User talk:Hiding

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hiding (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 1 September 2008 (→‎User:Jc37/Sandbox/Comics characters: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Hiding/build

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Hiding/Archive 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Weekly comics

Is it worth keeping or listifying under another name (presumably UK specific)?

If so, any suggestions for the name? - jc37 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

"You can't now get to Eclipse comics titles from Comics publishers, which seems silly."

I closed that discussion, so if it needs to be reopened/relisted, that can be done if necessary.

That said, I'm not sure I understand your concern. The cat had 2 members: Eclipse Comics, and Category:Eclipse Comics titles. The latter can go under Category:Comics titles by company, which is under Category:Comics publications.

I'm fairly sure I must be missing something. - jc37 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems in doing this as they all slot into a larger structure (ditto your deletion of Category:Elseworlds because it was "empty" - after you emptied it).
So, for example, Eclipse Comics titles it is no longer a child of American comics which it would have inherited from its parent. I created that category (and didn't get a note so I didn't have a chance to voice my objections, neither was it posted on the Comics Project noticeboard) and didn't do so on a whim, the parent allows it to be plugged into other categories. Ditto Category:Antarctic Press.
I'm not sure what to put it down to: over-enthusiasm? (Emperor (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Did you bother to go back to the discussions we were having, or are you just shooting from the hip?
You know, there was (and is) nothing stopping you from dropping a note about any concerns you may have.
Perhaps I'm taking the above comments a bit more harshly than intended, but, seriously. My goodness.
This especially since I came here (Started this thread) to better understand, with an open mind for discussion.
You know, I've cleaned up quite a bit of the organisation of the categories over the last few days. I'm sorry that this one occasion (elseworlds) wasn't to your liking.
Again, did you bother to go back to the discussion? If you did, you might have noticed that I (and assuredly others) were openly collaborating. This wasn't and isn't about pushing one POV "over-enthusiastically".
And finally, the following were the cats of Category:Elseworlds at the time of deletion (and had been since July 11):
Let's compare those to the cats of Elseworlds (before my edits, and not including the international cats):
And what they were after my edits:
So please, tell me what this "larger structure" was that your suddenly concerned about. It's not as if the article or the cat was anywhere near being under any publisher or publication parent cat (as an imprint). If anything I placed it under such in my cleanup.
And yes, I'm annoyed.
All the good faith and free and open discussion. I thought we were actually moving forward, and moving towards something we were all agreeing on. But if I've tread on some personal territory of yours, fine, enjoy. - jc37 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you took it personally as it wasn't all really directed at you (as you didn't nominate any of those categories for deletion, for example) - I know informing people that categories they created are up for deletion and/or flagging them in the appropriate places is more of a courtesy than "procedure" but it can lead to problems. We have a notice board with a section specifically for category discussion and it is helpful if things are listed there so we can get as much input as possible - it is all fine and dandy if we agree but it is always worth throwing the floor open to others.
Also my comments about structure were specifically about the comic publisher categories. The Elseworlds is another issue but I don't agree with emptying categories and then deleting them because they are empty, except in extreme cases (it can lead to all sorts of problems, although they might not necessarily be the case here I think it is worth avoiding in general).
I'm afraid technical problems have kept me offline recently so I am still having to catch up on discussion. (Emperor (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've had technical issues myself, so I sympathise. (One of which I just fixed a moment ago, and am now in an enthusiastic mood : )
And my apologies for taking your comments so "quick". I had just had a discussion involving "enthusiastic editors" (among other things), so your comments likely hit me in a way you may not have intended. (See the comments directly above this one for a series of coincidences lately.)
And I honestly should have known better. (Especially as I don't recall ever having such issues with you in the past.)
But anyway, rather than continue this, let's start over.
I'd still like to find out what Hiding thinks concerning his comment above. (As I am still somewhat confused by it.)
And as for you, what are your current concerns with elseworlds?
And you both, would you clarify your concerns about the 2 cats which were deleted? As I said above, I have no problem discussing reverting/modifying the close or at least relisting the discussion if there was something "missed".
Anyway, my apologies again. - jc37 08:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise - I should have been more specific and not tried to address a number of points at once.
Anyway there is nothing wrong with enthusiasm - it is one of the underlying tenets of Wikipedia after all, as nothing is ever lost. The important thing is to make sure all the checks and balances are in place to keep the unbridled enthusiasm moving in the right direction (well that is how it worked for me anyway, although I'm still learning ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Last time I checked it was my talk page (that's me half-joking)

I have in my head a sort of structure, which goes something like (names just to sketch the idea):

  • Comics
    • Comics publishing companies
      • Comics publishing companies of the US
        • Eclipse Comics
          • Eclipse Comics titles
alongside
  • Comics
    • Comics publications
      • Comics titles by company
        • Eclipse Comics titles
alongside
  • Comics
    • Comics publications
      • Comics publications by country
        • Comics titles (oops) of the US
          • Eclipse Comics publictitles

For me, if I am in Comics publishing companies, I should be able to navigate straight down to Eclipse Comics titles. I can't do this if there is no Eclipse Comics category, because Eclipse Comics titles doesn't fit into the tree. Unless you're putting Comics titles by company in Comics publishing companies. In which case forget I spoke. Although I still don;t see the point of deleting categories for no good reason. If you expect to see the category there, it makes sense to have it there. Eclipse Comics makes a good parent company to Eclipse comics titles. People seem to forget that the articles in the subcat are in the parent when they say there is no scope for expansion and it is very empty. All the articles in Category:Eclipse Comics titles belong in Category:Eclipse Comics. Don't they? And if not, why not? Hiding T 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cfd aside, for a moment, the main thing that I see in the above that differs from what I was thinking in terms of the ReOrg we've been doing is the question of whether "publications" should be listed under "publisher". Though I'm obviously not necessarily saying it's wrong.
The other thought I had was that these trees would effectively kill the broader "Indie comics" cat.
So I guess it's a question of which way should we head? The tree above, which is more accurate, but may allow for categories of only one or two members? Or having a broad independant comics cat, as a catch-all cat?
Personally I prefer your system.
As for the CfD, if Emperor also agrees then I'll revert the closure, and relist the nom. - jc37 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is essentially my thinking and the way I see the structure working - as has been said by others it isn't really a tree it is more like a braided river system and you can use the structure to draw together a complex categorisation with the proper use of parents, grandparents and great grandparents. It does mean that it is easy to slot new categories into this structure and they inherit categories but it does mean it can come unstuck if one of the ancestors is taken out. So yes we do need the Eclipse Comics category - it might look odd acting just as a parent but it does have an important role as a bridge category that draws together various grandparents.
Indie comics is a tricky one as I feel in my gut it has an important role but I have no idea how to establish criteria for inclusion, which suggests it is a Bad Idea, which seems a pity. I can't think of a goo fix though. Perhaps throw it open to the Project and see if they can think of something? (14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
I've relisted the two categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 30. I suggest that "someone" comment there farily soon, else they may be speedily closed as empty/deleted. - jc37 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody dropped the ball

Check out Category:Categories by medium. This was a recreation in January after being deleted in December per this CfD.

Looking through this tree, it's a hodge-podge of genres, types, and media.

And we also already have:

Anyway, with all of the above, I'm thinking that Category:Categories by medium is incredibly duplicative (and has quite a bit of miscategorisation).

I'd nom the whole tree, but it would take me forever to tag. Any suggestions? - jc37 10:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that perhaps this should be moved to an appropriate sandbox discussion, if you'd prefer. - jc37 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. "Fictional characters in other media" is on the face of it an ugly name, but I suppose someone thought it was a worthwhile holding cat. That could do with a rename to something more suited, "adapted in other media"? Ugh.
Comics is so not a genre. It's a form. That's fixed. Um. I have nothing specific right now. Sorry. Hiding T 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Nudge*
Aw c'mon, you wanna take a look at what is being called a medium under Category:Fictional characters by medium
(Stands by with the airsickness bag : ) - jc37 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That confused me. We seem to have a train crash between genre characters by medium and fictional characters by medium. Or something. I really have no idea what the solution is. Maybe we need to instigate a breathalyser test before we allow a category to be created? Oh boy. Category:Fiction by genre is a train wreck too. You can see the two categories, almost, hovering over each other, fighting for supremacy. You've got "Fiction by genre" and "Fiction by genre" battling it out in a yin and yang match to the death. I don;t have a scooby, sorry. Hiding T 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Train wreck" is a good way to put it. I'm daunted to even try to start fixing that mess.
I suppose I'll see if someone with a helpful tool could make a list of all the subcats of Category:Fiction (scares the daylights out of me to think of how many there probably are), and then I'll see if I can figure out a plan. - jc37 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AWB timed out on it, so you may need a bot. Betacommand, possibly? Hiding T 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I can see how that may have appeared to be a "subtle hint", but I wasn't. But in any case, thank you for trying : )
I'll ask. But as I mentioned, my contact with him has been minor. - jc37 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe someone else. See User_talk:Betacommand#Please_stop. - jc37 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the category structure that is a thorn in my side. It was cludgily bolted onto the side of a structure that was already working just fine. If you can unpick it all and get rid of it everything would work just fine without it. It was put in by one editor and if you look on their talk page you'll see numerous requests from people to explain the thinking behind this and there seems to be little communication on this, Note the most recent notes from Cgingold - it strikes me we might want to drop them a note and see what they think on the whole thing.
This was put up for CfD in February [1] and what I find odd is that everyone seemed to think it should either be deleted of merged but the result was no consensus, although the consensus seemed to be that something needed doing and most of the suggestions involved getting rid of the categories one way or the other. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
As it's a recreation, and due to the number of complaints/concerns, I suggest someone just be bold, and recategorise the tree. (I may start on it somewhat myself.) If this went through CfD and was successful, that's what the closer would have to ask someone to do that anyway, since such recategorisation couldn't be done automatically by bot. - jc37 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comics categories

User:Black Falcon made this list. I think it may be useful : )

Also, Our categries discussions seems to have "taken over" your sandbox talk page. Would you mind if I moved the talk page to a different sandbox page? (And then copy the discussion which actually concerns the whole of the page back to that talk page. Or something like that.) - jc37 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do intend to move the whole thing when it is all said and done and sorted, so I'm kind of keeping it where it is for now. Also, the history of the sandbox is more than just this discussion, so if you don;t mind I'd prefer to do it myself, so I know it gets done the way I want ti done. Where did you want to move it. I was going to keep it with the style guide which is on the front page and will eventually detail the category structure. Hiding T 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said "I", I was volunteering to help, not that I was suggesting to preclude you doing it.
    Also, we never got back to that, but I think that the naming conventions and category parts of the style guide should be a link to a separate page (pages?). The page is currently just too long, for one thing. (Needless to say, NC is a big part of categorisation.) - jc37 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem. I apologise if I was overly emphatic in issuing a stay out of my user space notice. ;) I'm shocked at what I turn up in my sandbox histories, so I'd hate to have an outsider wade through them. I've once moved notes for an arbcom case somewhere they shouldn't have gone to, so if it all goes tits up I'd rather be the one at fault.
    I'm not convinced the page is too long, using the milhist page as precedent. The idea is to try and keep it all in one page and iterate how it all applies. A lot of it already links off to specific pages for more detail, but if you look at how I've rewritten the naming conventions for people, it clarifies how they apply in comics. I'd much rather have one page, where each section has a shortcut, so we get the best of both worlds. If you have too many pages you get forum shopping and fragmentation. (For an example see the issues we have with our one core policy, NPOV being espoused on WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and so on.) Style guides, ultimately, are long. You may well be right. I just disagree. Hiding T 22:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the idea. There are two pages that immediately come to mind: List of comic book superpowers, and WP:AADD. To split them would cause more trouble than to retain them as lengthy pages.
    That said, I guess I just see NC as a "clean" split from content exemplars.
    However, I'll give the page more of a going over, and see if that changes my perspective. - jc37 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jc37/Sandbox/Comics characters

Regards this, I think we need to pick a few categories and work out where we would place them, and then build a tree back from there. For example, Category:Tintin characters I have always felt the entries should be merged and listified, to the point that I started doing so in a sandbox some time ago here. So I would take a similar approach with categories by protagonist, which would then mean the creation of a Category:Lists of characters by protagonist or something like. I think consensus has also been to not categorise by team membership, is that right? So we need a Category:Lists of characters by team or something like. As to the rest. It's trying to break up the characters by publisher categories, isn't it. Do we go for:

  • Characters by publisher
  • Titular characters - by which I mean characters who are or have been the titular character of a title
  • Supporting characters - by which I mean characters who are not a titular character

But this would then lead to team categories. So bad idea. So we characterise by powers and "goodness", by which I mean superhero and supervillain. Yes, this is the issue we have to solve; how to sub-categorise Category:DC Comics characters and similar. For me, Category:DC Comics science fiction characters is a bad category. How do you define science fiction in this context? We could sub-categorise by planet of birth, tortuously worded to avoid getting misunderstood saying race. We could have a Category:Aliens in DC Comics publications, and rename "DC Comics deities" to deities in DC Comics publications, but then this too brings into play why imprint categories are important: characters published in Helix or Wildstorm or Milestone comics are published by DC. Maybe Category:Aliens in the DC Comics universe or thereabouts, which would allow a sub-cat of DC animated universe? So to categorising by power; we need to limit these to the very common examples, if you ask me. Flying, telepathy, super-strength. Rename categories, so we have Super-Strong characters in the DC Universe, Telepathic characters in the..."Characters able to fly unaided"? But this would allow a top-category of "Telepathic characters in fiction", which I guess would sit in Fictional characters, because a fictional characters by type or ability may be a bit off? You can imagine branches such as "Fictional characters able to drive". This might square the occupational circle: Detectives in fiction, and so on, but limited to major occupational archetypes. So, some thoughts for starters. Hiding T 10:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "top down" plan we've been doing has seemed to work so far.
And I'd like to see how much we can fix of the existing before dealing with listifying. (Especially since there are quite a few which probably will need to be nominated for listification - "by protagonist" tops the list. I guess we better start looking for examples of past CfDs : )
I haven't delved into the "Lists of..." cats much yet. I'm fairly sure that when I do, I'm likely going to get quite lost in cleanup. So I've been somewhat "avoiding" that for the moment : )
I think the first thing we probably need is Fictional characters in comic strips.
Category:Fictional characters in comics by publisher - this should probably be the main categorisation of most character articles.
"By medium" probably needs to be clarified that it means media other than comics.
For powers, see this cfd. This would seem to remain the standard, even now. - jc37 11:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Hiding T 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of quick thoughts (sorry if this has come up elsewhere):
  • Tintin in that category is referring to the title of the comic series (so it would be "Comics characters by publication/title") and given that it is a solid well contained fictional universe that seems fine by me. I would certainly not want to see "Fictional characters in Tintin," especially not considering the Pink Lotus hoo ha, but that might just be my smutty mind.
  • In the Eclipse Comics category discussion it occurred to be that Category: Eclipse Comics superheroes was falling outside of the Category: Comics characters by company structure and it needs an "Eclipse Comics characters" category as a bridge between the two (we should also check that category for non-superheroes, although I am never sure of the strict definition of a superhero, and check Category: Superheroes by publisher in case there are other categories falling into the same problem). The above nested list of structures underlines this problem - a break in the link (and with the loss of "Eclipse Comics" a break in 2 links) and the superhero category is off drifting on its own (actually outside of the Category:Comics structure).
  • I also note we classify superheroes by publisher and Comics characters by company and I agree with the jc37's example using by publisher as company seems more nebulous (especially given imprints which count as their own publisher but depending on their states might not be a separate company - it could get a little silly).
  • I am still not 100% about changing the need for adding "fictional" to the character categories. Grant Morrison and Warren Ellis have appeared in comics as characters but that doesn't make the character real (even when it is essentially that person, as in Ellis' in Powers) - aren't nearly all characters in comics fictional? Even when based on historical events they are still fictionalised accounts. As with not bothering to categorise ongoing series (as we can assume they are by default unless specified) we can safely assume that all but a few comic characters are fictional and it would be worth only flagging this in a category with the exceptions. I don't really mind (care?) if it is changed just that it is worth kicking the idea around and it is a lot of categories so I am wondering if it ain't broke should we try and fix it?
Anyway see what you think - the problem with superheroes from comics outside of the comics structure is the most troubling to me. (Emperor (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • How do you mean Tintin refers to the title of thw comic series? Tintin was a strip in an anthology magazine also called Tintin, similar to 2000AD, so imagine if 2000AD were called Judge Dredd and then we had a category called "Characters in Judge Dredd]]. It would be somewhat ambiguous.
  • I don't mind what is done about publisher rather than company.
  • Biographical comics are not fictional, nor are factual comics like the cartoon history of the universe. When Alan Moore appears in an Eddie Campbell comic, it's Alan Moore, not a fictional Alan Moore. It's an Alan Moore Campbell takes artistic license with, but it is still Alan Moore and not a fictional Alan Moore. See Harvey Pekar as well. Still, whatever consensus thinks is best is best. Hiding T 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

What's the difference between Category:Comics by genre and Category:Comics genres? Hiding T 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter are genres, terms about comics.
The former are comics, which are sorted into subcats by genre. This is a place where the use of "titles" in the subcats' names might help with ambiguity. - jc37 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hiding&oldid=235677693"