doing so implies that a third-party wiki is the only source used as an article reference (and indeed, probably would be). This stricture has the additional salutary effect of encouraging editors to find and add genuine references before they can add a link to an outside wiki. --Tenebrae 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should avoid adding ELs to third-party wikis because readers here may not know the difference between WP:EL and WP:CITE. We can't take it upon ourselves to educate inept readers. They have to educate themselves. I can't see why a page here without "Footnotes" or "References" sections shouldn't have an External Link. If some reader assumes the third-party wiki to be the only source used as an article reference then that's their mistake. Their misunderstanding is not our responsibility. It would be ours if we added the EL in the "References" sections, which would undoubtedly mislead the readers. An External Link is an External Link – there's no semantics to it. If you think the naming is ambiguous then you should propose a change, not barring ELs to avoid misunderstandings. --PicketyFence 15:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about inept readers. I'm talking about inept editors. And contrary to what you believe, it's an editor's responsibility, and I'm speaking professionally here, to do everything we can to keep readers from misunderstanding. That's especially important with an encyclopedia.
    I'd like to ask what your urgency is about including some outside fan-wiki. Are you involved with it? Do you contribute to it? We're talking about adding something that doesn't even rise to the level of a reliable reference, the inclusion of which will help give publicize and draw traffic to an outside site that anyone interested would easily turn up on a Google search.
    Negotiations involve compromise that addresses legitimate issues brought up by different viewpoints. Your "my way or the highway" approach is troubling and unhelpful. --Tenebrae 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa. Getting a little personal here, aren't we? Please stick to the topic and don’t make implicit accusations. You keep referring to these outside wikis as "reliable references" while we've already tried to explain to you that we're talking about ELs, and the two are very different subjects. If you can't get the difference between WP:EL and WP:RS then I don't think you should take part in this debate. You keep beating the same dead horse all the while biting the head off of those who show no confusion between ELs and References. You keep saying editors don't know the difference between references and external links, but do you? Right here you renamed an EL section, leaving two links to two open wikias, one of which being a wikia under discussion here, under the references section. You just did what you claim others do wrong. Please try to keep your words consistent with your actions. You're the only one here showing an urgency in barring ELs to open wikis based on fundamentals you don’t fully grasp.
    "it's an editor's responsibility, and I'm speaking professionally here, to do everything we can to keep readers from misunderstanding"
    Then go ahead and propose a MoS change to avoid those misconceptions. Don’t try to restrict allowed links to circumvent misunderstandings. --PicketyFence 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You know very well, as I explained to you on your talk page, that after working on dozens on pages I missed two links. I find it curious that you knowingly act as if I did not explain that to you — and, also, that you didn't answer my conflict-of-interest question.

    "Don't try to restrict allowed links to circumvent misunderstandings"? We need to do everything we can, as encyclopedia editors, to circumvent misunderstandings. — Tenebrae 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things:
    • Now I was talking about a different edit. On my talk page we were talking about two other links [1] which now makes it four overlooked open wiki links, and
    • I did answer your conflict-of-interest question [2]
    Enforcing a policy is as important as maintaining the integrity of an article. --PicketyFence 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vision (comics) et al

    Ok, I'm at my witts end and the last Admin to have a run at this has ignored a post to their talk page that the problem has continued after the last round of Blocks.

    Nutshell: Asgardian and DrBat which earned a 24 hr block on the 3rd for edit warring the article.

    When he came back after the block, Asgardian has repeatedly blanket reverted, with he himself not bothering to participate on the talk page but chiding others to, the article 5 time to his Sept 3 version.

    This isn't the only article he's done this to. From Neil's (the last blocking admin) talk here's the list:

    These are following the same general practices that had generated escalating blocks from Steve block on June 22, and July 6.

    Should this go back to the RfC or are we at a point where we have other options.

    - J Greb 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    J Greb is correct. Asgardian is out of control, again. --Tenebrae 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't it during the fall semester of 2006 when Asgardian deliberately edit warred just to get information for some school project? It looks like Asgardian got hooked on doing that and just never let go. Wryspy 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of the above. I don't edit a lot of Marvel articles but when I do there always seems to be an edit war going on - always with Asgardian vs nearly everyone else. Something needs doing and I don't know how many times they can be told to try and reach consensus (and/or ask here for further input). This does need to be taken up to the next level and I fully support whateve steps are required to resolve this issue. (Emperor 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I hate to say this I really do, but you AND Asgardian are right. I have seen some of the edits he has made, and well some of them are supportable. But also he does not go through the proper channels to fix these problems. Now is where I would say we should like teach him, but I do not think that is possible, it is a shame though 8-/. So yea we need an admin, and I guess a ban, like a permanent ban. Phoenix741(Talk Page) 14:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like I let a little frustration color my word choice with the last blocking Admin. After a second prompt he indicated he had missed the initial request in amongst the new talk messages he had after a weekend away.
    This also wound up with him reviewing Asgardian's edits an imposing a week long block. Considering the length, a drastic jump, it may be in the best interest to all to see how this plays out, both if Asgardian appeals the block, and how he edits after it expires, before moving it up a notch.
    It looks like my basic "where do we go now?" got answered, and we're moving again. - J Greb 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I (and others) haven't said he is wrong per se - I have found myself in agreement with some of the edits he has made. The problem is the way he goes about things - if a few people editing an entry are against what you are doing but you think you have policy on your side just trying to impose your will on the entry isn't going to work 9as it just ends in edit warring). You need to drop a note in here or speak to some other editors, get a second opinion, present your case and gradual work up to a consensus decision. The current approach just leads to disruption and bad feeling all round. (Emperor 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Not too long ago there was a whole discussion page to talk about the problem with Asgardian. Things got worked out then, but it sounds like he's reverted to his old ways again. (Something I was worried about.) My suggestion is to work towards his ego. Post on his talk page so you're sure he'll see it. Tell him that he is making a positive contribution to the article (which for the most part he is), but that he should go about it in a more community friendly way. Suggest not doing reverts but actual edits, and suggest that he listen to other editors. -Freak104 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You relise that he is most likly reading all this, and now if you do say something nice he will just see it as a way to work towards his ego and get him to stop. Thus causing him to do more trouble.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurricane (comics)

    This page needs a bit of cleanup, unless there is more than one Hurricane in the Marvel Universe named Albert Potter! 204.153.84.10 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct headings

    A lot of the comic articles do not have the proper heading as laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars. I have gone through numerous pages and fixed a lot of the headings. Most of the articles I edited are the small/minor articles that not many people see. But some of the big articles also had incorrect headings. My goal was to finish fixing 99% of the articles by myself, but I realize that is unrealistic as I have less and less time to do anything besides work. All articles in the Category:Marvel comics superheroes have been fixed (unless someone changed the headings back after I went through), and I have gotten a start on the Category:Marvel Comics supervillains (I have finished all articles through the letter 'B'). I am not posting because I feel I deserve a barnstar or some self-serving purpose like that, but because "many hands make light work." If everyone made an active effort to find articles that needed fixing (I suggest my method of going line by line through the categories, but any method works), then 99.9% of all comic articles would be fixed in nearly no time at all. Everyone would just have to make sure they follow the template that has been established. I also suggest this as it will help the WikiProject Comics look better, because the comics section of Wikipedia will look better and more cohesive if we fix the headings so that they are consistent across the board. Freak104 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I applaud your work and energy! Let me just be the first to say.
    One quick note: Old-fashioned numbered footnotes generally have the subhead "Footnotes" rather than "References", per Wikipedia:Footnotes. And in addition to being the bearer of bad news, I'll at least volunteer to go through and help with your worthy project. --Tenebrae 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Images

    As a heads-up to everybody, I've been going through Category:Non-free comic images scanning for lacking fair use justifications and other problems. I'm trying to go at a reasonable pace through the category so that other people from the project can follow me and add/improve justifications when needed. I'm creating User:Phil Sandifer/Last image looked at with where I am in the list. If you watchlist that, you'll know when I've looked at more images. If I'm going too fast and you guys want more time to sort through things, let me know and I'll take a day or two off. Phil Sandifer 13:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics&oldid=157408532"