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 Doczilla (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 20 November 2007 (fix a typo after the minute - and go back on break). 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

(5 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: 2024-05-26 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

    Amalgam Comics entries must die.

    List of Amalgam Comics characters got deleted because it was full of hundreds of unsourced character listings, very few of which provided any source to indicate that each character was anything other than an error, hoax, or fan fiction pulled from the Internet. At least two users have gone through adding Amalgam characters to DC and Marvel character articles without providing any sources. Cleaning this up will take a massive amount of work. I have deleted a few such entries (e.g., to Whizzer) to be consistent with messages I've left those users to say they need to provide sources for every one of those entries. One user provides a geocities page as a source [1], and the other one won't reply to me. Worse than that, the person just keeps adding Amalgam sections to superhero and supervillains articles, compounding the problem. Citations need to be provided for every character's first appearance. Descriptions of those that never actually had a first appearance need to be deleted from their articles. With so many articles, the amount of work just to delete all those entries will not be the best use of time because people would have to turn around and restore them all. Here's what I think is needed:

    1. People other than me need to ask those who keep adding Amalgam characters to stop doing so without references. Many hearing from more than one person would help.
    2. Someone is going to have to go through those users' edit histories to see all the articles they've edited this way, double-check each character, provide references for those that really appeared in the comics, and delete those that did not. This will take multiple people to split up the work into manageable groups of articles to research (or one who'd like to direct his/her OCD into this endeavor).
    3. Providing those references will take some research. I read the DC vs. Marvel issues, but I don't personally own any Amalgam Comics publications. We need some reliable sources that can tell us when each Amalgam character first appeared.

    Any suggestions will be appreciated. Any volunteers to share the work will be loved.Doczilla 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have all the Amalgam issues, though I must say, my desire to read them is negligible. That said, we're dealing here with versions of characters that appeared in one or two issues at most - surely the most expedient decision is to pull all the Amalgam stuff as non-notable in the larger scheme of the subject. Phil Sandifer 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to agree with Doc here. I don't really see the point why Amalgam character need their own entries since they haven't been used in years and I doubt they will be used again. StarSpangledKiwi 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree as well. It is certainly possible that articles on the issues themselves could be the best place to place such content. I wouldn't mind seeing some images in more of those articles, though. John Carter 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a hundred percent sure I understand everything that's going on here but here's my thoughts on Amalgam. 1) The issues that were -Produced- should have feature articles, like 'Bullets and Bracelets' and 'Dark Claw' and 'Super Soldier'. The -characters-, if verifiable, should be put into the 'Alternate Versions' section of each character's webpage. The mix of Catwoman and Electra (Catsai) doesn't deserve a seperate article but should be mentioned in the Catwoman article and Electra article. If the character by itself is important enough to have an article, it's Amalgam version deserves a mention. P.S. Pardon if this duplicates, my computer is being odd. Lots42 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you agree to have references with links in the articles of the more frequently appearing "source" characters, with content in the articles on the individual issues regarding the "Amalgamated" versions of those characters? John Carter 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For those where we can cite when they first appeared, we can add those citations to the information about them under "Alternate versions" to satisfy Wikipedians who want to mention the Amalgam characters somewhere. Otherwise, every Amalgam mention should be removed from those many, many entries in characters' AV sections. Doczilla 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Few ¢...
    I can see the reason for an article on "Amalgam Comics", it was a joint project by DC and Marvel and had a serious sales push behind it. Such an article should also cover what was published, both the actual book and the primary characters.
    I can almost see a rationale for characters headlining solo books of the event. Almost. At best the articles are going to be 90-100% plot summary and/or speculation, the stuff that minor character articles are made of. Teams, team members, and minor characters from the event don't even really have that.
    IIRC, there was just a handful of characters where we were shown or told "Marvel 'him' and DC's 'him' were blended to get Amalgam's 'him'." And all of those were the "major" characters. The rest are "reader's best guess". It doesn't matter if it's the editor adding the AV or the 3rd party fan0site they're sourcing, it's OR of "I think this because of these visual elements." On those grounds alone the material should be stripped. And as pointed out elsewhere, most of the lists out there include bunk characters. Without a pair of cites, one for the character's published use and one for an official "M+D=A", none of the AV adds are defensible.
    Lastly: the fictitious comics... I've seen these added to things like Detective Comics where the editor is adding the comics from the "editor's notes" in the Amalgam books. This is something else that doesn't belong in the articles, much less passed off as "alternate versions". - J Greb 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree - I think having an article on the various one-shots that made up the Amalgam run is ridiculous. These issues are not notable in and of themselves - the Amalgam crossover is a logical place for all of this information to go.
    I am skeptical of the value of even including these in "alternate versions" sections, but this is mostly because I am skeptical of alternate versions sections. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah J Greb is right - we basically face two problems with Amalgam characters:
    • Some of them are metafictional so haven't, strictly speaking, appeared in comics (the ones that have are all listed on the list of Amalgam comics).
    • Only some of them are explicitly described as being a merging of two characters.
    If they fronted their own comic and you can provide an official source (from the comics or creators or an official company statement of some sort) then I feel you can include it in the alternative versions sections. If there is even a whiff that these can't be met then take the section off to the talk page with a note - that should help give other editors the idea they should keep an eye out for this to avoid them ones we've removed from sneaking back in. (Emperor 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    For the most part, I agree with Lots42 and J Greb. Major things should have their own article; minor things should not. Amalgam itself should definitely have its own article. As for characters that we're not specifically told what Marvel and DC characters made up an Amalgam character, I can't comment on it too much due to not owning the comics, and I believe I read them once from the library. However, if something is pretty obvious, does that really constitute OR? I can kinda see how it is, but I can also see how it isn't. Anakinjmt 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, the rule of OR is, if they didn't say it explicitly, it's OR. So, yeah, even if it's obvious, but they never said it explicitly, to say that the character was an amalgamation of X and Y would be OR. John Carter 02:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's right. I remember hearing that concerning a whole debate about what titles constitute the WWE Triple Crown championship. Like then, it's matters like this one that make me wish that wasn't the case with WP:OR, but then I think about what would happen if that wasn't the case. However, and I'm just asking, if it is pretty obvious, could that be grounds for WP:IGNORE? I don't ask it lightly, but is going by the letter of WP:OR hindering us from making better articles? I'm just looking for opinions here, as I don't know myself, but I feel like I should at the very least bring it up, so please don't hate me for it. Anakinjmt 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A better article is one that informs readers by summarising external sources. Is adding our speculation likely to better inform readers and create a better encyclopedia, or is it possible we could misinform people and reduce the value of our encyclopedia? If there is even the hint of the latter, then WP:IGNORE states we avoid it at all costs. WP:IGNORE wants the best encyclopedia possible, above all else. Hope that clears the OR position up. As to the issue with the characters, I agree with the emerging consensus. There's no need for every character to be written up here, we need sources and we need to integrate them into accepted article format. Where the information doesn't meet policy, it needs to be removed, and editors need to be coached on the relevant policies. Steve block Talk 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm relatively split here. On the one hand, I tend to think that obvious synthesis is not OR, and that this is an important policy to maintain. On the other hand, I don't see how a thorough list of Amalgam characters is terribly useful here - one can get the general thrust of the concept in relatively few characters, and that seems sufficient for our purposes. Phil Sandifer 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't have the ego to announce my textual readings as being obvious. Not only that, I think it's intellectually honest to couch anything which is "my best guess" as being "my best guess", and for me policies dictate "my best guess" has no place in Wikipedia. ;) If we're at the point where we're debating whether trying to work out which two characters were merged to form x character who made one appearance in one panel is violating OR or some part of WP:NOT, I'd rather sidestep the debate and broadly agree. :) Steve block Talk 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my thinking about it. Amalgam was a unique historical event in comics. The two largest comic companies in the world, for a period of, what, a few months? They produced joint comics that were a combination of their titles and characters. Their big characters they told use what they were merged into -- Capt. America and Superman into Super Soldier, etc. But, it wasn't just their major characters. It's their smaller characters too. Characters that aren't hugely big but are bigger than a lot of others, such as Green Arrow. And, the characters that are considered minor, like Shining Knight and Atom. Now, I don't know if those characters ever appeared in an Amalgam form, but I feel as though we should try to really let the reader of the article know that this was a major event that affected both universes. I get that it states it in the article, but naming Amalgam characters that are, at the very least, quite obvious what they are an Amalgam of that we weren't explicitly told would, I think, help the reader truly understand the scope of it. Does that make sense? That would be the only rationale I could think of for WP:IGNORE. Anakinjmt 14:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heading left... I think you overstate the importance of Amalgam by a great deal. It had no impact on the individual universes, and is most interesting, honestly, as an example of the 90s in comics (Note that we had the much demanded Gambit/Nightman crossover in 1996 as well, as well as a bunch of other mind-wrenchingly stupid comics). The in-universe coverage here is worse than ridiculous, and could readily be handled with one or two sentences - "The merged characters ranged from the two company's top stars (Batman and Wolverine becoming Dark Claw) to deeply obscure characters (fill in example here)." That's all that's really needed.

    Honestly, looking at the Amalgam articles, I see about one paragraph of one article worth keeping. This is some of the worst writing in WikiProject Comics - sprawled over an inappropriately large number of articles, virtually all in-universe, lacking context - this is shameful. Someone want to mass AfD the individual character articles? Phil Sandifer 14:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not saying it permanently changed the universes, like COIE or IC did for DC, or Civil War did for Marvel. But, the fact that they combined is not something, IMO, that is minor, no matter how long or short they were that way. The combination of two universes is vastly different than a Gambit/Nightman crossover, and easily much more important. You don't hear about Amalgam like you do about COIE or IC, but I think that's mainly because it didn't permanently change things. If you asked me to give you a list of major events in the DC universe, I'd list COIE, Death of Superman, Amalgam, IC. For Marvel, I'd do Secret Wars, Spider-Man Clone Saga, Amalgam, and Civil War. Amalgam wasn't some minor thing, but was a universe-changing--literally--event. The sentence you gave, Phil, is a good one, and is a great way to explain it. I'm just trying to cover all the bases here to make sure the reader truly understands the scope of it. I'm not going to be a jerk about this, and hopefully I'm not coming across that way, as that's not my intent. And, I'll be honest with you. The only way I really know anything about Amalgam is from the articles here. I'd never heard of it before reading the article, and the listing of all the examples did help me understand the scope of it. I think it's after that that I borrowed an Amalgam book from my local library and read it, once. Reading it helped, sure, but I only read it once, and I continue to remember the broad and huge scale of it because of the list of examples. That's my reasoning. Anakinjmt 14:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my concern - I feel like you're asking the wrong question here. As an encyclopedia, I think we're less interested in "major events in the DC universe" than in "major events in comics." Amalgam is unquestionably important as an event in comics - it captures the essential bankruptcy of the latter half of the 90s in superhero comics in a way that few other things can. The cover of Legends of the Dark Claw is, in some ways, the only image of the 90s you ever really need. (This is exactly how Donald Ault uses it in his comics classes, in fact) But the article that covers its importance to comics is a very different article from one that covers its importance to the individual company lines. We want the former article, in which case the character articles are relatively superfluous. Phil Sandifer 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is really hard to say that anything is particular important until and unless some outsider has discussed it. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that anyone has written up the Amalgam books substantially, so it could be argued that they weren't particularly important. Also, unfortunately, if a precedent were to be set here for individual listing of all of these merged characters, then presumably the same thing could later be requested for every variation on an individual character in the What If series and other stories of that kind, producing a glut of such minor entries. I can't see that setting that precedent is a particularly good idea. John Carter 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, when I added the Amalgam characters, I went by the geocities site, which seemed like a good source to me.

    The thing is: isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about EVERYTHING? The way I see it, Wikipedia contains the entire knowledge of humanity in webpage form. Every piece of knowledge from past, present and future is included here.

    So, going with that, Wikipedia includes every single piece of existing information about comic books.

    Logically, that would include the Amalgam Comics.

    If you want to delete information on Amalgam characters, you should also delete information on Ultimate Marvel characters, rebooted 52 DC characters, Age of Apocalypse characters, etc.

    Also, I use the geocities page to see which DC and Marvel characters were used to form which Amalgam character. However, some of the times I go with common sense (ie. if a character is called "Sinistron"; then he would logically be a combination of Sinestro and Ultron, Death from Amalgam would logically be a combination of Death of the Endless and Mistress Death, and so on).

    I don't know why they deleted the Whizzer's Amalgam version entry. The Whiz is a documented Amalgam character; He even has his own page here! Bluecatcinema 12:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, no, Wikipedia isn't "supposed to be about EVERYTHING". The Wikimedia Foundation, the legal owners of the Wikipedia brand, have stated that their purpose is "bringing a free and accurate encyclopedia to every single person on the planet" and have stated that their goal "is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge". So from that we learn that we have to be a freely licensed, accurate encyclopedia. It is those ideals which have informed content policy, namely Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The latter policy states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." So from that we can see that Wikipedia is not designed to be about everything. There are limits, and current consensus has it that some of those limits are dictated by assessing notability, with fictional works and characters assessed using this this guidance. So we have to determine whether it is Wikipedia's place to detail every almagam charcater. We also have to detail whether the geocities page you are using constitutes a reliable source, so as to demonstrate verifiability and thus meet the stated goal of accuracy. Now, Wikipedia works by consensus, a process reached either by discussing an issue or through editing, where a rough acceptance of a decision will emerge. If you read through the above debate, the rough consensus is that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on every amalgam character, which is why people are removing them. I hope that helps clarify the situation. Steve block Talk 13:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am responding to Phil's response to me from above, as much as been posted since then and I was unable to add more yesterday due to other commitments. While I do agree with you Phil that Amalgam is in important in that it does show the bankruptcy comic companies faced in the 90s, it's also important because, for the first time (at least that I know of), two major comic companies produced months worth of comics that both companies own. Access is the first character that is trademarked or copyrighted (someone btw want to explain to me the difference between those? Because I don't get it) and owned by DC and Marvel. Both companies can use him however they want. And the Amalgam comics were co-published for months by DC and Marvel. Amalgam was different from previous DC vs. Marvel comics. DC vs. Marvel comics were co-published by the two companies, but DC still owned their characters and Marvel still owned their characters. But, both companies owned (and still do, I believe) Super Soldier, and Bruce Wayne, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. I feel as though the dual-importance of Amalgam should be prominent. Yes, concentrate on it being a fine example of the near-bankruptcy comic companies faced prior to the release of the X-Men film. But also concentrate on the significance of two major comic book companies, who you could even say are rivals, working together in such a manner. It is in that sense that I feel we should cover it as it relates to the individual companies as well as the general trend of comics in the 90s. Does that make sense? Anakinjmt 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me also add, in going off of Steve right above, that it is Wikipedia's job to cover everything that is notable. If it's notable, we cover it. If it's not, we don't. Bottom line. Anakinjmt 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the fine details about the Amalgam characters are not themselves notable. The story details have no long-term impact on anything fictional or real. We can mention them in a single Amalgam characters article without cluttering every DC and Marvel character article with this stuff, especially when editors are usually just guessing as to which DC and Marvel characters' articles they relate to. Doczilla 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But, isn't their Amalgam counterpart considered an alternate version? That would seem to suggest, for example, alternate versions of Batman should have Dark Claw and Bruce Wayne, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. mentioned as being alternate versions of Batman. And, again, I would say only if it is readily obvious who a character is an amalgamation of could we put it down, if we weren't told by DC or Marvel. If it's readily obvious, I don't know if that would be considered OR, and if it would be, that could be a case to invoke WP:IGNORE. If WP:OR is interfering with us making the best article possible, then we should ignore it, and this would be the only case I could really see it. I'm not pushing to ignore WP:OR, as it's one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, but if we ultimately determine WP:OR is preventing us from adding something that is highly obvious and anybody with a basic knowledge of comics could see, then IGNORE should be invoked. Best way to determine this: is there an Amalgam character that DC or Marvel did not tell us what two characters made up the Amalgam character but is readily obvious what it is? It would have to be highly obvious, with practically ZERO doubt about it. If we can find one character which fits that profile, then I will call for a survey of opinions to establish consensus to invoke WP:IGNORE concerning that character, and ONLY that character. It may be a tall order, but I don't consider invoking WP:IGNORE to be anything but. Invoking it requires a tall order. Anakinjmt 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get what the problem is. Marvel has a character called Izzy Cohen. DC has one called Ice Cream Soldier. They were merged into 'Ice Cream Cohen'. We don't need Dan Didio sending out a mass email telling us what the two original characters are. It's obvious. And any article for 'Dark Claw' will state 'Batman' and 'Wolverine' in the intro paragraph. Lots42 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, according to WP:OR, because DC and Marvel didn't explicitly state which two characters composed Ice Cream Cohen, saying that they were an amalgamation of Izzy Cohen and Ice Cream Soldier is considered original research. It is things like that that have led me to pondering the idea of invoking WP:IGNORE. If we find more characters like the one you mentioned, then I will establish a survey of the idea of invoking WP:IGNORE on the grounds of being hindered from stating which Marvel and DC characters created an Amalgam character due to WP:OR. Thanks to you, we may have one character already, but I would prefer an entire list. This way, we reach a consensus once and then apply it to all the other similar cases. Anakinjmt 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR means you shouldn't insert Ice Cream Cohen into the articles on Izzy Cohen or Ice Cream Soldier. In an Amalgam characters article, you might make a flat observation about the obvious relationship without telling readers what to think about it -- e.g., "The DC Comics character Ice Cream Soldier and the Marvel Comics character Izzy Cohen are both World War II characters with . . ." whatever else was similar about them. You're not telling readers that it explicitly means Ice Cream Cohen = Ice Cream Soldier + Izzy Cohen. If other editors let the flat statement of fact stand, it's probably okay. If anybody argues and says, "No, it must have been the Ice Cream Ghost," then the statement has to be altered or removed. But you still can't insert that into the articles on Izzy or either Ice Creamer without flat confirmation. Comparable example: We keep reverting people's assertions that the multi-armed clone in Ultimate Spider-Man was Ultimate Tarantula because the source material never confirmed it. However, we eventually compromised by keeping someone's flat observation that the character's costume has the Tarantula's symbol. Doczilla 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I've never heard of Izzy Cohen or Ice Cream Soldier. However, to people that do know them, if it's obvious that the two combined to create Ice Cream Cohen, that would be a reason to conduct the survey I mentioned. If anybody else can think of any other characters, post them here. I don't want to do a blanket survey, to avoid it being abused, so I need specific examples. Anakinjmt 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughts

    Whew - this was a lengthy read : )
    In response, I think:
    • The amalgam stuff shouldn't exist in "alternate versions" sections of articles, since they were "amalgams" of two separate characters, owned by separate companies. (This is unique, and shouldn't be compared to "alternate" composite characters, such as Superman (Bruce Wayne).)
    • There should be at least information on the publishing event and its history.
    • There should at least be information on the "amalgam universe" and its history.
    • There should be information on the character "Access" and his history, as well as the character's uniqueness in ownership/copyright/whatever.
    • There should be a list of "amalgamised" characters and settings (and objects?), and their (albeit abridged) history. It should be clearly referenced, to prevent the very concerns that led to this thread.
    What gets its own article? See Wikipedia:Summary style. - jc37 18:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very much in agreement with jc37, not least of all for the practical and pragmatic nature of it. Amalgam Comics is a publishing entity that by Wikipedia notability standards deserves its own article. But that's all.
    And that would simplify matters by — rather than having us pore over each of a hundred or more entries — allowing us to simply delete the "Alternate Version - Amalgam" section in each, quick and surgical, and concentrate our citation energy on a single article where all the relevant information will be in one place. --Tenebrae 20:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That really is the easiest route. An article on the Amalgam "event" would cover its publishing history: the real world context, and main reason for the article - DC and Marvel working on it, writers and their comments, reviews (if any), set up series, etc; its plot: the secondary reason - Cliff's notes version of the in-universe history and plot points; and ideas that played out or were unique to the series - Access, an abridged list of the Amalgam characters, explicitly cited examples of the types of mergings, etc.
    That's it. Beyond that article the characters and comics are not notable. And any standing articles that are currently up for Amalgam characters or books should redirect to that article. Everything else really belongs in a Wkia tailored to the fictional universe. - J Greb 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree at all. I think that if a character is noteable enough to have their own article, then he, she or it's Amalgam version deserves a mention. I do not understand the opposition here. I can understand the need for citations ("Joe Blow appears in X-Dudes #35-89") and links (which would help the problem of 'Who is so-and-so?'), and to make sure they are real (I got fooled by 'John Jones Vampire Hunter') but the sheer, rampant opposition to any -mention- baffles me. Feel free to explain your opinion on my talk page if we are cluttering up this page, I may not agree but I'll be civil. Lots42 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but you seem to miss the last sentence of my post : )
    Basically, let's work on what's described above, and per Wikipedia:Summary style, we can decide later if any section merits it's own article. I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 11:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one of those minor things that drives me nuts -- and come to think of it, should probably drive all of us editors nuts since it's one of those recurring editorial things. "It's" means "It is". That's all. Nothing else. The possessive form is "Its" -- no apostrophe. "The lion's fur" = "Its fur". Not "It's fur", which means "It is fur".
    Sorry. Just one of those things that make editors and journalists weep for the fall of civilization. (Like "literally", which get misused all the time and is being destroyed as the only word that means what it means, which is "actual, physical reality" and not "really, really". I saw a book review recently that said, "The words literally sing off the page". No, they didn't! Not unless the pages had recorded music and speakers and the text was put to song!)
    But, as PAD says, I digress. "Amalgam Comics" is a notable article. Minor, one-off combinations of particular characters, given the proven penchant for fake entries, makes policing each and every one of a hundred or more articles unwieldy and impractical. With respect to Lots42, do we otherwise have consensus on removing each Amalgam section in other articles, and keeping all the Amalgam information in one place? Given the length of this discussion, can we take this action today? --Tenebrae 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    This is a survey to get an idea of consensus concerning Amalgam characters for whom it is officially unknown what DC and Marvel characters create them, but is considered extremely obvious. The consensus is for whether to invoke WP:IGNORE and add in the characters combined to create an Amalgam character, due to WP:OR currently prohibiting adding in material. This is a blanket survey, so all characters that are believed to fit this criteria will appear in the list below. They must fit the criteria; Amalgam characters which have more than one possibility do not fit this criteria, and therefore would not be cause for WP:IGNORE. Characters MUST follow this format so that it is made clear to all. If you feel there is a character to add here that fits the criteria, add it into the list below:

    Amalgam character = Character 1 + Character 2

    1. Ice Cream Cohen = Izzy Cohen + Ice Cream Soldier

    Note that my vote (for lack of better word) concerning this survey is Agree. Please put Agree or Disagree and state why. Please remember WP:CIVIL, and also, please do not be put off by the fact that I am conducting a survey of whether or not it would be a good idea to invoke WP:IGNORE. It is there for a reason, and only to be used in very special circumstances, which I believe this issue at hand may very well fit into. The survey will be up for at least a week, barring an overwhelming majority in either direction. Whatever the consensus, I will agree to it and will defend the consensus.

    • Agree - If it is indeed obvious, I do not believe that constitutes OR, but due to the OR policy, it would be grounds to invoke WP:IGNORE, because it is against the nature of the Amalgam universe to not state which two characters make up an Amalgam character. Anakinjmt 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Disagree with invoking WP:IGNORE on such a wide reaching scale. NOR isn't just any random guideline or a mere suggestion. It's in the five pillars of Wikipedia. In fact, it's in the very first. We need to be able to come up with some better than IGNORE as grounds for our decision making. Otherwise, we have no consistent, objective criterion to apply when cleaning these articles up. Doczilla 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing my reply only because, per Steve below, this "blanket survey" is not a good idea. An awkwardly worded agree/disagree survey can prompt people to pick sides instead of contemplating issues. Doczilla 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC) P. S. About the awkward wording: A survey question should be posed succinctly. I read every word several times to make sure I hadn't overlooked anything that would cause me to agree or disagree to something other than what I'd intended. Doczilla 10:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • polls are evil. We don't decide much on Wikipedia by having polls, we do it by creating a consensus. This isn't an issue we can poll on, especially not with such a broad question. I'd also add that WP:IGNORE should never apply to WP:OR; the two are completely contradictory. Wikipedia's first rule was to ignore all rules, Wikipedia's goal is to produce an encyclopedia. That's not a rule, that's a goal, and the definition of an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, one that summarise other sources. Therefore the goal takes precedence over the rule, since the goal is the embodiment of the rule. What you're asking for is that you be allowed to add speculation to an article. Now that's a completely different question, and needs to be answered on a case by case basis. The best place to do this is on article talk pages where relevant. Steve block Talk 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I did not say this was a poll. This is a survey to see what the general consensus is. And, this is a blanket survey for characters that FIT the criteria. Not all Amalgam characters will fit in here. It MUST be a character where it is generally agreed upon which two characters created said Amalgam character. I'm not saying it should be for all. And, I realize NOR is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Here's what I'm coming at: from my perspective, if it is blatantly obvious (and I mean BLATENTLY obvious) which DC character and which Marvel character created an Amalgam character, that should not qualify as original research. Speculation would be "well, it is implied this," and I'm saying that for the one character listed so far, it's not speculation, it's a matter of fact. It should be completely obvious who and who make who for the one character this survey concerns. However, people say that it does because it's not explicitly said. Fine. Hence the survey. Now, does it appear to be a poll? Sure, I suppose. But really, what's the difference between a poll and a survey? They would both show consensus. Consensus, according to Dictionary.com, means "1. majority of opinion 2. general agreement or concord; harmony." You tell me how to get consensus without doing a survey. It is the easiest way to get consensus. All I'm asking is for people to say what their opinion is. If the majority of people think it should be done, fine, we do it. If the majority of people think we shouldn't do it, fine we won't. The only reason I thought of doing a blanket survey encompassing all the characters that fit the criteria, as I feel you guys keep skipping over that important fact, is so that we would not have to do it on a case-by-case basis. If several characters fit the criteria, why do it case by case? Seems more logical to me to do it all at once. It's also logical to do it here, at the project talkpage, because this is where the issue first came up, and this is the place that is guaranteed to get the most people to voice their opinion. All I'm asking is for people to state their opinion via Agree or Disagree so as to establish consensus. This kind of thing, doing a survey to establish consensus, is done all the time, and surveys are what is done in the consensus decision-making process. So, please don't talk about how Wikipedia does not like polls, when this is anything but. Anakinjmt 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, there is blatantly obvious and then unequivocal. As an example: in the Countdown teaser images it was "blatantly obvious" that the Kingdom Come Red Robin and the "Return of Superman" characters were depicted. That is up until Didio sated that the Red Robin was Jason Todd and preview images surfaced with Superman-Prime wearing the black and silver costume. Right then, the OR guess as to who the characters were was shown to be wrong, blatantly wrong.
    This applies to the Amalgams as well. If there is an unequivocal source, "The writer stated...", "The editor stated...", "The publisher stated...", "The art team stated...", or "Panels A through C on page D show Amal splitting into/being formed from DC and Marv.", then you have a citable statement on how the characters were used. Otherwise it's still a guess, it's still OR.
    As for suggestions, they've already been made, and the general consensus seems to fall along:
    • Remove the blurbs from the character articles as they are a blend of OR and non-notable trivia.
    • Focus on a solid, real-world grounded article on the publishing event.
    • Remove the fully in-universe articles related to that event.
    • Remove the articles for one shot books related to the event that lack notability or are majoratively plot summary.
    And with polls... Sorry, but straight "either or" polls are bunk since they can be worded to force a particular answer. The closest thing I've seen that works is when multiple options have been presented in a rambling thread and it needs to be drawn to a close. In those cases a re-statement of the options with a "Here's what we've come up with, which do we use?" suffices. Not an "I think we should do this one thing, who agrees or disagrees." - J Greb 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a whole page which explains what consensus means on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Consensus. We detail why polls, sorry, surveys can be a bad idea there too. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    @J Greb: If you can think of a better way to word it, by all means, feel free to change it. @Steve: I read that section beforehand, and I didn't see anything there against the use of a survey. I have seen surveys conducted elsewhere that was able to establish consensus, so it, to me, seemed like the best idea. If people can think of a better means to establish consensus (which I don't think has been reached), by all means, suggest it. My single goal is to get a definitive consensus, whether it be by survey or other means. I'm also trying to become a better editor by getting involved more. For so long, I just watched for vandalism on certain pages, and I'm now trying to use all the tools given to me as an editor; hence why I've started archiving talk pages and nominating images for deletion. I guess you could chalk this up to just another good faith intent, although until another means of consensus is presented, I still think this is the best idea. Anakinjmt 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So what are we doing?

    I'm ready to take AWB and go through every character article with an Amalgam Comics section and removed all such sections that aren't supported by citations. We might want to remove a lot more than that, but that's a starting point. Pretty much nobody has defended the retention of such sections in the cases when they cite nothing whatsoever, not even Amalgam issues each character supposedly appeared in. Doczilla (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Going once . . . Doczilla (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I say go(ing) for it. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And sold - to the large lizard with the certificate on his wall : ) - jc37 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gone. But not all. Man, I can't believe how many hundreds of articles (more than a thousand, I think) these guys added these Amalgam mentions to, especially in the last two months. I really am going to take a wiki-break soon to finish something I need to get written for the real world. If anybody wants to start removing Amalgam entries Agustinaldo made September 25 and earlier, please feel free. (I hate picking on anyone by "name", but this is proving to be one of the most tedious tasks I'm ever embarked on in Wikipedia.) Doczilla (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, question: I recently restored the mention of the "Anti-Beyonder" to the Anti-Monitor page with a source but then it was deleted anyway. Thanos6 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • *coughs softly* Hello? Thanos6 (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll look into it, I'll look into it. Give me a day or two. Or maybe someone else in the project will look into it first. Damn real world, taking me away from this!  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A trading card is not a comic book. There was no source stating when the character appeared in the comics -- and if you know what the Infinity/Crisis thing was about, you know why. Doczilla (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll give a help, Doc, in the next couple of days after I make sure to read all the background on it. Rest easy. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of DC Multiverse worlds seems to be largely guesswork and original research

    List of DC Multiverse worlds seems to be contain an awful lot of OR and guesswork - for example it claims that Earth-1938 is An Earth where Clark Kent died to save the world from the invading forces of Mars in the year 1938. as shown in Superman: War of the Worlds. Yes that elseworld tale happened - but was it every given the number earth-1938 and considered to be part of the original multiverse? I don't think so. there are numerous other examples of this over there. --Fredrick day 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The list was split from Multiverse (DC Comics), but the split was not mentioned in the edit summary in violation of GFDL. It's going to have to be history merged back into the article. Steve block Talk 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that with 52 and Countdown a number of Elseworlds stories are now considered part of the DC Multiverse but I wasn't aware that this was one of them and Earth-1938 seems suspicious to me (I can't think DC would be daft enough to name the Earth after the year - but nothing is impossible). I am trying to find good sources for these changes but it has proved tricky so far and I'd be naturally suspicious about such claims without some good sources. If anyone finds such a source then do let me know. (Emperor 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    1st... Steve... it looks like you nuked the original article which contained the non-list material.
    2nd... Fred, if you had looked at the full line in the table you would have noted that the designation was given, apparently, in the Absolute edition of COIE.
    3rd... The tables, as a whole, need to be revamped to make it clear here the designations first see print, just as the universes have a clear "First appearance" cell. It really doesn't help that the Elsewoelds and "Imaginary stories" were all back filled into the original multiverse.
    - J Greb 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that's true for some of the earths but it's not clear if absolute mentions all of those earths this table claims. --Fredrick day 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least the absolute exists as a physical, published book, making it reasonably verifiable. If an editor is going to place "Designation as per Absolute Crisis on Infinite Earths", I'll AGF that said editor 1) wither has the book or has access to it, and 2) that the text pieces in the book contain the information. I would prefer it also have a page number so it would be easier to verify, but... Another editor can come along to refine or refute the claim base on the source. To point and say "OR" and ignore the ref is counter productive. - J Greb 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine - I'll not fucking bother bring concerns here for discussion in future. --Fredrick day 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for the love of...
    Please, stop and look at how you brought the concern up: That uncited information that smacks of OR is in the table. When it was pointed out that, yes, there is a ref provided for the information, albeit poorly presented, you stated disbelief that the source has that information. At that point you have to provide why. Either put forward why the book is unreliable for sourcing. Or state from you review of the source that the cited information does not exist there.
    The only other option is for you to be bold and remove it, and watch editors scream bloody murder that you are vandalizing the article by removing cited information. - J Greb 21:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had to perform a history merge, that involves nuking the original article. It's back now, note the "brb" in the deletion log entry. Steve block Talk 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this should exist at all unless a secondary source deals with the topic in an out-of-universe fashion. Like, why do these Earths exist (and I don't mean the reason presented in comics)? WesleyDodds 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creator infobox MoS - Flags

    After a meeting with an advocate of WP:MOSFLAG and the use of "nationalistic flag icons" in pretty much all uses of Template:Infobox Comics creator, I thought I'd put it to you all, what is actually the consensus? It obviously isn't a deathly necessary feature, but I've come to consider it a MoS feature of the infobox, and have figured we either have flags on all of them, or none. I think we ought to have a philosophy to go with the template, and stick by the flag use, or petition a bot to remove the lot. What are your opinions? MURGH disc. 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    6 of 1...
    I'm not especially married to it, though it is a nice ancillary point to the nationality field. And since we are categorizing by nationality, having that field in the 'box makes sense. Considering that, I'd prefer to have the flags there.
    That being said, I don't want to see them added in the place of birth/death fields. I've already run across cases of that, and removed them as per the "Not for use in locations of birth and death" section.
    Also, there are a few groupings that I've got qualms about:
    • Ireland and like "contested" nationalities - I've sidestepped adding flags to creators from Northern Ireland since it really needs a "self identification" from the creator since it is a touchy issue. Taiwan is a similar case, though I've gone with the logic that Taiwan is international recognised as a separate country to a degree.
    • British/English/Welsh/Scot - Similar case, though there is a stronger argument of "nations within a nation" here. Again, I've been going with the way the articles are written. If there isn't a clear indication of the specific, I use the general.
    • Ethnicity markers - For purposes of the 'boxes, I'm not a fan of the hyphenated nationalities. In the article, yes, in the cats, maybe, in a "keep it basic and simple" 'box, no.
    Some other thoughts... I'd prefer that the information be included consistently across the articles, period. That does open up a few points of debate: inclusion based on assumption or cat only, placement/order, and legal status (yup, I'm the editor sticking in "Naturalized/immigrated from based on the article text). And then there is the notability/NPOV questions... Frankly, IMO, nationality, immigrant or otherwise, is an important point with in a neutral biography. It gives the reader a frame of reference just like gender, age, and profession. - J Greb 19:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes as you point out, nationality is easily sensitive. It certainly isn't our job to make judgements on the national identities of naturalised immigrants and other hybrid destinies. Featuring a visual flag in addition does seem to provide some extra incentive for controversy too, as there have been editors who want to change a flag to a time-specific emblem. This in addition to blatant flag-vandalism, "no flags per WP:FLAGCRUFT!" and "flag on left like other infoboxes!". I feel more and more like removing them all, but would really like to see some more opinions on this. MURGH disc. 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't go too wide with that: yes, nationality can be a sensitive issue, but it most cases it's also a factual one. When I'm putting them in, I'm also looking at the article as writen. If it specifies nationality, that's what I place. If the region specified has an internal split where the self-identification differs from person to person, I leave nationality blank, no flag, no words.
    And as much as it maybe a distateful thought, removeing the flags wn't really remove the problem. The closest we could come to that would be to remove nationality from the articles entierly: no mention of it, no mention of place of birth, no mention of place of residence, no categorrization by nationality, none of it. - J Greb 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Of course the nationality is a matter of verifiable info just as any other sensitive issue. The point is that there is a distinction between flagging and plain print. As a mere word it's simply a matter of referring to a source and it is settled as undisputable fact, but the visual add-on can spark unnecessary dispute, one in the case of WP:MOSFLAG-concerns I find it a bit difficult to argue against. So please, what is a good argument for having a flag next to an already evident bit of info? MURGH disc. 14:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with J Greb on this - we are including nationality so in most cases a flag is just a visual accompaniment to this. I think including nationality is important as it can inform people's work - a lot of the 2000 AD writers are Scottish and it can be an aspect to their work and knowing their nationality helps inform people's interpretations of their body of work. For example, so much of Garth Ennis' work draw on Northern Ireland (even with things like Hellblazer and The Authority when the link isn't so obvious) but note that there is no flag given there as it is a controversial aspect (some would go for the Irish or British flags or even the red flag of Ulster and getting it wrong could be an issue) so it is best avoided. (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    By all means, I'm not against J Greb here, but I need a good reason for opposing their removal from WP:CMC infoboxes. I certainly never meant to infer we scrap informing of a creator's nationality. As in the Ennis example, a direct visual representation of person's passport, their "given badge on a space suit", is avoided as there is reasonable cause to suspect the "correct" symbol wouldn't be harmoniously received by all. This could be applied to Spaniards from Catalonia and a host of other examples. It's fair, cautious practice, but the question stands unanswered, why are we flagging at all? MURGH disc. 15:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am probably the advocate of WP:MOSFLAG Murgh mentioned. :) I just think using flags causes unnecessary difficulties, and per Murgh, I don't really see a good reason to use flags. One of the reasons I don't like using flags, I use this example often, is this edit. Completely correct and totally stupid. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see a need for the flags, personally. The text is enough. Steve block Talk 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried posting this earlier and crashed out, but it seems more relevant now so I'll try again.
    I've gone back through the flag MoS, especially the sectioned Appropriate use and Biographical use and have drawn a few conclusions.
    First is that it looks like the MoS is moving towards limiting flags to 3 or 4 article types: Military, predominantly battles, for IDing combatant nations and associated units/commanders; Sports, predominately international events for IDing teams and players as part of the team; and maps/articles on nations. And I do mean moving, the MoS implies this, it does not flat out state "No flags outside of..."
    Second, since there is no indication within the MoS to bar the use of a flag icons in conjunction with the identification of nationality in an infobox, it seems reasonable use is allowable. That is, the use of the flags is consistent with identifying nationality, it does not need to be justified. If there is an underlying problem requiring a cited ref for citizenship, then the entire concept of including nationality needs to meet that standard. Both the words and the flags convey the same information, both should have to meet the same standards.
    Concerns about things like Northern Ireland and the 3-in-1 case of the UK are specifically addressed in the MoS. These seem to boil down to "Use common sense, especially if the subject of the article self IDs."
    As for the Schneider examples... Actually use of that flag in that way runs up against three points in the MoS:
    With that example, if the "Nationality" fiend were to be added, the removal/replacement of that particular icon would still be valid under a common sense approach: "Nationality, not political movement." And that common sense should also prevent such a placement from happening in the first place. (And I know, common sense is not a universal thing.) - J Greb (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, the Romy Schneider one was before WP:MOSFLAG. But what exactly is the benefit if having the flag there? Does it add anything to the article/infobox? Or does it just creates difficulties. Common sense is rare. People reverting on whether the flag should be on the left or right side... Even with this infobox I encountered some problematic usage. Should in Zoran Janjetov the Serbian flag be used, or should it be the Yugoslavian flag? Same for all the Belgian artists, what if Belgium becomes two countries, from current news that is not even THAT far fetched :). What about people with dual citizenship, should we use two flags? it jut seems so unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comics vs comic books

    And RFD has been posted on Talk:List of television programs based on comics about the use of "comics" instead of "comic books" in the naming of articles and preumably categories.

    A bit of background: They moved List of television programs based on comics to "Talk:List of television programs based on comic books" and requested an "uncontroversial" move of List of films based on comics to "List of films based on comic books." I had them reversed as the move wasn't uncontroversial. The rest is on my talk page - my trying to explain that comics is more general than comic books and some of the things listed aren't comic books but that was clearly inadequate hence the RFD.

    Obviously, this broader implications for the naming of articles and categories across the project so it'd be handy to help resolve this (either way as changing the names is clearly a waste of people's time). (Emperor 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Comics is more encompassing. Sure, the most common form is comic books, but what about the comics in newspapers and magazine? Garfield (movie) is definitely a movie based on a comic, but not a comic book. Comics is the appropriate word. Anakinjmt 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically comic strips are distinct enough and large enough that they can usually be dealt with in their own section - in that case List of films based on comic strips. More specifically is where films are based on graphic novels - as there are only a few of them we merged them. Perhaps the solution is to remove the links between the two from the hatnote but it seems to be helpful so I'd rather not. (Emperor 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Exactly how many films have been based on comic strips? Sure, comic books is easy. Just look at all the DC/Marvel films, along with films like Sin City. But how many are based on strips? Only one comes to mind: Garfield (film). Anakinjmt —Preceding comment was added at 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    About 50.--SeizureDog 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...we have an article on, and many more without an article. Many popular American comic strips from the 1910s and 1920s got at least a few films made, including Bringing Up Father, Gasoline Alley, Buster Brown, Little Orphan Annie, and Winnie Winkle. Other comic strips not included in that category are e.g. the Flemish classic Spike and Suzy. What do we do with the regular European comics like The adventures of Tintin? Not comic books in the American sense, not comic strips in the newspaper sense, and not graphic novels. Which article will they be included in? Fram 08:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    List names have been discussed previously : )
    See WP:NCC for what came of those discussions. - jc37 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is the way you we are presenting the information, you we're making them seem like separate lists. The comic strip ones should not be presented as see also but as a child of the top list. Steve block Talk 10:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      "you" = ? - jc37 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not me. ;) Sorry, that was bad phrasing on my part, I was in my head thinking, that's not the way I'd do it, you've done it this way and it's coming across wrong. My apologies to all involved. I've stricken and rewritten to suit. Steve block Talk 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes sense. Hatnoting is probably not the way to go (and here I think you=me ;) ) and possibly neither is see also as they imply a different kind of relationship. (Emperor (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Josef Rubinstein

    Someone, possibly Rubinstein himself, recently created this article. Just a heads' up, as it could use a lot of work if it's to be kept at all (COI and all). BOZ 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier

    I'm partway through reading The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier. When I'm done I'd like some help cleaning up the page (and no, we don't need a five paragraph plot summary or bulleted lists). I'd particularly appreciate help tracking down interviews with the creators and reviews of the book. WesleyDodds 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added an interview with Moore to the external links and will keep an eye out for more (no pun intended) and drop them in there. You can then take that and mix it in with things as you go. I can't be any direct help for now as we aren't allowed nice things like this over here #sniff# (although The Emperor always finds a way - like ordering from Amazon.com or something). On that note we should be careful what is said. When we discussed reliable online sources the general feeling was that while Comic Book Resources was solid for reviews, interviews and general announcements we should be careful about using Rich Johnston's LitG as a source and here what he is saying about DC's motivations (while possibly true for all I know) are very much flying against what DC are saying. So just be careful out there. (Emperor (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    CBR has posted a long interview with Alan Moore, so that's a good source to use. I'm hoping that Time and The New York Times have reviews for the book (they usually do for a high-profile comic by a critically acclaimed creator). Does anyone know if The Comics Journal has reviewed it? WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Category confusion

    There appears to have been standardisation of the categories to the point where I feel they are now becoming meaningless. It looks like someone has stripped out all references to comic books, and some categories are now not doing what they should be. For example, Category:Comic book magazines is intended to be for magazines about comics, like The Comics Journal, but European comics magazines are being categorised there. I think we need to work out a better categorisation structure, for example I think the Category:Comics titles by country subcats are where European comic magazines are supposed to be categorised, but the category name isn't quite clear. Is the intent to categorise publications containing stories in the comics form? I admit the nebulous meanings of the term comics is damn near impossible to pin down across the variations of English we all speak here, but would Category:Comics publications by country be a better title? We could also look at Category:Publications about comics rather than Category:Comic book magazines. Just a starting position, I think this needs to be looked at in real depth. Steve block Talk 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been baffled lately at how I keep seeing numerous CfD discussions in which editors who don't edit comic articles seem to think they're enforcing some kind of consensus by changing everything to comics. I asked where this supposed consensus originated, and nobody could tell me. The one person who gave much of an answer seemed to think this had come from WikiProject Comics. There are good reasons for saying comics instead of comic books to avoid systemic bias with regard to American versus European usage of terminology, but it really grated on me to see numerous CfD regulars pushing a supposed "consensus" when they can't even tell me where it came from. Doczilla 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As suggested

    Since everybody seemed to like the idea, unless anybody strongly objects, I'm going to rework our MoS stuff to call for writing character histories with a clear sense of when things happened in real-world chronology. I'll also create a template or two (probably two - one based on Template:fact for "what issue?" and one for tagging sections as total messes) to employ on articles to start prodding this into an actual cleanup. Phil Sandifer 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See, I love this project. We may not have fixed all the comics articles, but at least we consistently have unused methods in place for doing it. :) Phil Sandifer 14:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What template do you want for articles in a complete mess, by the way? Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup#Templates, although I think there's a couple I haven't got around to adding yet. And you're right, we're very good at doing a half arsed job around here. We're firm believers in the second rule of Wikipedia. :) Steve block Talk 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking something like "This article or section does not explain when and where the events it describes were published." Then I'll go fire up AWB on my wife's Windows machine and, erm... ask for some cleaning up of a couple hundred to thousand articles. :) Phil Sandifer 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If we do have that comic template, maybe we should set up something to replace all the comic references with that.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited

    I'm not a member of this project, but I just wanted to let you all know that I started the Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited article. It's a little stubby right now, but it is very referenced. Please edit it to your delight. :^) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's written like an ad. -- Wryspy (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did drop a note about this into the Marvel Comics talk page [2]. My thinking was we start it as a paragraph, see if it deserves its own section and then possibly look at splitting it off. Seems like we skipped right to the third part, not that this is necessarily a bad thing (esp. as i has good news coverage) but I do wonder if it needs its own article. As far as I'm aware they are a subscription service that provides electronic versions of back issues that you can read online. No unique content is being added and I'm unsure how much bigger the article can get. I'm happy to leave it be but in this case it might have been worth letting this evolve naturally and then assess if it needs its own article slightly further down the line. (Emperor (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't see how it is written like an ad. It is NPOV and everything stated in the article has numerous references. But I think these issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, including whether or not it should be merged back into the main Marvel Comics article (sorry, I didn't see the note about creating a section on it). Thanks for taking a look at it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More images

    I've noticed that a surprisingly small number of the images on articles related to Jack Kirby's Fourth World are actually using images by Kirby himself. Yes, other creators did things with these characters from time to time, but they're so indelibly associated with Kirby that it seems like a very poor choice to use images from other creators for them. I mean, why on earth is Mister Miracle or Orion (comics) illustrated with art from somebody other than Kirby? This strikes me as another example of the unfortunate presentist bias in our image selection. Phil Sandifer 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The other side: Using Kirby only art smacks of elitism.
    What it boils down to is 1) the guidelines we have for the 'box image and 2) is the 'box image currently sable or the result of a discussion. In both article you cite, they fit the guidelines, and are relatively stable. And it's damn hard to argue "recentism" since the New Gods cover is almost 2 decades old, and the Mister Miracle cover 3. If they were from Death of the New Gods or something similar, or being change regularly, I could see the argument.
    Orion could use a better image, even though that is the "iconic" look the art is real busy. If a new image pops up and it fits the guides and happens to be Kirby, fine. If it's Byrne, fine too.
    The Mister Miracle one is a classic example of what the 'box image should be. That it isn't Kirby frankly doesn't matter, the article isn't about Kirby. It's about Mister Miracle. - J Greb 03:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we're also tied down by the desire to avoid excessive fair use. To my mind nothing about the Fourth World can be written without having a Kirby image in the article, since the Fourth World is, critically, so tied up in Kirby's vision. (With the later stuff, in every case except maybe Darkseid, being far less significant) Given that every article pretty much has to have a Kirby image, then, if the Kirby image is an acceptable main image it should be the main image, as nothing is added by having additional images. Phil Sandifer 03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And "excessive fair use" is going to be a hair splitting phrase. IIUC the goal is this:
    • With in an article, free-use images are to be used whenever possible. - Not going to happen in an article about a character owned by DC.
    • Fair-use images are to be used with in an article to support specific points within the article. If it does not pertain to the article, or the information it abuts, it can be seen as "just decoration" and get yanked. (This also kills galleries made up of fair-use images....)
    • An article can only have a reasonable number of fair-use images based on the article's size. I believe this is where the no "excessive fair use" mantra comes from. That section seems to read that we shouldn't go over board with relevant images, not that we should try to reduce and limit the article to one or two images.
    Using Mister Miracle as an example, length-wise it can justify more than just two image. As it stands the Rogers ('box, meeting the guidelines), Kirby (first issue, an important thing, though I'd rather it be with the PH), and Ferry (indicative of Shilo's stint in the costume) work. Change for change's sake, or for what amounts to a POV reason, isn't needed. - J Greb 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We should use as few fair use images as possible has always been my interpretation. And so one has to ask what is added by a second Mister Miracle image by a less significant artist in the history of the character. If it does not cover anything that the Kirby image doesn't already cover, it ought to be removed. Phil Sandifer 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, based on the current images, the Kirby cover can be trimmed out.
    And before the conniption, think it through:
    • The article is focused on the characters, mainly Scott Free, not the comic book series, the Fourth World setting, or Kirby's works. And the last two have separate articles to handle them.
    • For purely character driven images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images is a good place to start with what such images should have. Looking at the three images, The Seven Soldier... cover easily passes, as does issue 22. Issue 1 gets hum up on "Pictures which hide significant areas of the character in shadow should be avoided..." The restrain/trap obscures a good part of the costume design. So we have two solid, character ID images in place right now.
    • "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Since the infobox image meets the guidelines, does what the project is looking for, and has a valid FUR, there is no solid reason aside from an editor's personal taste to change it. In this, changing it to a like Kirby image is no better than editor's swapping out 'box images for "same costume, but just published" or "costume de jure". And to my mind it is worse than those cases since it isn't just "newer makes it better" but "My opinion is that this article is only served best with art by only one artist." That's elitist, strongly POV, and verges on the blatantly fanish.
    And just to be clear on a point: I wouldn't see this as an issue if either A) the article didn't already have a 'box image; B) the image it has didn't meet the guidelines; or C) the article was just being written. In cases A and C any image would be reasonable to flesh out the 'box. And in case B, up grading to meet the guidelines is part of why the guidelines are there.
    - J Greb (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I agree with your analysis. But I think it fares poorly for this particular case, just because the characters in question are so widely recognized as being so idiosyncratically Kirby's. I certainly wouldn't make any argument like this for Fantastic Four or [{X-Men]]. But we're talking here about something that has always been viewed through the lens of Kirby, and always viewed in terms of Kirby. You never saw Fantastic Four sold as "Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four" even when done by somebody else. A portion of that is also the critical response - the Fourth World was always viewed as an artistic high of Kirby, and is what comics scholars point to when they point at Kirby's genius. Whether or not that genius existed, the Fourth World is still exhibit A. And that's the significant thing here - moreso than for any other comics characters I can think of, the Fourth World does not seem to me to be able to be illustrated separate from Kirby. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Naggingly, the FF analogy falls a little flat since the present Marvel editorial and creators have noisily gone to the "Lee and Kirby" well.
    And I still have a problem with pigeonholing the character articles the way you're suggesting. Again, as they are written, they aren't extensions of Kirby or treated with critical review as only his toys. As for the bio article on Kirby and the general article on the Fourth World, at least the last time I looked, those should default to Kirby art since both speak to his carrier as a whole (the bio) and what is seen as his magnum opus (4th World).
    But articles on the elements of the Fourth World that have been added and changed by other hands, articles which are not written to promote or focus on just Kirby's contribution to the elements... The dictum doesn't hold. If the articles were structured to flesh out, with critical commentary, Kirby's original material and how that was retained, revised, and revived over the decades by his and others hands, then it might hold. But even then it smells of slanting those articles. - J Greb (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They're credited to Lee and Kirby, but there has never been a book released by Marvel called "Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four," which is telling. I think, in the end, most of the Fourth World material is critically treated as a single-author work, more akin to Maus than Superman. Yes, other creators later played in the sandbox, but it seems to be universally viewed as Kirby's sandbox no matter who plays in it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (←dedent) Stop Phil.

    This sentence: "I think, in the end, most of the Fourth World material is critically treated as a single-author work, more akin to Maus than Superman." Please re-read it.

    The minute an article would have that line included, or used to justify a section of commentary, the text would be yanked as OR. It would need to have an independent, reliable, verifiable, secondary source cited that reviewers', critics', and comics professionals' act in that manner.

    Using it to position a particular artist's work prominantly or exclusively in a set of articles feels like the same thing. It is one editor drawing a conclusion and selecting what is included in the article to support that conclusion. That's part and parcel of doing research for a magazine article or a book, or an encyclopedia that has a specific editorial POV. This one is supposed to strive for an NPOV. - J Greb (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good point but a thorny one. If most of the published criticism on the Fourth World does indeed discuss the work as being Kirby's, then presenting an article in frames of reference other than that would actually violate NPOV. It's a very tricky minefield, and something we don't consider enough with regards comics articles in my opinion. WP:NPOV has this to offer: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now, if we've got no reliable sources on a given work, anything we write is pretty much written from a point of view, usually our own interpretation of a comic or character's importance, or the importance of a specific event. If all the sources do discuss it as Kirby's mythos, then we have to reflect that, I would think. I think you're right that we need to focus on the sources, but I think that needs to apply to everything. Speaking to the issues of images, what critical points within the article are the images defining? Steve block Talk 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the 3 articles Phil originally reffed:
    • Jack Kirby's Fourth World uses:
      • Image:New Gods 1971 1.jpg more or less for initial identification as it's placed where a 'box would go. The image is also notable as the initial appearance and start of the concept; and
      • Image:Mister miracle (1971) 1.jpg with in the The original comics section. Honestly, I'm not sure how it relates other than being the first issue of one of the other 3 parts of the Fourth World arc.
    • Mister Miracle uses:
      • Image:Mister miracle (1971) 1.jpg as well, but in conjunction to the character bio of Free. I'd prefer to see it used with the PH as the initial issue of the original series;
      • Image:Mister Miracle 22.png in the info box for identification of the character. Part of the contentious point here is that the image meets the project editorial guides for the 'box image, but it is not by Kirby; and
      • Image:7 soldiers miracle.png for identification of Shilo Normon in the role and in connection with the section referring to the separate article for Shilo. (Of note, the same image is used for the 'box in that article.)
    • Orion (comics) uses:
      • Image:Oriondcu0.jpg for the 'box image. As pointed out, it is a cluttered image and could likely be replaced on those grounds instead of the "Not Kirby" one;
      • Image:Oriondcu1.jpg for a spot to kick off of the FCB. At best it is an illustration of the alternate costume used for Orion during the first revival of the New Gods, though this is not mentioned in the article;
      • Image:Orion1.jpg for a spot in the "Powers" section. It fits there showing a common use of the Astro-Harness. It also is an illustration of the character parentage; and
      • Image:OrionCartoon.jpg illustration the animated version of the character from the DCAU.
    Looking at these three... All of them have image troubles. Fourth World and Orion each have one tenuous image, Mister Miracle #1 and the powers section respectively; and Mister Miracle has two, Mister Miracle which is in the wrong place, and Shilo, which repeats on the main article. - J Greb (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't really help the issue, but the article on Jack Kirby's Fourth World could be so much more. This is a series that has seen a lot of coverage, if only in the fan press, and it should be able tp write a better article than that. The Mister Miracle article is pretty poor too. I can't think where we went wrong in drafting the exemplars but they should never have guided to that sort of framework. What is it that's being attempted in the publication history, "This series did this, this series did that?" Ack. I'm shocked there's not even discussion on stylistic changes to the character, or even discussion of Maguire's Mister Miracle from the JL. Part of the vitality of superheroes is their four color appearance; that we don't comment on artistic interpretation seems odd. Whether it is sourcing issues, timing constraints or something else I don't know. But that's all beside the point. To my mind all the images are pretty much in the articles for decoration. Steve block Talk 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In need of general feed back.

    I need to know what the general etiquette for disputing an image's FUR entails.

    The reason I ask this is that I've recently gotten a pair of notes from an editor, Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer, disputing the FUR I had placed on some images. Here and here.

    I broached the topic with him here, along with the though that as part of the tagging process, he should have started a discussion on the talk pages of the articles where the images are in use. Based on how 'bots are being programmed to tag, and the boiler plate on the tags used IFD, including {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, it seems that the intent is for some sort of notice to be applied to the article so that those watching the page have a clue that there is a problem.

    The responses I got are here.

    The frustrating part is that it looks like those are not the only two image so tagged since I've noted a swack of like notices on DrBat's talk page, and I've started to run across images where Phil isn't even bothering to notify editors who have either uploaded the image or placed the FUR. For example Image:52weekthirtynine.jpg which was tagged here but no notice was placed on the Lex Luthor talk page, DrBat's (the original uploader by the [{Revision history of Image:52weekthirtynine.jpg|history]]), mine (uploader by the image page, and the editor that FUR the image), or Tragical Comedy (last editor to tweak the FUR). That means that if I hadn't happen to look at the image, it would have been deletable on the 22nd, and most likely gone with no one having been informed in any way that the FUR was in dispute.

    I can understand the base reason for questioning the use of images in the articles, since we do have articles that push, or exceed the reasonable use of non-free images. But my understanding is that if there is a dispute of the way an image is used, and it isn't a cut-and-dried FUR-vio (ie comic book covers in a gallery), then the editor disputing that use is obliged to follow through on the steps to make other potentially interested editors aware of it. - J Greb (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With thousands of these images to tag, I'm notifying the uploaders as they display on the image page. Occasionally those uploaders get erased by a re-upload - I was actually unaware they still appeared in the history (though I should have thought of it). But when the person listed is obviously not the uploader, I don't generally notify.
    I also, some time ago, made mention here that I was going through and tagging images, and created User:Phil Sandifer/Last image looked at for people to follow when I had done a batch. I did have a lengthy gap between two batches a while ago, and that may have led people not to follow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil, as I've said elsewhere, I can understand why you're doing this, as reiterated above. But... and this is a biggy... as you're doing it right now it is presented as others have to dig to find out what is going on. You are making it incumbent on all other editors to check an unofficial list separate from their watched lists, and which they may not even be aware of, to see when articles they care about have issues. And yes, an image with a missing or incomplete FUR is an issue for the articles it's used in.
    And frankly, "Easier on yourself", which is how using that list as a defence reads, is a poor attitude when this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. The act of tagging in-article uses or adding a note to the article talk pages may slow you down, but it is, based on the templates itself, the right thing to do. - J Greb (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose there are 2 issues:
    • FUR on the use of images on a page and whether theimage helps improve the page more than a simple text explanation does
    • How alerting of image disputes is done - my understanding was that general practice is to inform the uploader and the article talk page.
    It seems that the use of the talk page is the best way to go for resolving this issue as it alerts all the editors of the page to the issue and allows them to thrash out the problem. I know this is extra work but if you set yourself a big task like that it needs to be done properly or you will end up with images being deleted out of the blue which can be frustrating for the editors and detrimental to Wikipedia if the issue can be easily addressed with the right notification. (Emperor (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Phil, I'd concur that a talk page message might be better than an uploader massage. Talk pages of related articles are most likely watched by the uploader, and a few more to boot. Yes, it could lead to more discussion, but that's part and parcel of the collaborative encyclopedia. I have looked at a few of the images you've tagged, and broadly tend to agree with what you are doing though. That is until you hit an image I disagree with. :) Steve block Talk 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a little more of a rationale concerning the image of Renee Montaya and the Question over the image of Steel, due to the fact that in the background, there is a picture of Black Adam and Isis. I don't remember the specific storyline, but I'm guessing the image is either from the celebration when Renee kills a suicide bomber kid, or from when she and the Question get ambushed at an apartment shortly before the wedding (I've only read the novelization, I haven't actually read the comics yet). I would argue concerning the first image that it represents Renee, the Question, Black Adam, and Isis as they are depicted in 52, but even that is a bit of a stretch. I do agree concerning the Steel picture; while it is a very cool picture, I doubt whether it meets FUR. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I didn't bring this here to debate the FURs on the three images, but that the images were tagged and the tagger didn't start discussions on the talk pages of the affected articles. - J Greb (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Healing Factor

    The healing factor article, I believe, it starting to get a little out of hand. It's starting to this indiscriminant list in which any fictional character that has ever demonstrated, or has been written as demonstrated, some degree of advanced healing. I'm not entirely sure when the term was coined, but it really got its first mainstain in comics published by Marvel I believe. The term itself is rather vague and is being applied quite liberally, so much to the point that the term is losing whatever meaning it has. For instance, one editor keeps adding the witches and wizards from the Harry Potter series as having healing factors. Since the term is rather vague, maybe some guidelines should be set for inclusions into the article? I'm looking for the day when someone adds the Looney Toons characters to the article. Anyone have any thoughts?Odin's Beard (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wizards from Harry Potter? I suppose people could think McGonagall has that considering she took a lot of Stunning Spells to the chest, and she's quite old, but I'd chalk that up to good magical medicine. I would say that characters that are either actually stated to have a healing factor, or characters that consistently demonstrate it would count. Wolverine, obviously, does, because it's stated that his healing factor is part of his mutation. I haven't looked at the article in question, but assuming Superman is there, that would depend on the version you're talking about. In Smallville, for example, Clark is shown to have a healing factor if he's been hurt by Kryptonite and the Kryptonite is taken away from him. Whether that's true in the comics I don't know. Honestly, you may have to get tough and be very specific. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics&oldid=172673039"