Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics and Potito Starace: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Please do not remove the comments of other individuals - restoring J Greb's comments about this matter.
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Tennis player
{{Skiptotoctalk}}
|playername= Potito Starace
{{comicsproj|class=NA|importance=NA}}
|image= [[Image:PStaraceuso07.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Potito Starace lost to [[Ernests Gulbis]] at the [[2007 U.S. Open (tennis)|2007 U.S. Open]][http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/schedule9.html].]]
<!-- {{ComicsCollab}} -->
|country= [[Italy]] {{flagicon|ITA}}
<!-- begin TO-DO LIST -->
|residence= [[Cervinara]], [[Italy]]
<!-- Don't mess with the to-do list here; go back and click on the "edit this list" link. If you're looking for the actual talk page, just scroll down. -Leigh -->
|datebirth= {{birth date and age|1981|7|14}}
{| style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 15px;"
|placebirth= [[Benevento]], [[Italy]]
|-
|height= {{height|m=1.90}}
! rowspan="2" valign="top" |
|weight= {{convert|85|kg|lb st|abbr=on|lk=on}}
! align="left" |
|turnedpro= 2001
<big>[[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|32px|]] [[Wikipedia:To-do list|Pending tasks]] for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics|WikiProject Comics]][{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics|action=purge}} :]</big>
|plays= Right-handed; two-handed backhand
| align="right" | <small>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/to_do|action=edit}} edit this list] - [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:WikiProject Comics/to_do|action=watch}} add to watchlist]</small>
|careerprizemoney= $ 1,673,129
|-
|singlesrecord= 82–91
| colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#FFEFDF; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" |
|singlestitles= 0
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Task template}}
|highestsinglesranking= 27 ([[October 15]], [[2007]])
|}
|AustralianOpenresult= 1st (2005, 2006, 2007)
<!-- end TO-DO LIST -->
|FrenchOpenresult= 3rd (2004, 2007)
<!-- BEGIN MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Miszabot-->
|Wimbledonresult= 1st (2004–2008)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|USOpenresult= 2nd (2004)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|doublesrecord= 34–44
|counter = 36
|doublestitles= 3
|minthreadsleft = 2
|highestdoublesranking= 68 ([[April 2]], [[2007]])
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|updated =July 21, 2008
|algo = old(7d)
}}
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive %(counter)d
'''Potito Starace''' (born [[July 14]], [[1981]] in [[Benevento]]) is a professional tennis player from [[Italy]] on the [[Association of Tennis Professionals|ATP]] Tour. He achieved his career-high ranking of 27th on [[October 15]], [[2007]]. He is currently 77th in the ATP rankings. One of the most memorable moments of Starace's career was when he made the men's doubles quarterfinals of the [[2006 French Open]] with [[Alberto Martín]]. They defeated eighth-seeded [[Simon Aspelin]] and [[Todd Perry]] along the way, before walking over to second seeds [[Jonas Björkman]] and [[Max Mirnyi]]. He reached 2 career [[Association of Tennis Professionals|ATP]] finals, both in 2007. He lost in [[Open de Tenis Comunidad Valenciana|Valencia]] to [[Nicolás Almagro]] and later in [[Austrian Open (tennis)|Kitzbühel]] to [[Juan Mónaco]].<ref>http://2006.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/bios/cmatch/ms/atps843.html</ref>
}}<!--END MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
<!-- BEGIN HIGHINBCBOT ARCHIVAL CODE -->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Comics/Archive contents|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}<!-- END HIGHINBCBOT ARCHIVAL CODE -->
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
#<!-- Please add new archives in this main subpage, as the list gets quite long) -->
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archives]]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


==Betting scandal==
__TOC__
Following [[Alessio di Mauro]]'s 9 month ban in [[November 2007]], Starace and [[Daniele Bracciali]] were each fined and given short suspensions from playing. Starace received a fine of £21,400 and a 6 weeks ban from [[January 1]], [[2008]]. All of the players were Italian. None of the bets pertained to matches they were involved in or had any stake in.


==Singles titles ==
== The FURbots are back... ==


[[Image:PotitoStarace.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Starace at the [[2008 Pilot Pen Tennis]] tournament.]]
And they're tagging on average 15-20 images in comics articals ''a day'' for either [[:Category:Images with no fair use rationale|no FURs]] or [[:Category:Disputed non-free images|disputed/partial FURs]]
{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor="#eeeeee"
|'''Legend (Singles)'''
|- bgcolor="#e5d1cb"
| Grand Slam (0)
|- bgcolor="ffffcc"
| Tennis Masters Cup (0)
|- bgcolor="silver"
| ATP Masters Series (0)
|- bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
| ATP Tour (0)
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| Challengers (8)
|- bgcolor="CFFCFF"
| Futures (0)
|}
===Wins (8) ===
{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
|'''No.'''
|'''Date'''
|'''Tournament'''
|'''Surface'''
|'''Opponent in the final'''
|'''Score'''
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 1.
| May 10, 2004
| [[Sanremo]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|NED}} [[Peter Wessels]]
| 6–4, 6–4
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 2.
| May 31, 2004
| [[Sassuolo]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ITA}} [[Alessio di Mauro]]
| 6–2, 6–3
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 3.
| July 26, 2004
| [[San Marino Open|San Marino]], [[San Marino]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|USA}} [[Hugo Armando]]
| 6–4, 1–6, 6–3
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 4.
| September 5, 2005
| [[Genova]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ITA}} [[Flavio Cipolla]]
| 6–3, 7–6
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 5.
| March 27, 2006
| [[Napoli]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ITA}} [[Alessio di Mauro]]
| 6–0, 5–1 ret.
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 6.
| March 26, 2007
| [[Napoli]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|MAR}} [[Younes El Aynaoui]]
| 7–5, 6–2
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 7.
| August 6, 2007
| [[San Marino Open|San Marino]], [[San Marino]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ESP}} [[Albert Montañés]]
| 6–4, 7–6
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 8.
| April 6, 2008
| [[Napoli]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|BRA}} [[Marcos Daniel]]
| 6–4, 4–6, 7–6(3)
|}


===Singles finalist (8)===
Right now I'm up to the 14th (and it just hit deadline for that day), and still have about 20 or so outstanding images to fix. Anyone that is interested, please pitch in.


{| class="wikitable"
Here's the list:
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
|'''No.'''
|'''Date'''
|'''Tournament'''
|'''Surface'''
|'''Opponent in the final'''
|'''Score'''
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 1.
| July 1, 2002
| [[Mantova]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ARG}} [[Mariano Puerta]]
| 3–6, 0–1, ret.
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 2.
| September 2, 2002
| [[Aschaffenburg]], [[Germany]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|FRA}} [[Olivier Mutis]]
| 4–6, 0–6
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 3.
| June 23, 2003
| [[Reggio Emilia]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|FRA}} [[Richard Gasquet]]
| 5–7, 1–6
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 4.
| March 28, 2005
| [[Napoli]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|FRA}} [[Richard Gasquet]]
| 6–4, 3–6, 5–7
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 5.
| September 4, 2006
| [[Genova]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ESP}} [[Gorka Fraile]]
| 4–6, 6–3, 4–6
|- bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
| 6.
| April 15, 2007
| [[Open de Tenis Comunidad Valenciana|Valencia]], [[Spain]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ESP}} [[Nicolás Almagro]]
| 6–4, 2–6, 1–6
|- bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
| 7.
| July 29, 2007
| [[Austrian Open (tennis)|Kitzbühel]], [[Austria]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ARG}} [[Juan Mónaco]]
| 7–5, 3–6, 4–6
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 8.
| July 19, 2008
| [[San Marino Open|San Marino]], [[San Marino]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ITA}} [[Filippo Volandri]]
| 7–5, 4–6, 1–6
|}


==Doubles==
<s>''Tagged on Spet 14:''</s>
===Doubles wins (3)===


{| class="wikitable"
Thanks - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
|- bgcolor="#eeeeee"
|'''No.'''
|'''Date'''
|'''Tournament'''
|'''Surface'''
|'''Partner'''
|'''Opponents in the final'''
|'''Score'''
|- bgcolor="moccasin"
| 1.
| June 24, 2002
| [[Sassuolo]], [[Italy]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ITA}} [[Leonardo Azzaro]]
| {{flagicon|ITA}} [[Manuel Jorquera]] <br> {{flagicon|ARG}} [[Diego Moyano]]
| 6–3, 6–2
|- bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
| 2.
| March 4, 2007
| [[Abierto Mexicano Telcel|Acapulco]], [[Mexico]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|ARG}} [[Martín Vassallo Argüello]]
| {{flagicon|CZE}} [[Lukáš Dlouhý]] <br> {{flagicon|CZE}} [[Pavel Vízner]]
| 6–0, 6–2
|- bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
| 3.
| July 29, 2007
| [[Austrian Open (tennis)|Kitzbühel]], [[Austria]]
| Clay
| {{flagicon|PER}} [[Luis Horna]]
| {{flagicon|GER}} [[Tomas Behrend]] <br> {{flagicon|GER}} [[Christopher Kas]]
| 7–6(4), 7–6(5)
|- bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
| 4.
| October 6, 2008
| [[Kremlin Cup|Moscow]], [[Russia]]
| Carpet (i)
| {{flagicon|UKR}} [[Sergiy Stakhovsky]]
| {{flagicon|AUS}} [[Stephen Huss (tennis)|Stephen Huss]] <br> {{flagicon|GBR}} [[Ross Hutchins]]
| 7–6(4), 2–6, [10–6]
|}


==References==
:The 14th is clear and there were none for the 15th...
<references />
:<s>''Tagged on Spet 16:''
:''Tagged on Spet 17:''</s>
:- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


==External links==
:Anything we can do about this from [[Liam Sharp]]: [[:Image:Liam.jpg]]. The uploader is [http://www.hellomuller.com Tom Muller] a graphic designer who has worked for Mam Tor (he designed their logo) and the image is used by Liam Sharp elsewhere. So it seems legitimate. Is the problem that the released as free template has been depreciated or is it just that not enough information has been provided and there is nothing we can do about it? ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
* {{ATP|id=S843}}
::Seems orphanbot has been doing a few of these. Also:
* [http://steveghelper.com/MatchResults.php?players=Starace&weeks=12 Starace Recent Match Results]
::* [[:Image:David Goyer.JPG]] - not much information but it is clearly from a comic convention and it might be we can find it on Flickr (it looks similar to the ones Hiding found previously).
* [http://steveghelper.com/RankingHistory.php?player=Starace Starace World Ranking History]
::* [[:Image:Marko2.jpg]].
::I'll keep an eye out for more. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC))


{{DEFAULTSORT:Starace, Potito}}
:::Six cleared from the 16th...
[[Category:1981 births]]
:::<s>''Tagged on Sept 18:''</s>
[[Category:Living people]]
:::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Italian tennis players]]
::::*[[:Image:Mra2.JPG]] ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
[[Category:People from the Province of Avellino]]
:::::And it looks like the damn bots are running fast, some of the stuff tagged on the 16th has been removed from articles after just 6 days. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Tennis players at the 2008 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Olympic tennis players of Italy]]


{{Italy-sport-bio-stub}}
::::::Three more cleared from the 16th...
{{euro-tennis-bio-stub}}
::::::<s>''Tagged on Sept 19:''
::::::''Tagged on Sept 20:''
::::::''Tagged on Sept 21:''</s>
::::::And that should almost be current... - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The 16th is cleared... - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::The 17th is cleared...
::::::::And everyone helping out please note: FairuseBot is tagging all images that are used in an article and ''don't'' have a related FUR. This include articles that have been moved with out the image FURs being updated.
::::::::Also be aware that the 'bot is designed to run the same list 5 days later and remove the images from the articles ''and'' the tag from the image. This is even though the category and tag indicate that the images are supposed to be held for 7 days.
::::::::When reviewing image listed here, please check the history for the 'bot erasing its work and check the tag the 'bot added to verify ''all'' articles associated to the image. Also ''check the articles''. The mages are being removed boefore there is a fair chance for the images to be updated. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 02:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:<s>''Tagged on Sept 22:''</s>
:- 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::And the 18th is clear... - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::<s>''Tagged on Sept 23:''</s>
::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::*Are you guys using [[User:AWeenieMan/furme]]? Recently, a user tagged one of the (non comic) images I had added a long time. [[:Image:Flirting Scholar DVD cover.jpg]] It had a rational, although it wasn't a very good one. I asked them why and in one minute they told me it wasn't sufficent, and in another minute they added a very fancy rational to it themselves. I don't know how to use furme myself, but it looks like with a bit of practice fancy FURs can be added in one or two minutes. Anyways, just thought you should know if you didn't already. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually wasn't aware of that... though I'm not likely to use it, I've got problems with java scripts. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sept 23rd cleared... and it looks like a new batch is strting with Oct 1st... - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::<s>''Tagged on Oct 1:''
::::::''Tagged on Oct 2:''</s>
::::::- 01:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::<s>''Tagged on Oct 3:''</s>
:::::::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::<s>''Tagged on Oct 4:''</s>
::::::::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
And that should clear it for now. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 03:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


[[ar:بوتيتو ستاراس]]
== Batman templates being misused ==
[[de:Potito Starace]]

[[es:Potito Starace]]
Recently I noticed several of the templates just being placed on articles that don't need them. From the edit histories: it seems like TMC1982 is doing this on a regular basis. If anyone has time, look through [[:Category:Batman templates]] and check what they link to. He's added them to anything loosely related to the subject. One example: [[Batman: Arkham Asylum]], he added villain templates to it, just because they are in the game. Another: [[Penguins in popular culture]]: where the Penguin template was added, even though more than enough information about the villain is listed in the article already. Even though the templates have a hide feature, that doesn't mean they should be cluttering up every Batman (and in some cases: very loosely related) articles. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[[fr:Potito Starace]]
:I brought this up before. I see at most a need for two templates: the main Batman one and the Batman in other media one. There's needs to be mass cleanup and deletions. [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[[it:Potito Starace]]
::Also I want to point out: I left a note on TMC's talk page. He replied on my talk with just an attack. So talking with him about the matter doesn't seem to help. Also from the looks of his talk page: he has had numerous issues with comic related images he has uploaded. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 06:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[[hu:Potito Starace]]
::You did bring his up and the situation was pretty poor and it has clearly got worse as there have been a number of new ones dropped in all made by the same user:
[[mr:पोतितो स्तारासे]]
::* {{t1|Riddler}} - started September 18 - contains [[question mark]]
[[pl:Potito Starace]]
::* {{t1|Two-Face}} - started September 18 - contains [[coin flipping]]
[[pt:Potito Starace]]
::* {{t1|Penguin (comics)}} - started September 22 - contains [[cigarette holder]]
[[sk:Potito Starace]]
::* {{t1|Mr. Freeze}} - started September 22 - contains [[cryogenics]]
[[zh:史塔瑞斯]]
::I see no reason why the lot shouldn't be put up for deletion.
::Note there is also {{t1|Catwoman}} that was started by a different user back in March (seems to be the inspiration for the others) - I don't see any reason this shouldn't be included too.
::We can then return to fixing the others with a merge and a trim but that lot needs addressing asap. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
:::But Catwoman needs a serious trim, and maybe a boot with the other. I mean come on, including [[bullwhip]] and [[claws]]??!? - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, villian templates really not needed. Batman and Batman in other media is all that's needed IMO. As for that attack on your page Rob, I must say...how original. [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

These templates are worthless, but I am too lazy to TFD them. The creator hasn't made much of a case for their utility. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Bat-villain templates (save perhaps Catwoman - who's had her own title, among other things) should be deleted. They're essentially a list of appearances in "other media/works", including television, films, and rollercoasters. (And some trival inclusions, as noted above. Wow, I called something included, trivial. It must ''really'' be bad...) What here isn't already in each main article? And is there any reason that the reader will need each of the members of each navbox to cross-linked to each other? No and no. '''Strong Delete'''. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone put the templates up for deletion yet? I would do it, but the last time I tried multiple related AfD noms at the same time I was quite confused. [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:It would be [[WP:TFD|TfD]] not Afd... and I think they would have to be listed individually, not as a group. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::I know, I was just pointing out that nominating things for deletion is kind of a chore. [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, we can actually have that discussion here. Then, based on the consensus of this discussion, they can be kept, merged, deleted, etc., or even put through the additional process of TfD, at the closer's discretion.

I'll start a new thread below. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this project's consensus is to delete, so let's just take the lot to TFD. There's nowhere to merge, anyway. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:Nothing wrong with giving this a bit of time. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 04:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::Time until what? We don't need to vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion. This is an encyclopedia project, not an exercise in parliamentary procedure. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 04:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:::This '''isn't''' a ''"vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion"''. WikiProjects can hold consensual discussions on whether something should be deleted/moved/merged/whatever. (This is not uncommon.) Though, as I mentioned already, whoever closes the poll, may subsequently decide to list the templates at TfD based on the outcome of the poll. However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Except for the deleted part. None of these are tagged for deletion anywhere obvious. TFD is not ZOMG TEH ONLY WAY TO DELETE TEMPLATES, but the TFD process makes sure that we're not having discussions in non-obvious places. Just take these to TFD instead of strawpolling here, geez. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::AMiB has a very good point. And keep in mind what happend with the AfD for the Batman timeline. Same editor. He wasn't too keen on that, and I think he'll be less keen on what will look like a "backroom decision". - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Repeating: ''"However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so."'' - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think all belong in templates for deletion as soon as possible. I've had issues nominating multiple things before, so hopefully someone else can do it. It would be a lot better than just discussing it here. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - all ''six'' (Joker has since been created) are up at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 2]] - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Supervillain navbox discussion===
{{resolved|See discussion above. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{t1|Riddler}} - started September 18
* {{t1|Two-Face}} - started September 18
* {{t1|Penguin (comics)}} - started September 22
* {{t1|Mr. Freeze}} - started September 22
For reasons noted in the discussion directly above, these templates should be deleted.

(On the fence concerning [[Template:Catwoman]], which should probably be a separate discussion.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Delete all''' as nominator. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Delete all.''' They serve insufficient navigational purpose relative to the potential precedent for clogging every villain's article with these boxes. [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>STOMP!</small>]]</sub> 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Delete all''' (including Catwoman), however, is this being listed as a TfD? If so we might as well wait for that and do it properly. Have the creators been informed this is happening here? Has it been flagged on those templates? ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

*'''Delete all''' per nom [[User:Anakinjmt|Anakinjmt]] ([[User talk:Anakinjmt|talk]]) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

===Other templates===
I ran across this today: {{t1|NYX (comics)}} but don't know enough about the series to know if it is worthwhile. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

:Another one: {{t1|WildCATs}} it is skimpy and I'm unsure if it is needed (all those links are covered just fine in the main article). See my suggestion below about asking people to propose making templates before they start them. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

== Referencing Who's Who and OHotMU ==

I know that actual content (images, etc.) from those is inappropriate due to previous concensus, but are they disallowed as primary/tertiary sources? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:I think it depends on the context and content... My understanding is that the "Don't use" bar extends to quantification of powers. That is, we shouldn't be sourcing "Runs at speeds of X", "Can lift X", etc from them since these are fluid based on story, writer, and editor.
:The same argument has been applied to the character history points that are only brought up in them. I'm a bit leery of that since ''all'' backstory elements are open to being ignored or retconned based on story needs or writer/editorial whim. If we're going for a "canon" history, then we're going to constantly be looking and asking "Does ''this'' point fit the characters most recent appearance?" of anything drawn from ''all'' primary sources.
:All of that said, there are some items that could be worked into the articles ''if'' the sections were pulled out of an "in story" POV. Spider-Man's ability to stick to walls comes to mind. Marvel didn't really give an in-story explanation of how the power worked prior to 1985. They created a very detailed on for the OHOTMU which, IIRC, was never really repeated afterwards. When the first movie came out, the explanation changed. ''If'' the power section's tone were changed, then using the OHOTMU material could be incorporated, ''ie'' "Writers have described the mechanics of his 'wall crawling' as...".
:- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::Did anyone ever manage to dig out the old discussion on this..? I think I remember asking last time round, and it not being easy to find... mind you, since I last asked about it, I've read the Hulk material in the ''Prelude to WWH'' TPB, and the power levels seem so utterly arbitrary as to definitely be pointless, because they simply don't make sense.
::But, it would never have occurred to me to use the ''Official Handbook''s and ''Who's Who''s for '''that''' kind of information. So, under J Greb's extrapolations, can I reasonably assume that ''OH'' and ''WW'' <ins>are</ins> acceptable sources - just not for comparative drivel, speeds, weights and eye coloring..? Certainly the character history summaries ''are'' helpful summations, and ''do'' include "behind the scenes" information (as evidenced above). Plus, if 'canon' is ever to be discussed (and it probably shouldn't be, but...), the official histories can definitely help arbitrate. [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Just to clarify:
:::*Power benchmarks should ''not'' be referenced from the ''Handbook'' or ''Who's Who'' any more than "Character X is faster/stronger/smarter than character Y" comparisons should be supported from the primary sources. The benchmarks are mutable to the needs of the story and whim of the writer.
:::*Character histories ''may'' have elements that were first, or only, mentioned in the ''Handbook'' or ''Who's Who''. In writing an in-story POV history (read "plot summary"), the primary sources should be used as cites/refs over the ''Handbook'' or ''Who's Who''.
:::*Canon is a deadly topic since it can change on an editorial whim ("Brand New Day" or ''Crisis''). The material in the ''Handbook'' and ''Who's Who'' may be decades out of date and no longer "correct" based on current stories. That alone makes them suspect as a standard for "canon".
:::*At best, the ''Handbook'' or ''Who's Who'' can be used to cite attempts by the publishers to have characters fleshed out. That's real world context and should be presented in that manner. So, a minor character that got a large write up in one would have that reflected in their ''publication history'' — "Marvel highlighted the character in 1988 with a listing in they ''Handbook'' which added details to the character's origin and laid the ground work for his appearance in ''Whatever'' the following year." Or a power that they finally "explained" would either go into the PH or force the "Powers & abilities" section in to a real world formation.
:::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Good explanations, J Greb; your last paragraph gives a good example of proper treatment. It's all a matter of resisting the urge to treat the ''Handbook'' as documenting what is "true" about the character. The ''Handbook'' is itself a work of fiction, which just uses the [[conceit]] of an encyclopedia format to feign factuality. Such entries are really just depictions of the characters no less than the narrative comic book stories. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:::ntnon asked about previous discussion - there is quite a bit on using images from the [[OHOTMU]] (which should remain verbotten) but here is the more general discussion when this has cropped up (oldest first - I can't guarantee it is comprehensive as I just scooped these up from the "what links to" page): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_9#Handbooks.2C_etc], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_10#OHOTMU_Strength_Stats], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_12#Possible_Copyvios_at_the_Eternals_article.3F], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_15#.22Can_lift_in_excess_of_X_number_of_pounds.22], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_28#Nasty_Boys.27_real_names:_Wikipedia_misinformation_making_it_into_print.3F], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_31#OHOTMU_and_Who.27s_Who_in_the_DC_Universe] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_32#Primary_sources_sufficient.3F]. Enjoy.

::: I think J Greb sums it up well though: We don't want things like stats but there are times it could help [[WP:V|verify]] something and there are sometimes clarifications of the status of characters (see e.g. the fifth link above which about the names of the Nasty Boys) - I have just been noddling on [[Black Knight (comics)]]-related areas and was unsure where to fit in the [http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/blackknightmerlinconstruct.htm Black Knight construct] and if the comments are right (that the OHTMU says it is the earliest in-universe appearance of Merlin) then that could be useful. I am also unure about the status of the Black Knight shown in the Otherworld Saga (which ran in Marvel UK's [[Hulk Comic]]) - it is currently mentioned under [[Black Knight (Dane Whitman)]] but I am unsure if it was explicitly stated (I am missing quite a few issues - although he is listed separately [http://comicbookdb.com/character.php?ID=12398 here]) and I suspect if it is ever to be clarified it may have to be done outside of the comics, presumably in the OHOTMU. So it could have its uses although we should be careful. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

== Please everyone become more involved ==

*[[:Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)]] - main section for us
*[[:Category:AfD debates (Web or internet)]] - includes web comics/cartoons
*[[:Category:AfD debates (Games or sports)]] - includes video games (comics/cartoon adaptations)
It's slowly beocming my experience that things are being nominated for deletion simply because someone has personally decided that the article(s) inquestion don't meet some personal demarcation line of "notability".

I've found accusations of [[WP:OR]] simply due to (often accurately) citing primary sources. Or claims that since they couldn't find anything but what they deemed to be "trivia" in their google search, the thing likely doesn't assert "notability".

As should be needless to say, this is '''''really''''' a problem.

For one thing, just because someone may not be writing online about something, doesn't mean that something is not worthy of inclusion.

The links at the top are the main ones, but there obviously are others which may be of interest.

Look at it this way, but joining in on these discussions, you can learn better how to write effective articles, if only by noting what others find problematic in articles. And also, these are great places to help edit to improve existing articles. (You will often receive great cheers for "saving" an article through development.)

So again, I implore everyone to ''please'' get involved in these discussions. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Also if you see anything relevant add it in here: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation]]. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
::It can be hard to find sources. I think [[Don Markstein's Toonopedia]] might be a reilable source that we can use.[http://www.toonopedia.com/awards.htm][http://news.google.com/archivesearch?client=opera&rls=en&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Don+Markstein%22&ie=UTF-8][http://books.google.com/books?rls=en&oe=utf-8&um=1&hl=en&q=%22Don%20Markstein%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np][http://scholar.google.com/scholar?rls=en&oe=utf-8&um=1&hl=en&q=%22Don%20Markstein%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ns] If it is, it would give us one of the two required sources for [[WP:NOTE]] for about 1400 articles! - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes I'd go with using the Toonopedia but the first priority would be be to use some of those resources to improve the main article because it could be the target of an AfD (ah the irony). ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
:In contrast there are also articles that ''should'' be deleted but aren't because situations where most of the people speaking in the AfDs might be the primary editors of the articles in questions, and thus think the articles should stay. Either way, greater input in AfD discussions would be a positive thing. [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ditto to other areas - put the splits, merges, new articles areas of the noticeboard on your watchlist and throw in your opinion as it keeps things moving along and helps avoid results we have to go back and fix again (and this also relies on people listing things there). Some of the AfDs listed on the delsort have to be relisted from lack of input and I've had no interest in my split suggestion for [[Image Comics]] (despite flagging it here too - I'll just assume that means tacit support for it and go ahead and do it). ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

=== Speaking of deletions ===
[[Orgess (comics)|Speaking of deletions]]... [[Special:Contributions/67.173.11.90|67.173.11.90]] ([[User talk:67.173.11.90|talk]]) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Re-deleted and the editor warned. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Irish Comics ==

The [http://irishcomics.wikia.com/wiki/Irish_Comics_Wiki Irish Comics Wiki] needs contributors! --[[User:Nicknack009|Nicknack009]] ([[User talk:Nicknack009|talk]]) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Ethan Van Sciver]] ==

How is this guy's last name pronounced? Van Skeever? Sky-ver? Siver like the sci in science? I know how it should be pronounced in the original German, but his family might have Anglocized or otherwise Americanized it along the way. [[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>STOMP!</small>]]</sub> 08:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:As per the truant synonym, [http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=84057 apparantly]: Skive/er.. (or, yes "Sky-ver"). Are you adding pronunciation bits, or just curious..? [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I think it would be worth adding pronunciation in if it isn't clear or they prefer something that isn't obvious (like [[Hyacinth Bucket]]). I find it helps when reading something and it could save someone from queuing for quarter of an hour only to walk away feeling like a proper bell end (not that it has even happened to me but it is the kind of thing I'd do given the opportunity). ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

:::Reply to Ntnon's question: For myself, I need to pronounce his name correctly when introducing him. For Wikipedia, it would be good to clarify the pronunciation when it' isn't clear. That way, Wikipedia can be a good source for the next person who needs to know how to pronounce it. What I hate is that I've been telling a family member that he's probably saying it wrong; if that article is right (thanks for that source!), he gets to nyah-nyah at me over it.[[User:Doczilla|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">Doczilla</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Doczilla|<small>STOMP!</small>]]</sub> 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Don't do an Eddie Campbell whatever you do. He reportedly spent so long practising [[Bill Sienkiewicz]]'s surname that when the time came to introduce him he blanked on his first name. ;) [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Page moves ==

[[Catiana]] and [[Set (serpent god)]] seem to have been moved without prior discussion? Just wondering what others thought about this. [[Special:Contributions/67.173.11.90|67.173.11.90]] ([[User talk:67.173.11.90|talk]]) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:The former might work if what they say in the edit summary is true (that she only used that name as a joke once in the first issue) but I don't read the series so... The latter is more mysterious, I suppose they might be right but it isn't a name mentioned anywhere in the article so I think that'd need some proof. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

::Interesting. Do we know which is the correct standard to be used for each? Any sources to point towards? [[Special:Contributions/67.173.11.90|67.173.11.90]] ([[User talk:67.173.11.90|talk]]) 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid there is no cast iron rule that can be applied to every case and things like that come down to the names they are best known as.
:::* With [[Catiana]], if the editor is right in their summary "She only called herself Catiana as a joke, revealed in the final issue when she judges herself. Should she stick with it, then we revert" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatiana_Caban&diff=242998581&oldid=230785189] then it seems they are correct.
:::*[[Set (serpent god)]] is even trickier. The Appendix (which is usually pretty good on such things) gives Set's aliases as "Apep, Apocalypse, Father Set, the Great Serpent, Lotan, Leviathan, Ophion, Serpent God, Serpent Emperor of the Waters, Tiamat, Flood" [http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/seteldergod.htm] so the actually name is up for grabs I suppose. However, the article makes it clear he is often called variations on Set the demon god which makes it clear we should be aiming for some kind of Set (X) name - serpent god doesn't seem unreasonable (Father Set seems like some kind of honorific like His Holiness the Pope). I doubt we are going to find a title that suits everyone. The only alternative to the one we have is "Set (Conan)." ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

::::[[Set (Marvel Comics)]]? :) [[Special:Contributions/204.153.84.10|204.153.84.10]] ([[User talk:204.153.84.10|talk]]) 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Set is originally a Robert E. Howard creation that found its way into the Marvel Universe through the Marvel adaptations of the Conan stories so I don't think that would be an acceptable solution - the redirect is there because Set eventually became a Marvel character but it isn't a reflection of the characters creation and early history. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

::::::I don't know about Set, but I can at least say definitively that Catiana should in fact have been moved to Tatiana Caban. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::(to Emperor) which is why it was at [[Set (serpent god)]] in the first place, I imagine. Hmm, interesting. [[Special:Contributions/67.173.11.90|67.173.11.90]] ([[User talk:67.173.11.90|talk]]) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although her was mentioned in a REH story, the article is about the comics version of set almost exclusively. Unless DC or someone has a Set, we should use [[Set (Comics)]], else use [[Set (Marvel Comics)]]. Per [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] it should be what's most recognizable to readers. Using Serpent God sounds like it would link to [[Set (mythology)]], although I guess he wasn't as snake like as I thought. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:That works for me. [[Special:Contributions/67.173.11.90|67.173.11.90]] ([[User talk:67.173.11.90|talk]]) 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:I can't see it working - it is a character who appeared first in fiction and later appeared in comics and I think we should avoid disambiguating with a class based on either medium. I still don't see what is wrong with [[Set (serpent god)]] - it is accurate and flexible, if for some reason that isn't acceptable then... "Set (character)" perhaps? ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
::His only "appearance" in fiction as far as I can tell from the article was that Thoth-Amon was a follower of "the serpent god Set". I've read it, but not in a while. It sounds like Set doesn't appear in any REH books. It sounds like his first appearance is as a comic book villain unrelated to Conan. They then retconned the comic villain into a conan comic villain with the same name as mentioned in a REH book. It seems like he's a comics character all the way. Maybe Set did stuff the article doesn't mention. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure where you are getting that information from - he appeared in a Conan story (this was in the days of pulp fantasy/sci fi anthologies so a lot of stories appeared in that form first) and then was introduced into the Marvel Universe via the Conan comics: "The "god" was later extensively used in Marvel Comics' various Conan series starting in the 1970s." ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

== Authors in comics categories ==

Is there any guideline about adding or removing authors from categories about their main works? E.g. [[Joe Shuster]] and [[Jerry Siegel]] are ''not'' placed in any ''[[Superman]]'' related categories, meaning that when going through the Superman categories, you will not find their main creators (they are in the navbox, so it's not like people reading about Superman will not find them, but still...). Similarly, [[Edgar P. Jacobs]] is not in the [[:Category:Blake and Mortimer]]. On the other hand, [[Bob Kane]] is in the [[:Category:Batman]] and [[Hergé]] is in the [[:Category:Tintin]]. I would support having main authors in either the main category for their creations, or in a dedicated subcategory (Superman authors or whatvere you would prefer), but some consistency would be good, and I'll rather not start adding lots of authors to categories only to hear afterwards that they should all be removed. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*It's a bone of contention, but there's nothing concrete in writing. I would prefer to have the main authors listed in the categories, certainly the creators, but other people feel that isn't what categories are for, and that the article or a navbox should suffice. It's complicated. You get into questions as to which creators should be listed, and why, and what the category structure is ultimately for. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:(ec)
:The consensus that came out of multiple CfDs was to not categorize "preformers by preformance" or "by employer" since the general trend for both is that there will be multiple categories attached to the bio articles. This leads to clutter in the category sections. This has gotten a broad interpritation, so categories like "Batman writers" and "Action Comics artists" are non-starters.
:Hergé is a good example of an exception — it's unlikely that he'll be catted outside of Tintin, or that others will be included there. Kane, Shuster, and Segel could be seen as pushing it. Their inclusion can be seen as opening up the Batman and Superman categories to the inclusion of other writers and artists. And look at [[Stan Lee]] and [[Jack Kirby]] for examples of just how many categories could wind up being added to the bio articles (count the navboxes).
:- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. So basically only add it if the series is a major aspect of someone's life and series and author are closely associated with each other? It's basically what I had in mind, to add Jacobs to Blake and Mortimer but not to Tintin (he collaborated on it, so it would not be too farfetched, but they are not a major aspect of one another). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:I'd tend to support the inclusion of important people in categories - a good guide for companies might be seeing who is in the founder or important people fields. I think it would be odd having a Marvel category without Stan Lee but think it would be distintly pushing it to include Bendis. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

== Comics characters debut-year categories ==

A recent talk I had with [[User:Sesshomaru]] has had me questioning the way I've been adding these categories, so I thought I'd open up a question to other members of the project and see what they think.

===Multiple-character entries===
This is especially pertinent with DC Comics, which has so many legacy characters that re-use the same names over and over again, and for which we often combine into one entry for simplicity's sake and because they share histories. Take for example [[Bulletman and Bulletgirl]]. He debuted in 1940, she, the year after, in 1941. '''Solution 1''' is to merely add both 1940 and 1941 debut categories to the same article. This is what I've been doing. I think the potential for confusion here is low, although it exists. The bonus to this solution is that it is simple and uncomplicated and requires no work other than the addition of the category to the article. The problem with this solution is that it is somewhat vague and unspecific. '''Solution 2''' (which I think Sesshomaru leaned towards) is to add, in this case, the redirects [[Bulletman]] and [[Bulletgirl]] to the categories instead. This seems like not a terrible solution (in this case), but can potentially get very messy with, for example, characters like [[Clayface]], which would require several new redirects to be created (e.g. [[Clayface (Basil Karlo)]]) to add to the category. ([[Basil Karlo]] is already a redirect, but if you saw that in a category with no context, who the hell would know who that was?) This solution is very specific, but means these categories would be filled with an uncommonly high percentage of redirects instead of actual articles. And the redirects would just send you to the same article you would have wound up at in the first place, with the same ultimate problem of having to read the entry to figure out which debut was meant.

Also--and I think this is the reason that puts the nail in the coffin of this solution--if the categories were on the ''redirects'' it would prevent access to the categories to people ''actually at the article''. No good.

I, obviously, think solution 1 is the wiser course, but I don't think it's impossible to argue in favor of the second option, or an option I had not previously imagined.

:I suppose I'd tend towards the first option if it was just this issue, as the infobox/PH would quickly clarify who it refers to but there are other issues where you have a range of characters with their own categories. See e.g. [[Electro (comics)]] which has fictional robots and fictional communists, Timely Comics characters, etc. and you'd have to read through the article carefully to find out which is being referred to. I think we should consider such articles as if they were something like [[Ant Man]], all of which have their own articles so the main article is kept stripped down (with an alias infobox rather than the full comic character one). In which case you could flag the categories that apply to the overall character (so the first appearance of the name for example) and establish redirects which could then hold the specific categories. So the article would still be categorised but with a more stripped down set of categories. The fact that you can categorise redirects is often overlooked but it is a useful tool that could help refine some of the categorisation. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

::Some thoughts...
::I can see the positive to the redirect solution, but it really is just a half step. So id just linking the articles with multiple versions. Ideally ''both'' would have the links. Using [[Clayface]] as an example:
::*The article would be catted into 1940, 1961, 1978, 1987, and 2003
::*Clayface {Basil Karlo} would cat to 1940 and point to the Basil Karlo section
::*Clayface {Matt Hagen} would cat to 1961 and point to the Matt Hagen section
::*Clayface {Preston Payne} would cat to 1978 and point to the Preston Payne section
::*Clayface {Sondra Fuller} would cat to 1987 and point to the Sondra Fuller section
::*Clayface {Johnny Williams} would cat to 1940 and point to the Johnny Williams section
::It may wind up with a few double appearances in the cats, but it allows the best functionality. And the sorting ''should'' wind up with the redirect ''under'' the article.
::And as Emperor points out, is a character is split off into its own article, the cat should be removed from the "hub" article, so articles like [[Atom (comics)]] would have some but not all and those like [[Huntress (comic)]] would have none, or at best one.
::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That is an interesting approach, and even though it creates some extra steps, it probably is the best fix from a functionality standpoint. [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Good example - it shows how it can be very handy for two characters of the same name in one year. It also makes linking much simpler and when linking to sections it makes it easier to update the single redirect rather than trying to hunt down links (worth placing a comment in the section too so that editors know they should update the redirect and that there is a redirect they can use). Also remember it is worth adding a redirect reason (I have [[User:Emperor/Tools#Redirect reasons|a little list]] of the common ones I use) so in the case above you might also add {{t1|R to section}}.
:::This could also be used for different series (handy if they are in different formats - graphic novels, one-shots, limited series, ongoing) although we'd need to come up with a system for the naming (based on films or TV series going by the starting year: "Justice League of America (1987 comics" or something similar. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

===Debateable first appearances===
And what about those rare characters who are mentioned before they're actually in the comic? Take, for example, [[Foxglove (DC Comics)]], who is spoken of as early as 1989, but isn't on-panel until 1991. In this case I'm inclined to take "first appearance" to literally mean just that: the first time the character is, in some sense "there", that is, present in some way on panel. (I don't want to say "the first time we ''see'' the character" because this could trip up in the case characters normally invisible, or, say, cosmic entities that don't ordinarily or at first have physical form.

So...thoughts? [[User:Fordmadoxfraud|Ford MF]] ([[User talk:Fordmadoxfraud|talk]]) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I think you'd have to go with actual appearance as just being mentioned in the text could be vague and open to interpretation - I suppose some first appearances might (for example if they appeared in the background in a scene) but they will be rare and is something you could either find a source on or thrash out on the talk page and come to a consensus. As in the foxglove article it is worth flagging this issue in place that allow more flexibility. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

::I tend to agree with that... and care should be take with "behind the scenes" comments from annotators or writers.
::There are also two other categories that will cause problems:
::*Last page/one panel cameos
::*Obscured appearances
::Personally, I take the last page cameos as the "first appearance", period. That's when the character is first revealed or "put into play".
::The other though is harder. Some characters are presented as "teasers" leading up to the reveal — only a shoulder or hand shown, always in shadows, only a voice over a phone, and so on. More often than not, I'd say those "count" when trying to pin down the first appearance, but there's always the "How do we know that really was the character?" hanging over them.
::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]])

:::I asked for comments on a related/identical issue [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_35#Universe_.22debuts.22|here]] a little while ago, but it got sidelined because I was also asking about the multiverses... Simply: some characters "debuted" in comics that were not printed, distributed or generally ever seen - so should those count? Does the proto-Captain Marvel (which alternate name, secret identity, etc.) from ''Whiz'' #1 - which barely exists anyway - matter? Does ''Motion Picture Funnies Weekly'' "count" for Namor? Surely not. [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia 0.7 ==

Hey there! :) It's not too late to put some work into discussing getting things done for the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7|Wikipedia 0.7 release]]. Check out the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7|articles that have been selected]] so far from the comics project. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:Come join the fun - you know you want to. ;) [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Storm - good article? ==

Hey, I was wondering... on the talk page for [[Storm (Marvel Comics)]], it is listed as an A-class article for the comics project, fine. However, there is also a note about it being a GA for Language and literature - so, should we have it rated as an A or a GA? [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:Well A is better than GA but I am not 100% sure if the A class review has been done properly and I think someone who is more experienced in these should look it over. It went for FA but failed and it seems some of the comments have been taken on board it is just the actual review process that I am unsure about.
:Seems it could be one that could be polished up to FA standard fairly easily though - might be worth another shot. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

::I'm always confused on that one - so A is better than GA, or the other way around? :) I'm have other plans, as mentioned [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7#Good Articles|here]], but yeah getting more FAs would also be nice for our project. 10 is good, but we have plenty of potential for more! :) [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::A-class is above GA class. Speaking of more comics FAs, if when I'm done with the ''Watchmen'' FAR anyone wants to work on ''The Dark Knight Returns'', I'm game. [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]] ([[User talk:WesleyDodds|talk]]) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Great - the more, the merrier. :) I'm going to try to get as many comics articles up to GA as I can manage, and we can work on getting more to FA from the other end. [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] ([[User talk:BOZ|talk]]) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Could you (Wesley) put up with me helping out again..?! ;o) [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== "Superman's dad is dead...again" ==

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/08/supermans.dad.ap/index.html

Just thought this would be amusing to the project members, and helpful to trot out in the next inevitable debate about why fictional deaths should not be categorized or why "canon" is ephemeral. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== List of Spider-Man Bibliographies ==

According to one of article's talk pages, the issue has come up before, but unfortunately there is no link to the discussion. So, do we really need both a [[List of Spider-Man comics]] and a [[Bibliography of Spider-Man titles]]? --[[User:GentlemanGhost|GentlemanGhost]] ([[User talk:GentlemanGhost|talk]]) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:These cover the exact same ground, and have probably 90% the same text; someone should do a careful merge. I would expect [[list of Spider-Man comics]] is the preferred title? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[James Robinson (comics)]] ==

An editor has removed the personal information from [[James Robinson (comics)]] claiming to be James Robinson (although confusingly using the user name [[User:Terrysloan|Terrysloan]]) the first one being reverted by another SPA named [[User:Robinsonfamily|Robinsonfamily]]. For example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Robinson_(comics)&diff=prev&oldid=243492699] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Robinson_(comics)&curid=1350799&diff=244009233&oldid=244009034]. Note also that other [[WP:BLP]]-violating material was added earlier by an anon IP which was removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Robinson_(comics)&diff=next&oldid=241155797] (they also corrected some other details which might be treated as suspect too).

I have dropped them a note on [[User talk:Terrysloan|their talk page]] (although I'd appreciate someone double checking to make sure I've covered the bases) and while it is being sorted out what is really needed are more eyes on the page to make sure the version is kept to the one that lacks the personal details until this is resolved. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

== Proposed renaming of indie comics categories ==

See [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_9|Categories for discussion entries here]], pertaining to [[:Category:Indie comic characters]], [[:Category:Indie comic creators]], and [[:Category:Indie comics]]. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== A new way forward ==

*[[List of Batman Family enemies]]
There are several such lists. The problem is that while we can use the primary sources to determine that the characters were adversaries to the hero(es) in question, in most cases, we can't use primary sources to determine "main", "major", or "minor", as that would be [[WP:OR]].

And so splitting the lists of adversaries up by any of those three terms would also be [[WP:OR]].

We need to find another way to present these characters.

Appearance in only one comic or even one story arc? But what if we consider the lifespan of the Bat-universe a single over-reaching story arc?

One thing is clearm however, the constant editorial reversions for which editor has what preference to whether ''their'' favourite character may be a main, major, or minor "villain", needs to stop.

And I think that the fault is ''ours'' for not nipping this presentation issue in the bud.

So right now, I'm looking for "outside the box" ideas and suggestions for how to present these lists. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::*Incidentally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman_villains&diff=prev&oldid=76304331 this] is the edit where I split the list from its related article. Over time the article has apparently been shredded, to the point that '''it was redirected to the list'''. (How's ''that'' for irony? : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Short observations:
:*I agree, the constant "my fave" shuffling in the list articles ''and'' navboxes ''and'' any where a list of characters happens to be needs to stop. the same with "padding" the navboxes and "examples" lists.
:*If we are going to go with "major", the sourcing should avoid both the "poll driven" and "fan pandering" lists.
:*The same goes for "fundamental", "primary" and/or "pivotal".
:*"Recurring" and "one-shot" have inherent problems: There will be movement out of the "one-shot" list and it can wind up including "pivotal" foes — Spider-Man's Burglar for example.
:*Sorting also needs to be set, either alphabetical or chronological. Both remove the POV arguments, though they may be hard sells...
:- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Outside the box solutions? Delete the lists (with a transwiki to the relevant Wikia entries)? Important foes will be mentioned in the relevant articles but these lists have unclear inclusion criteria: Do we include every enemy from every Bat comic? What about the ones who pop up fighting various heroes and have happened to cross paths with one of the Batman family? How few appearances count? There have been numerous Bat Family titles running in parallel for decades and often had a new villain pop up never to appear again and to try and include all of them is the road to madness. So there appear to be two criteria at work: exclusively Batman and number of appearances but I am unsure how strictly these are being applied.

:: Let's look at Flash: His [[Rogues (comics)]] are a reasonably well-defined "group" but [[List of Flash enemies]] seems to be... some others.

:: I'm sure I could dig out my Bat comics and find some villain in there who isn't on the list and I'm not clear why we include those we have and not some other enemy.

:: I'm not saying we ''should'' but it is an option to put on the table. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

:Sort lists <s>alphabetically</s> chronologically, that way you are establishing a narrative. How to split the list is a little more problematic. My first thought is to use summary style, but that may be hard to implement. Basically, you have a top level list which summarises foes for which a number of sources exists, in chronological order. This list is supported by a further alphabetical list of all foes. Basically we then just need to keep tabs that any given foes entry is given its due weight. And if there is no name in the comic, then there's no list entry, so someone who snapped the aerial on the Batmobile isn;t counted. Someone who [[Jason Todd|stole the tyres]] from the Batmobile is a little more interesting... Of course, to open a can of worms, define "foe". Batman versus Superman? But then with a good lead to the list, you'd explicitly state that: while superheroes are often pitted against each other, the purpose of this list is to... and footnote entries like Azrael or Anarky if we include them. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Perhaps we should think about listifying based upon a publication rather than by protagonist? So List of characters appearing in Detective Comics?
::Or the broader: List of characters appearing in Batman Family-related comics.
::The problem is that several characters (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) have been the main protagonist in a ''lot'' of titles. How do we say that concisely in a list name? (In order to prevent multiple mostly duplicative lists of characters - between Batman, and Detective Comics, for example.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Another option might be to take a page from Dick Tracy. As Emperor notes above, The Flash has a "Rogues gallery". So do several other heores.
::The problem becomes, obviously, defining the rogues gallery for each character, without straying into [[WP:OR]]. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd imagine something official has defined the rogues (see discussion above for things like the OHTMU) and googling Batman and rogues I see there has been a Batman Rogues action figure line so somewhere someone must have a list. There is a list at [[UGO]] [http://batman.ugo.com/roguesgallery/] and that is pretty much the list I'd come up with for Batman's rogue. Worth noting that the DC Database Project page is better than the one we have (IMHO naturally) [http://en.dcdatabaseproject.com/Batman_Villains] and if we could trim it down to just the Rogues I'd not have a problem with linking on to that if people want more. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

::::Why is this still an issue? The shuffling a while back into 'mob', 'vital' 'semi-important' and 'other' (not the best terms, probably not the used terms, but effectively the correct terms) should have put this to rest. There will always be people pushing their favorites and making the case for moving up, down and sideways, but... so what? There's always well-meaning innacuracies put all over the place; Points of view pushed with or without tangible logic; rampant vandalism and stupidity. That's (unfortunately) what happens.
::::The '''template''' should have been locked down ages ago. It's not original research; it's '''common sense'''. It's obvious. The only slight bones of contention are whether Bane, Harley, Croc, Hatter and Clayface have any business approaching Joker, Catwoman, Screcrow, Riddler, Two-Face, Penguin, Ivy, Ra's and Freeze. And the ultimate answer is: no. Those nine are known by ''everyone'' - comics fans, TV fans, film-fans, (some) non-comics fans. Joker and Catwoman streets ahead. Ivy, Ra's and Freeze pulling up the rear. Catwoman is a foe (and sometimes a friend/antihero/hero). Azrael isn't Batman, and BETTY KANE (Batgirl) HAS NEVER BEEN FLAMEBIRD! They're two different iterations. Fix it up; lock it down. End of problem.
::::If other editors want to complain and argue for, say, Black Mask, they're welcome to - here, or on the discussion page of the Template. Any consensus can see an admin-person unlock, add and re-lock. Is that not reasonable...? With very few exceptions, I don't see that most people have any business editing the ''templates'' - the pages are fair game, but (most) templates shouldn't change much, or have new sources shed new light on things, or be seriously lacking in any areas.

::::...and that's only very slightly a sarcastic suggestion. ;o)

::::As for the villains page - chronological or alphabetical might seem sensible, but are actually going to cause horrendous difficulties. For chronological, you'll be left with a list wherein you won't be able to find anyone unless you know their date of orign - or unless each has a separate section, and then the navigation box will allow them to be found more easily (barely). That would be unworkable, because the page would be impossibly cramped. In order to find the 'main' villains/foes (and they ''are'' the MAIN villains/foes), they'd need to be bolded or underlined - and that would put it back in the same situation of OR accusations.
::::Alphabetical is even less workable. THE RIDDLER - R, (t), N or E? TWEEDLEDUM & TWEEDLEDEE - T or D? KILLER CROC - K, C, W or J? And whichever you pick, you'll need: a) Exceptions, and b) A lengthy explanation of how it might possibly be possible to find whomever you're looking for. Now, even the recent ''Batman Encyclopedia'' ran into this problem: TALIA was not under "T". Neither was she under "A"<small>('''A'''l Ghul)</small> or "G"<small>(Al '''G'''hul)</small>. She was under "H". For "Talia '''H'''ead". Ridiculous. And without even any notes or redirects... ''(Incidentally, the template is fouled up alphabetically-wise for the "supporting" folk - a bizarre hybrid of forenames and surnames combining to make the order seem, perhaps, ''importance''-related. And even then, highly dubious...)''
::::(And based on publication would be an entirely different kind of farce - debut or most appearances? Most appearances in 'real time' or in flashback/insertion? Weighted publications, with ''Batman'' and ''Detective'' vying for precedence while ''Legends of the Dark Knight'' and ''Batman: Confidential'' appearances play second string? Unworkable.)

::::I did piece together a complex algorithm for calculating notability, but it didn't go anywhere, and is probably open to as many challenges as the pages themselves. But it's not really difficult: longevity; cross-media (comic, TV, film.... <small>(cartoons)</small>) appearances; total appearances; key roles in major stories; 3rd party lists and references. Surprise, surprise you wind up with the main nine; a quandry over whether Clayface and the Hatter are high enough above the rest to move up, a major headache with Harley, and very few other issues.

::::Also, ultimately - it doesn't matter that much. These pages serve a particular purpose - and the page as is '''does''' serve that purpose admirably, being basically a hybrid of what's been suggested be done to improve it. That people push their favorite or disagree is only natural - and in some cases ''admirable''. But challenges of bias or original research should not detract from the FACT that there ''are'' "MAIN" villains/foes for Batman, and their names are known. There ''are'' "Minor" villains/foes (and, in most senses, of course, their names are ''lesser'' known). Everyone else is in limbo between the two. Three tiers. Very little contest over who goes where. No originality of thought involved, just basic common sense. [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 00:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::A few things in there make some sense...
:::::I'm a fair way from being sold, but there is a good start for arguing that the navboxes ''should'' be treated as some heavily contentious article space templates and locked. But such a step should be taken either when the templates are stable or a stable version is fairly obvious. Batman is close to that, but there are still sticking points. And frankly, it sets up the admins as arbiters for inclusion, and ''that'' could kick off uglier arguments.
:::::As for the lists... I honestly think that for the "bigger" names should have secondary sources that point to "pivotal" foes. Those cites should be used to point to splitting out of the "wheat from the chaff". Lacking either such a source, or a desire of editors to find one, the enemies do get run into one long list.
:::::Chronological order... Yes, there is the problem of finding characters in a list article using this. There is also a couple of other problems: "Legacy" characters (Clayfaces) and the potiential of "post-Event-reboot" versions (Catwoman). Alphabetic eliminates this problem. Again, it has its limitation since the context of who entered the series when isn't obvious. But then I'd prefer to have to work that out rather than hunt for a character in the list.
:::::As for "How do you alphabetize them?" — in the simplest way possible: Treat the names as titles, period.
:::::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'''"'''{{Wikipedia:Verifiability/Introduction}}'''"'''

:ntnon - most of your comments though would seem to suggest that we should employ [[WP:OR]]. As J Greb notes, we really should shy from any of us being arbiters of inclusion. The criteria is already laid out for us. We should be relying heavily on [[WP:V|verifiable]] [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], not what each of us (even if it's by consensus) may decide is "true". I've transcluded the quote from [[WP:V]] above, for reference. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:So anyway, as far as the supporting characters (and other types of information related to fictional characters) are concerned, it would seem that we all agree that we should follow/apply Wikipedia policy and require sources for determination of sections/terms like: "main", "major", "minor", "fundamental", "primary", "secondary", "pivotal", and other words on '''[[Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms#Words_and_phrases_to_watch_for|this list]]'''. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::No. Although I do have fundamental points of disagreement regarding what can be constituted OR, why it is inherently bad, how far things can/should be demonised/deleted/<nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>ed/etc. I disagree with some of the guidelines and definitions of tolerable, reasonable and 'good' sources. I mistrust the occasionally petty-minded diligence with which the ''spirit'' of some '''guidelines''' is ignored in favour of ''personal intreptation'' of the "letter of the law". However, that said and out of the way, I'm not pushing for original research. If anything, I'm counselling a hardline of using sources! Check the Template Talk page for Batman - I dug out some printed sources which point to five/six "main," "major" and "crucially important" Bat-villains. (Almost) every other source is a vague list, which are based on polls, questions and original research - and to allow, say, a Channel 4 poll of <s>idiots</s> "the general public" but to disallow a poll of comics-bloggers; to OK the New York Times espousing comic-speak but to ignore the comic-geeks; to think that a list of 100 Fictional Villains is inherently less biased than an open [www.sporcle.com quiz taken by ''at least'' hundreds of separate individuals] shows a narrow-minded interpretation of what can be classed reasonable sources. The lines of logic ("if it's cited, it's OK, until then it's spurious...") over what is an allowable source are garbled in the extreme. BUT. They're there, they're guidelines (''guidelines'', not laws) to be worked with. So, logic dicates that Killer Croc be dropped. Mad Hatter and Clayface. Harley, Man-Bat, and...
::Relying on an ''interpretation'' of the guidelines at [[WP:V]], one can read much into this line:
:::'''"Editors should provide a reliable source ''for quotations and for any material <ins>that is challenged</ins>'' or likely to be challenged."'''
::So who is challenging that the Joker is the main villain? That Catwoman, the Penguin, the Riddler, Two-Face and the Scarecrow are palpably obviously next in line? Even if there weren't sound sources saying this, it's unchallengable by any logical degree. The next few may be challenged - and, because of the nature of most lists, sources will be VERY thin on the ground for anyone beyond those six. It's not OR, though, to point out that those six feature in the films. That all-bar the Scarecrow were in the first wave of films. That all-bar the Scarecrow and Two-Face were in the TV series. Similarly, it's not original thought or personal inpretation to say that, after Joker, Catwoman and Penguin; Riddler and Two-Face, the powers-that-be - the suits, producers, executives, polls, canvassing, scriptwriters and film-makers - settled on Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy for the generally-despised, but hyped and confident ''Batman and Robin''.
::There's no personal preference involved in pointing out that it is the films that most older "normal" people think of when thinking of Batman, or sometimes the TV series. There's no original straw-poll that notes that Ra's and the Scarecrow and Two-Face and the Joker were the villains chosen to relaunch the film series. There ''is'' considerable debate over how much stock and credit to give to the cartoons. Award-winning, but not culture-permeating; popular, but larger among comics fans and animation-buffs.
::I've rambled; it's late. But hopefully there's another kernal of mild common sense hidden somewhere above... ;o) [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:Short ones...
:*"Pivotal" is something that should crop up in critical commentary, secondary source material. Lacking that, the only other criteria would be "recognizable".
:*"Recognizable" ''can'' be something that is either arrived at by consensus, through secondary sources, ''or'' polls of JQ Public. The last might make a fans skin crawl, but remember the articles are aimed at JQ, not the converted.
:*Batman honestly breaks down to 4 primary, recognizable villains (Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, any order) about a dozen "secondaries" (that list varies depending on who you talk to, what you're looking at, and your particular "faves"), and a few score of those that the "converted" can rattle off. Superman is the same, as is Spider-Man, Cap, and so on.
:*List articles may very well need to just go to straight lists. From there it ''may'' be possible on a case by case basis, to sell a built consensus for a "highlight" group.
:*Navboxes... I'm more of a mind to say "If someone honestly thinks ''Jerry'' shouldn't be in the 'box, pull the character and give it an airing on the talk page." Yes, that means coming down on pointy arguments of "If ''Jerry'' can't be there, pull 'em all."
:One last though... and if I catch up on the end of FairBots images tags I'll try to cobble up an example... it is ''possible'' to rework a template like {{tl|Batman}} into a "targeted" format. That way the one template would have say, a generic, a "foes" content, and a "protagonist cast" content versions. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Navbox poll ==

One thing that I think we should also ([[WP:PERF|somewhat]]) take into consideration is that every time one of our higher used templates in edited it now ''does'' affect Wikipedia performance. The job queue has been staying fairly high lately. And our use of article templates would seem to be rather prolific.

Should we (at least) semi-protect protagonist-related navboxes, in order to help facilitate talk page discussion concerning sources for inclusion? (As an option, full protection by navbox section can be done through sub-page transclusion.)

See [[Template:Batman]] and [[Template talk:Batman]] for some lengthy discussion, and some possible solutions, including the usage of a /doc page. (And also see [[User:J Greb/Docs]], which is a rough draft for some basic information to be included in all such /docs.)

I personally like the /doc page idea. It helps prevent [[WP:BITE|bite]], and should help provide well-meaning/enthusiastic editors some quick guidance for inclusion (since the talk page is often not seen prior to editing/reversion).

Whatever we do, we ''really'' need to find positive ways to "help" our editors use talk page discussion more, and edit-warring less. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support''' general semi-protection of such templates, full protection as necessary, and especially the usage of /doc pages. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I think we should aim for most of these to remain stable barring page moves, new things coming out, etc. - mainly to avoid advance dicking around with them. Could I make a supplementary suggestion? People should propose the creation of any nvaboxes footers. It doesn't have to be overly formal - just post a note here with an idea of the size and scope (possibly knock one up in your sandbox?) and see what the consensus is. There seems to have been an awful lot of these popping up (usually depending on the editor's enthusiasm rather than any need) and this would help put a brake on this. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

*We should require a reference for each villain included. Here's one for the top 30 [http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=735] - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Disruption question ==

So the next question is: What do we do when faced with a (presumably) well-meaning editor who is consistantly adding names to such sections without sources. It (by definition) effectively makes them a POV pusher.

I shy away from blocking, but if they repeatedly ignore requests to "take it to the talk page", or "please do not re-add without a reference", should they be blocked? And further, what about situations where those requesting that they "take it to the talk page", are also reverting?

We've had several contentions of late concerning whether admins (and others) are "involved" in the discussions, even if all they were doing was reverting, and suggesting talk page discussion, per [[WP:BRD]]. Though [[WP:CIVIL|Civility]] was abundant, and I think that the issues have now been (mostly) resolved, it was only through '''''lengthy''''' discussion, and pride/feeling apparently have been hurt, with editor congeniality strained. Yes, some of that is unavoidable, but I'm wondering if we should have a quick-list page here at the comics-project, to help lessen some of the [[WP:BITE|bite]], to even some not-so-new editors? Something that isn't massively long, but something that we could link to on a talk page to help guide well-meaning editors.

So I guess I'm asking several questions:
* At what point do we feel that editors should be blocked? Or rather, how egregious do we define POV pushing on something like the placing of the names (or other information) of fictional characters? Including the usage of terms or suections which use '''[[Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms#Words_and_phrases_to_watch_for|these terms]]'''?
*Should we create a bullet-point "quick guidance" page for such incidents? (And do we have something like that already?)

In my opinion this is rather important and I ''especially'' would like to hear from all the Project's admins on this, since we have the ability to act upon this by [[WP:BLOCK|blocking]], or [[WP:PROTECT|page protection]], among other things (such as "closing" talk page discussions). - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've said it before (and I'm pretty sure we have done it before) but I think we can define boundaries to force recalcitrant editors into engaging with others. If they constantly try and force their view on the page then it moves beyond [[WP:BRD]] and is infringing [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and must be pushing on [[WP:OWN]]. We have had cases where neither side would talk to the other which leads to pages being protected to force them to discuss this on the talk page, which seems rather a crude tool. We should be able to say "If you keep trying to force your preferred version into the article and not addressing concerns on the talk page you will be violating [[WP:CONSENSUS]] - please read [[WP:BRD]]. Further editing of X on these lines will lead to you being blocked for 24 hours." I'd much rather we forced editors to discuss this with such a warning rather than having to actual protect that page (which ended up in even more a mess last time we did this and ended making the situation even more convoluted, as well as obviously causing problems for ordinary editors who just want to try and get on with actually improving the article, rather than arguing over the wording or content of some specific section)
:The key though is that this ''has'' to done by an [[WP:UNINVOLVED|uninvolved]] editor and if the complaining party hasn't made any actual efforts to sort this out themselves then they should be made aware of the fact that this can cut both ways. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
::Have I misunderstood the topic of this section? My reply to the original post seems to have no connection with anyone else's and I fear I have got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry about that if I have. I'll have a read through later and try and find out where I went wrong. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
:::No, I think that the other two were intending to post above, based upon their comments. Refactored to reflect that. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 01:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah OK. I was getting a bit worried there. So anyone else got any input on this? ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 14:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

== Comics supporting characters categories nominated for merging ==

[[:Category:DC Comics supporting characters]] and [[:Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters]]; see [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_9#Category:DC_Comics_supporting_characters|CFD here]]. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the notification. Note that we have [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board#Deletion_discussions]]. (I'll freely admit to being lax lately about adding.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Statistics Issue ==

There's been a discussion going on for a while over at the [[Powers and abilities of the Hulk]] page regarding the use of statistics. A few months ago, and later a few weeks ago, I removed stats taken from an old Marvel RPG from the article and [[User:David A]] is obviously an advocate of them. I believe he is the one the posted them to begin with. His most recent post on the article's discussion page suggests that he's trying to play word games with the policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#The_use_of_in-universe_statistics_and_chronology statistics rule] He's trying to claim that since the rule uses the word "discourage" rather than "forbidden" that it should be circumvented. I know that nothing is set in stone here, but it seems to me that the project obviously doesn't want them included, otherwise that particular rule wouldn't exist in the first place. Now, while he hasn't placed any of the stats into the article yet, I just have a feeling that it's a matter of time before he does. I can't say for certain that he will or if he's just trying to make a point. However, he strikes me as an editor that wants things the way he wants them regardless of policy or consensus. Maybe I'm being too rough on the guy but I've tried reasoning with him but his responses tend to become these excrutiatingly long rants about whatever he thinks is wrong with Wikipedia.[[User:Odin&#39;s Beard|Odin&#39;s Beard]] ([[User talk:Odin&#39;s Beard|talk]]) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ok, a few things. I don´t use sockpuppets, _ever_. I find them vile, weasel-y, and thoroughly dishonourable. The eternal bane of Wikipedia. A few times I have been unwillingly logged out, but always try to make a specific edit note when this happens. The ip likely doesn´t even match my area. Someone else clumsily reinserted part of my old addition without even referencing itn. Second, I am not trying to "play wordgames". I am trying to check through the oft-cited regulation and say exactly what I read it as. Third you didn´t even bother informing me about bringing our discussion (?) here. Fourth I was waiting for you to read through the regulation, and respond, and wasn´t about to insert anything until that agreement. Fifth you hardly did a fair and balanced summary of my points. It´s about the entire section going into the same observations I had done on previous occasions, and additionally your recent explanation of why it was established (because most p and a sections turned into copies of the handbook). That the concerns are to not overquote to the point of copyright infringement, and to cite contradictory sources since fiction isn´t set in stone). Additionally, as I´ve noted previously it doesn´t make any sense to specifically exclude 2nd-3rd part references when the rest of Wikipedia favours them, given that they are approved by editorial. It´s stated in the regulation text that it´s ok to use handbook references if contrasted with contradictions in the works themselves. Meaning, this page is so extremely referenced from many 1st hand sources that it more than balances out. This in conjunction with avoiding to say that it is forbidden, made me draw the conclusion that it´s deliberate, i.e. a sensible regulation that can allow minor irregularities if this is warranted, in this case because it´s the only source I know of that establishes some kind of upper limit, and to get rid of the frequent "unlimited strength" inserts. As for the ´rambling´, I´m add and Asperger, as I think you are aware. I tend to consider several patterns at once in jumbled order, but make an effort to be thorough and honest when doing so. [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:....''why'' is there a "powers and abilities" page? ''That'' surely flies in the face of the guidance against using statistics and 'facts' and the like. However, if it serves a valid purpose, then surely that is one of the few cases where RPG and OHOTMU stats should actually have a viable home. Perhaps. [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 01:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::Short answer? I believe it was to get the edit warring over a major "fansite"-esque section moved away from the main article. It worked to a degree, but... - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::More like that the section turned far too long, that creating a separate page was the best way to keep everyone happy, and that there existed a precedent of various far less well-reference P&A pages. The Superman page is littered with thin air claims for example, while this one is almost exclusively matter-of-fact. [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:I wasn't part of the discussion on the wording of those guidelines (as far as I can recall anyway) and my interpretation is that we shouldn't use them. The reason it doesn't say "forbidden" is that there may some unforeseen exception to this that wasn't envisioned when those guidelines were drawn up so I assume they didn't want to hinder legitimate use if someone ever came up with one. I don't see this being an exception an they shouldn't be used here.

:Powers and abilities are a real pain as they are kind of assumed to be common knowledge so are unreferenced but adding in stats isn't the answer. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
::Then why does it say that it´s ok to use minor stats inserts if contrasted with other sources? [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:: That page shouldn't exist - it's a really long winded way of saying "the hulk is really strong and hard to kill" supported by cherry-picking the examples that support that reading. Should be merged. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::Given that you´re a 1-sday account, somehow familiar with the Wikipedia community, and specifically target the by far most well-referenced powers and abilities page, that literally screams "sockpuppet" to me, but then I´m a paranoid sort based on automatically putting a large enouggh amount of previous experiences into pattern. In any case, the powers/feats/irregularities etc are an extremely prominent part of the character and its history, as is displayed on the page, and a massive amount of work has been done to gather it. A whole lot of viewers enjoy the feature, virtually everything is matter-of-fact referenced, and nobody is forcing anybody to read it. If they want the light version they are free to simply visit the main Hulk page. It´s quite strange that anyone would even be interested in suddenly specifically censoring/deleting it. [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed - the whole thing is a nightmare. The section is a real magnet for unsourced opinion and original research and if there is any specific section that is going to ruin a B-class assessment for an article it is the powers and abilities one (the only section that could attract more of this is "parodies and homages" but few pages have them thankfully). Such sections should be kept trimmed back hard to what can be demonstrated in the comics and, while I understand the reason for splitting off that section it is really just shuffling the problem off somewhere that it can fester and grow. Is there any chance we can take this out into the back paddock and put it out of its misery? Or has the monster got completely out of control and will no longer go back in the cage? ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

:::: It's completely over the top, we are not a marvel encyclopaedia, we give a general overview of his powers in the main article and that's IT. We do not get into "greatest feats" and the like because it's not important to us and place the character in a real world context and why he is important as a cultural figure. The article should be trimmed down to the bones and then merged back into the main article. We are not writing for fans (and I AM one). --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I believe [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] is right about that. The P&A section of the Hulk article was becoming an article unto itself. It was in a near constant state of edit war. I agree that it's worked to a certain degree, but the P&A of the Hulk article really has become more of an homage to the Hulk than anything else. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see it merged, I'd support it. I questioned the need for it overall on at the article's discussion page after it was first created. To be honest, I don't think the page really attracts all that much vandalism any more and edit wars seem to be nonexistent. After I deleted the stats for the second time, I added it to my watchlist and traffic has been very light. People might be browsing it, but there's been very little editing. I think that it'd go quietly into that good night except for one factor, [[User:David A]]. As I said, I believe most of the content in the article has been placed there by him and it's kind of a baby of his. Just be prepared for an advanced tutorial of Ranting and Raving 101.[[User:Odin&#39;s Beard|Odin&#39;s Beard]] ([[User talk:Odin&#39;s Beard|talk]]) 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: OK - I think the point is, we should *never* create sub-articles because it's an easier road but because it would result in a quality article. I don't think that is an example of a quality article and I don't think one could result from it's continued existence. I've set up the merge template but I actually think it should be stubbed there before being merged into the main article. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


::::::: Can we have a bit more input? David A has removed the tags on the basis that it's "censorship" - how it's censorship to have a discussion about something is beyond me... --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::"Discussion", when I and [[User:Sesshomaru]] weren´t even informed? When most of the ´discussion´ I´ve seen is personal attacks, misrepresentations, false accusations in my absense, offhandedly conceited and extremely exaggerated offensive loose claims that it´s a "nightmare" and "should be put to sleep" (which makes little sense given the lack of references and low content for many other start-class character pages), and the first I hear of it when a completely new account suddenly inserts an overkill deletion tag, and doesn´t care about any of the other far less referenced pages? It´s a nice expansion, and intended as a complementary thorough information-source based on the entire history of the character. A lot of care has been put into inserting as many references as possible to make it reliable and fun for many fans of the character. It doesn´t force any casual fan to read it. It most definitely doesn´t harm anyone (beyond possibly a few fans of other characters, but I´ve said before that they could create similar pages to even it out). If someone actually has a burning motivation to specifically delete accurate information, when we´ve already handled this in the past, by ensuring that a ´discussion´ takes off in a very uniform attack pattern before any counter can be made by the involved editors (in my case tired and busy elsewhere) and even makes his first edits for this very purpose, and completely disregarding the amount of work put into it simply because ´it´s too exaggerated´ then yes, I honestly read the motivation behind that action as getting rid of information one is uncomfortable with, but I had this situation suddenly thrown on me at an inappropriate time, and tend to pattern incidents after sufficient similar experiences (as OB has noted Wikipedia people have started to flow together/turn hard to keep distinct for me), so I may misinterpret it. [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::: ''when I and [[User:Sesshomaru]] weren´t even informed?'' I did when I added the tags, I'm not required to message individuals, that's the ''whole'' purpose of the tags. In addition, you seem to have a WP:OWN problem. It's irrelevant if it's "inappropriate" for you because we operate as a community not on an individual basis. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 14:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::That particular point mostly related to me and OB habving a discussion, and him going off and misrepresenting my words in an official matter without informing me. What applies to you is making your first edit a few days ago, suddenly specifically fanatically attacks this page as your ´first´ thing to do, instantly quotes multiple regulations, and use terms like "we" and "community", while apparently only being concerned with "requirement"/regulation-calculation rather than honourable conduct. Meaning, excepting if JJonz was overtly cyberstalking me again, my sockpuppet alarm couldn´t ring louder, and I´d seriously like someone to ipcheck you before your agitation should be granted any merit, and if confirmed perm-ban all aliases. That said, no this isn't a community decision, just the few people who choose to focus on the topic, due to taking the opportunity when a mostly unrelated matter was brought up. There should also always be _very considerable_ reasons to actually delete an already created page, not simply _your_ personal convenience. Deletion-sprees are almost always driven by an agenda, and yes are generally complete overreactions, rather than, if necessary, gathering people to help restructure or improve the quality. [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]])

::General comments:
::*Removing maintenance tags without addressing them is considered vandalism (see {{tl|uw-tdel1}} through {{tl|uw-tdel4}}). The exception being a PROD.
::*Merge tags ''are'' maintenance tags.
::*Since the merge tag points to, or should point to, a talk page discussion of the merge, removing it can stink of [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of the article.
::*This is in addition to being it's own brand of censorship. Remember, [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], especially when new eyes look at an article. If you feel that there is a recent, solid consensus to keep the ''''Hulk''''' P&A article, provide a link to it ''within the context of the current discussion''.
::*Clean-up: It's isn't proper to redact an article that you've tagged for merger or deletion ''before'' a consensus to merge or delete is reached. There is some latitude here for copy editing and items that are blatant violations of policy and some guide lines.
::*Dave, is the above sufficient or do you need a formal warning dropped on you talk page regarding the tag removal, ownership, [[WP:CIVILITY|civility]], and [[WP:BITE|biting]] issues?
::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Removing the tag was because the first thing I saw was yet another suddenly popped up/´new´ editor inserting a lot of changes and getting into an edit-conflict with Sesshomaru. I wouldn´t have done so if it was an editor I didn´t seriously believe to be a troll or sockpuppet specifically targetting the page for personal reasons. As for the civility, you´ll note that false claims, derogatory conceit, and insults were first levelled in mt direction and in my absence. This, along with an extremely suspicious just-created identity seemed extremely dishonourable to me. Why is that acceptable when taking note of this and honestly defending myself instantly gets a reaction? I really can´t get this kind of ´fortright honesty is worse than mean-spirited deceit´ kind of thinking. It doesn´t make sense to me. [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Please don't lie - I am not involved in any edit-conflict - he didn't like how I'd worded something, so I reworked it and that was the end of it. In addition, I notice that today he's reverted a lot of changes of mine ''but I haven't reverted them back'', you cannot have edit-conflict with only one editor. Please stick to the facts. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::Lie? As you most likely know given your overstated/repeated smugly taunting use of the words "lie" and "please" in both edit-history and thread, I´m the straightforward but observant type, who finds deceit akin to swimming in filth, so no, I get plenty of things wrong and am apt to jump to conclusions based on my observations, but lying is very alien to me. There are plenty of deletion-tags in the [[Ranma]] section that I don´t want there, but let be unless it was something we had already handled in the Talk, such as the use of images, which seemed to be the case here as well: something long over and done with that yet another sockpuppet-troll inserts without foundation. I also don´t see how seeing [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Powers_and_abilities_of_the_Hulk&curid=12591469&action=history this] and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cameron_Scott this] in conjunction with the recurrent patttern of 'new' (usually JJonz) users or ips 'suddenly' deciding to attack the page, and trusting Sesshomaru´s judgement, and making a conclusion while not knowing that this thread already existed should somehow be a lie. On the other hand you still haven´t responded about creating an identity right before deciding to attack the p&a page, or being able to quote Wikipedia policy, find this community page, while putting on a familiar "we in the community" tone etc [[User:David A|Dave]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


:::Dave:
:::*Add [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] to that list. And in all honesty, if Cameron Scott were just working with HP&A, there might be grounds for your concerns about a [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]]. He isn't so there really isn't.
:::*As for Cameron's comments with the content of the article, I'm sorry, I don't see a level of incivility there, nor is there a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] since the primary concern is the content of the article.
:::*The "in my absence" line is troubling. Bluntly, any editor can edit any article or seek advise from any one else without having to "check in" first. Editing articles that you have touched or asking for second or third opinions about the content of them is ''not'' restricted to when you are available to be informed. And the only guidelines that point to informing editors about taggings are with:
:::**Images - [[WP:IFD|IfDs]], fair use tagging, orphaned images (Uploader)
:::**Templates - [[WP:TFD|TfDs]] (creator)
:::**Articles - PRODS and [[WP:AFD|AfDs]] (creator and/or primary editor(s)0
:::**Editor conduct - Letting the subject know an issue has been filed at the appropriate Admin Noticeboard
*:::None of these is the case here.
:::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Fair use of scans ==

There are many character pages that don't have an image, and it seems fitting to scan an appropriate page or panel (for example, panel of first appearance) and upload it. I often come upon instances in which I can easily do it, but am not sure about copyright status. Does that fall under fair use? [[User:Patchwor|Patchwor]] ([[User talk:Patchwor|talk]]) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:It depends on the image, but usually it's OK if no free equivalent is available and if the image is lo-res enough that it cannot harm the original publisher. Consult [[WP:NFC]] for full details, and make sure you give it a careful and thorough reading! Also, make sure you add a justification to the images page for EVERY page that the image is used on. [[User:Nutiketaiel|Nutiketaiel]] ([[User talk:Nutiketaiel|talk]]) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::A few other things...
::The Comics Project has a pair of refs that are relevant:
::*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images]]
::*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Guideline]] especially the "Images which cannot be 'fair use'" section
::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:27, 11 October 2008

Potito Starace
Potito Starace lost to Ernests Gulbis at the 2007 U.S. Open[1].
Country (sports)Italy Italy
ResidenceCervinara, Italy
Height1.90 m (6 ft 3 in)
Turned pro2001
PlaysRight-handed; two-handed backhand
Prize money$ 1,673,129
Singles
Career record82–91
Career titles0
Highest ranking27 (October 15, 2007)
Grand Slam singles results
Australian Open1st (2005, 2006, 2007)
French Open3rd (2004, 2007)
Wimbledon1st (2004–2008)
US Open2nd (2004)
Doubles
Career record34–44
Career titles3
Highest ranking68 (April 2, 2007)
Last updated on: July 21, 2008.

Potito Starace (born July 14, 1981 in Benevento) is a professional tennis player from Italy on the ATP Tour. He achieved his career-high ranking of 27th on October 15, 2007. He is currently 77th in the ATP rankings. One of the most memorable moments of Starace's career was when he made the men's doubles quarterfinals of the 2006 French Open with Alberto Martín. They defeated eighth-seeded Simon Aspelin and Todd Perry along the way, before walking over to second seeds Jonas Björkman and Max Mirnyi. He reached 2 career ATP finals, both in 2007. He lost in Valencia to Nicolás Almagro and later in Kitzbühel to Juan Mónaco.[1]

Betting scandal

Following Alessio di Mauro's 9 month ban in November 2007, Starace and Daniele Bracciali were each fined and given short suspensions from playing. Starace received a fine of £21,400 and a 6 weeks ban from January 1, 2008. All of the players were Italian. None of the bets pertained to matches they were involved in or had any stake in.

Singles titles

Starace at the 2008 Pilot Pen Tennis tournament.
Legend (Singles)
Grand Slam (0)
Tennis Masters Cup (0)
ATP Masters Series (0)
ATP Tour (0)
Challengers (8)
Futures (0)

Wins (8)

No. Date Tournament Surface Opponent in the final Score
1. May 10, 2004 Sanremo, Italy Clay Netherlands Peter Wessels 6–4, 6–4
2. May 31, 2004 Sassuolo, Italy Clay Italy Alessio di Mauro 6–2, 6–3
3. July 26, 2004 San Marino, San Marino Clay United States Hugo Armando 6–4, 1–6, 6–3
4. September 5, 2005 Genova, Italy Clay Italy Flavio Cipolla 6–3, 7–6
5. March 27, 2006 Napoli, Italy Clay Italy Alessio di Mauro 6–0, 5–1 ret.
6. March 26, 2007 Napoli, Italy Clay Morocco Younes El Aynaoui 7–5, 6–2
7. August 6, 2007 San Marino, San Marino Clay Spain Albert Montañés 6–4, 7–6
8. April 6, 2008 Napoli, Italy Clay Brazil Marcos Daniel 6–4, 4–6, 7–6(3)

Singles finalist (8)

No. Date Tournament Surface Opponent in the final Score
1. July 1, 2002 Mantova, Italy Clay Argentina Mariano Puerta 3–6, 0–1, ret.
2. September 2, 2002 Aschaffenburg, Germany Clay France Olivier Mutis 4–6, 0–6
3. June 23, 2003 Reggio Emilia, Italy Clay France Richard Gasquet 5–7, 1–6
4. March 28, 2005 Napoli, Italy Clay France Richard Gasquet 6–4, 3–6, 5–7
5. September 4, 2006 Genova, Italy Clay Spain Gorka Fraile 4–6, 6–3, 4–6
6. April 15, 2007 Valencia, Spain Clay Spain Nicolás Almagro 6–4, 2–6, 1–6
7. July 29, 2007 Kitzbühel, Austria Clay Argentina Juan Mónaco 7–5, 3–6, 4–6
8. July 19, 2008 San Marino, San Marino Clay Italy Filippo Volandri 7–5, 4–6, 1–6

Doubles

Doubles wins (3)

No. Date Tournament Surface Partner Opponents in the final Score
1. June 24, 2002 Sassuolo, Italy Clay Italy Leonardo Azzaro Italy Manuel Jorquera
Argentina Diego Moyano 		6–3, 6–2
2. March 4, 2007 Acapulco, Mexico Clay Argentina Martín Vassallo Argüello Czech Republic Lukáš Dlouhý
Czech Republic Pavel Vízner 		6–0, 6–2
3. July 29, 2007 Kitzbühel, Austria Clay Peru Luis Horna Germany Tomas Behrend
Germany Christopher Kas 		7–6(4), 7–6(5)
4. October 6, 2008 Moscow, Russia Carpet (i) Ukraine Sergiy Stakhovsky Australia Stephen Huss
United Kingdom Ross Hutchins 		7–6(4), 2–6, [10–6]

References

  1. ^ http://2006.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/bios/cmatch/ms/atps843.html

External links

Flag of ItalySport icon

This biographical article related to Italian sports is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This biographical article relating to European tennis is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics&oldid=244591044"