User talk:J Greb/Archive Jul 2007

Revision to Spectre--14 June

I just discovered that the History listings for the article Spectre (comics) contains an indication of a revison by you dated 14 June and described as "Link cleanup." However, when comparing the two passages displayed (and tinted yellow and green, of course) upon clicking on "last," no differences of any kind can be discerned, certainly not involving any of the links therein. As this is nowhere near the first time that I've found no differences in the displayed passages for a supposed revision (I am in no way intending to suggest that they all have been yours, or that any of them have necessarily been yours, for that matter; to the contrary, I do remember that several have had only IPs for ID), and this time I can categorically state that what was specified was not done, I ask: What happened? Just a matter of curiosity, not criticism. (One explanation does come to mind, that you changed your mind and clicked the "Save page" button with no revision present, but there is just to the right of the "Show changes" button, the clickable word "Cancel," which I have used a few times myself; before I noticed it, I just used my browser button to back out at least once, and you will never find such a non-revision credited to me, unless its a fault in the Wiki system causing the changes to not be registered---so make that two explanations that have come to mind; it doesn't seem all that plausible to me that so many times people here would submit non-revisions because they changed their minds, so I suspect something else and ask.) Ted Watson 18:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Teen Titans

hey jgreb,

i was looking at the Teen Titans (comics) article, and i think it needs to be reorganized and split off into sections. the main article can be a publishing history, and character history can be split off into seperate sections. there might be enough to warrant seperate articles for the:

• original Titans/New Teen Titans/New Titans era
• the newer Volume Three era. Jurgens' Titans could just stay on the main page since it was so short.

the reason i'm telling you this is because you have a good grasp on policies, so i wondered what your opinion is. --EXV // + @ 02:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate XYZ

I have removed all occurrences of {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} from the talk pages of these list. These lists clearly fall outside of the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga and should not be added back on. Just because some anime and manga characters who have these abilities are on the list doesn't mean the list is now within this WikiProject's scope. I also have a strong feeling that these lists also fall outside many of the other WikiProjects whose banners you also added. --Farix (Talk) 17:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the scope section of WikiProject Anime and manga, you will see what kinds of articles are within the WikiProject's scope. Anything not listed on there is outside of the WikiProject's scope. Since these kinds of lists are not listed as within the WikiProject's scope, then they fall outside of the WikiProject's scope. --Farix (Talk) 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comic Book Images:

Could you possibly consider adding Fair Use Rationales, along with the reduced size images. Something along the lines of " This image of reduced quality and is being used to illustrate an article on the comic book, issue or artist."? ShakespeareFan00 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 2 cents

Oh, I knew vandalism wasn't necessarily the right word (although Netkinetic's edit summary made it sound like a simple delete of my remarks, not archiving of them). Anyway, thanks for chiming in on that issue. I have no idea know what started that, but I hope it can end as abruptly as it began. Doczilla 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Archive" is possibly a bad choice on my part. I look at the talk page itself as an archive, not just the specifically titles sub-pages, so blanking is a choice not to archive, not to have that record available for others to see. - J Greb 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"You really shouldn't have to worry about getting pestered at a third party's talk page when you're just trying to get advice...Shrug it off". Yet now you are encouraging a third party to get involved. I'd suggest if you don't like the advise offered you simply "shrug it off". Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some advise from our alleged "Doc"

"You really shouldn't have to worry about getting pestered at a third party's talk page when you're just trying to get advice...Shrug it off." Apparently the "Doc" has not shrugged it off. And it was a conversation between him and myself, you were not involved. So please don't get involved. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't remember which users the "You really shouldn't..." remarks was about, I remember enough to know that the quotation isn't relevant. User A had gone to user C to ask for advice on how to resolve a problem with user B, but B followed A to C's talk page to carry their fight over there -- which is not the same thing at all. In an editing community, it's wholly appropriate for third parties to try to help settle issues. Doczilla 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor A and Editor C have a conversation, then Editor B makes an unsolicited and unwelcome comment for which you say: "You really shouldn't have to worry about getting pestered at a third party's talk page" yet you thank Editor B for doing the same. Interesting. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I say it's not the same thing, Netkinetic says it is, and that's that; no point in our going on about it.

Not that we need to debate something on J Greb's talk page and not that we need to debate this at all, but just so we don't leave J G confused at to what we're talking about, here's the source of the quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ipstenu&diff=122162637&oldid=122143369 (and thank you, Netkinetic, for giving me the link because I'd had no idea who that had been about). Doczilla 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Detectivechimp.jpg

I have tagged Image:Detectivechimp.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward on Whizzer and Absorbing Man

Just wondering how long to hold off on these two articles. - J Greb 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're up to it, my intention was/is to close the sections of the discussion, and have you implement the initial results. (I think I noted this somewhere at one point.) But you were having such a fruitful discussion I didn't want to interrupt it by closing. But since you now ask, I'll go through everything later tonight. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Whizzer has pretty much wound down, so it should be to the point for the sections to be closed with recommendations.

I maybe jumping the gun on Absorbing Man though... - J Greb 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on Absorbing Man

(I'm assuming you track threads you move to and reply on other's talk pages so I'll just deal with a new item...)

But just to follow up since Asgardian seems uninterested in comment on the talk page. Am I missing anything from the WP:CITE reference that you were pointing to? - J Greb 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

<Nod> I do : )

Going through the talk page discussions now. - jc37 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to look at User:J Greb/Pasteup... I've started working through as best I could before the closing of the sections. - J Greb 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks : ) - jc37 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He is unrelated to the character the Blur of the alternate-universe Marvel MAX imprint is also named Stanley Stewart and possesses super speed.

Seems like it's missing some words here, like "[although he] is also..." or "[who] is also..." --GentlemanGhost 10:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems odd that the Stanley Stewart section puts the reference into the body of the text when the other biographies use footnotes. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 10:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually stopped at the Stewart section to wait and give Jc37 a chance to go through the Whizzer talk page and work out what consensus had been reached before trying to work through the mess that section is. Mainly the section should be moved into the FCB and formatted accordingly... I think. - J Greb 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Swing by Whizzer...

Please.

I'm at my limit with this -- -- -- antics.

Looking at what was added here there is a fundamental disconnect between words and deeds.

Specifically:

• Agreeing to a point that was subsequently closed and brought in line with consensus, then editing in conflict with that statement. (Lead, PH re magazine cite formatting, and the 1971 section)
• Editing sections that were specifically not closed.

- J Greb 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC) (revised - J Greb 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) )

Thanks for the notice : )

Your revert seems to be holding (for the moment). He even somewhat apologised ("my bad...").

I'll leave comment there as well. - jc37 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whizzer again...

Asgardian has decided that he isn't going to wait for you to close the RfC and has edited without explanation.

Doczilla has partially reverted it, but left mots of A's back tracking ownership to stand.

An for what it's worth A has not bothered to address concerns raised here: Talk:Whizzer#Revisits.

I'm rapidly getting to the point where AGF runs out.

- J Greb 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum... He's also moved the spot image back, again directly in conflict to what he apparently agreed to.

- J Greb 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up" : )

And please continue to "keep me posted", in case I may miss something.

I'm watching Vision (comics), Absorbing Man, and Whizzer, among others, and seeing similar situations.

What I would like you to do is to stay "neutral", at least for the remainder of the RfC. I think it's more useful for you to remain focused on the text, offering suggestions, and asking questions for clarification, just as you have been (and try to avoid commenting on editor actions).

Note that I refuse to leave any article indefinitely fully protected for long. (This is, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"...) There are other courses of action, but I'm attempting to give this course its full measure first.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 11:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, but, and keep in mind this isn't ment as a slight given I have no real idea how much you've got going at the moment, the RfC does seem to be dragging out.

Beyond that, I'm not sure how to request clarrification of someone who doesn't really show any interest in providing any. I posted after his last comment (May 29 for him, May 30 for me) and got nothing. Are you suggestiong I go the route of edit by edit reversals dorecting to the closed RfC sections a base and clarification on the talk page why that should be changed? - J Greb 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First, my apologies for the length, it was essentially allowing myself to be distracted from it in the hopes of allowing discussion to foster. In hindsight, I waited too long after discussion lulls. The whole thing should have taken perhaps 2 weeks (longer than a week, since it involved a complete overhaul of the article), but a month probably was too long in this case. However, I think it stayed "mostly" calm throughout, which is a plus. (Better than a few of the other articles we've been discussing/watching.) Anyway, the sections are closed. Please feel free to finish implementation at your earliest convenience. The only reason the RfC isn't closed now, is I want to afford you the time to implement the changes, and avoid a possible reversion war which could happen out of editor impatience. (Btw: I think you misunderstood what I was intending by my comment about you remaining neutral. It's very helpful to have you be able to implement the changes, and that works best if you remain a contributing, but neutral party.) - Oh and remind me, I may have a surprise for you when this is done : ) - jc37 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... last of the closed section addressed and the editing to the article is finished. I added a few addendum to the talk page, one as an explanation, the rest to address lingering elements of the RfC. The ball, as they say, is in your court... - J Greb 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok it's closed. Oh, and scroll down to the (current) bottom of your talk page : ) - jc37 09:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As per your warning...

He's decided to do relatively massive edit that is majoratively back to his preferred, without waiting for the admin involved to formally close the RfC.

The ball is definitely in your court.

- J Greb 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to simply revert, and (hopefully) make it clear that any edits now contrary to consensus may be freely reverted unless/until new consensus is determined. Presumably, that should help resolve some issues. - jc37 09:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC notice

I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Please add comments or a statement there. References/diffs with explanations of why they are notable are most welcome. (I also cross-posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al.) - jc37 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor heads up with the editor RfC...

I may have just posted something that will go over like gas on a fire...

I may have gone a bit far, but, damn it, that is exactly what his actions look like.

Sadly, I half expect him or Net to go ballistic over it.

- J Greb 07:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I'm not certain I see your concern? (Or rather their potential concern?)

Also, he's requesting discussion at Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics), please feel free to join in on that discussion, if you're willing. - jc37 08:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It includes a blatant accusation of "acting in bad faith"... I really can't call it anything else, and it follows the same apparent logic of Doc's comments at the Whizzer talk page. I just know that there are those involved that are going to be overly sensitive to that 3 word phrase being used. - J Greb 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Amphibian

Okay, I'll put the page on my watchlist while you're working on it. If any suggestions cross my mind as it progresses, I'll let you know. Some articles need PH and FCH separate, but others tell a better story when they're blended. Doczilla 10:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Found your work through Tenebrae's page and your note there. I hope you don't mind some extra feedback... First, in the simple side, spellcheck. Debuted, not debued, and others.

Since the character was introduced as long-standing member of the team, very little of the Amphibian's background or history was told. Later stories filled in minor points in flashbacks and the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe was used to present a fuller history and round out the character. Among the in story points given, he is identified as a mutant, it is suggested that his given name is "Kingsley Rice", and he claims to be the third strongest being of his world, after Hyperion and Power Princess. Among the stories told in flashback sequences is the Squadron by him, Hyperion, Power Princess, Nighthawk, the Whizzer, Doctor Spectrum, and the Skrullian Skymaster.

This doesn't read smoothly. Perhaps something like, Amphibian was already a long-standing member of the squadron, thus his origin was filled out bye comments and flashbacks in later issues, instead of an origin story or story arc of his own. Over time, it is revealed that he is a mutant, whose name may be Kingsley Rice, and that he claims to be... . That 'Among...' sentence is really confusing as well. perhaps that should be 'of the Squadron' not 'is the Squadron'. But even so, that long list seems very confusing. ThuranX 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I am looking for feedback after all.

The "is the Squadron" had a dropped phrase, it should read "is the founding of the Squadron"

I've reworked the 'graph incorporating some of your suggestions. What I'm trying very hard to do is blend the PH and FCB, so I think it needs to keep a tone of "This story said that he is that". - J Greb 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Universes box

The Alternate Universes box you use here is that something you adapted from somewhere else? Seeing how well you streamlined Amphibian is there anything you can do for Monarch? --Basique 13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The side bar is a template I put together about a month and a half ago as a way to try and alleviate the "Earth-616/712/####" jargon that was peppering the Squadron Supreme articles. It can be found here {{MarvelUSide}}. And the intent is to use it in articles where the structure of Marvel's multiverse needs an explanation.

I've toyed with the idea of creating a comparable template for the DC articles, but there is an additional layer that would make it a bit of a challenge: the purchased companies. Most of the DC articles do a good job of avoiding the jargon and laying out the ownership and publication histories to explain who goes where.

As for "streamlining"... I'm not sure that's the right word :) . To my mind that means simplifying and shortening. Since what I'm winding up with is longer, text-wise, "Straightening out" may be a better term. And it does look like Monarch can use that, especially since the "bait-and-switch" from Armageddon 2001 and Didio's quote are important points that should be included in the article proper. I may take a whack at it once I get some more feedback on the PH/FCB blend I'm trying w/ Amphibian.

- J Greb 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the template by the way, and yes a DC version would be a pain. Monarch is a mess and I've really begun to realize that some of the Project articles may appear dense and intimidating to non-comics readers. That template you created goes a long way way towards alleviating that anxiety. Maybe for DC we need an "Incarnations" template? --Basique 10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What would you be looking at to put into an "Incarnations" box? "Legacy" characters, like the Atom or Flash? The umbrella articles seem to handle that. Or "By era" characters, like Batman and Superman? Short of having a cite available for start points, that comes real close to OR. And even without a start date, how would the "eras" be labeled? "Golden Age" or "Earth-Two" for example.

About the only set where I can see a sidebar being useful would be the Legion articles where there are sections of text explaining the various reboots that is repeated across the articles. But that's a very specific, limited set.

- J Greb 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Shade

I was concerned about the sentence I added the fact tag too: "Oddly, Shade was drawn with energy-like powers in the scene, most likely a victim of the inconsistent authorship of the comics format rather than a deliberate slight against the continuity fixated." The section I have marked in bold is speculation (and possibly unencyclopedic personal opinion) unless someone can provide (and possibly quote) a source which says that. Hope that explains my thinking. (Emperor 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

I was just going to remove it but thought it worth giving it a chance. (Emperor 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Non-free use disputed for Image:Carnage.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Carnage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the assist with reference formatting on the Absorbing Man. Just a question as to style - is there a way of simply saying at the outset that all the publications are Marvel titles, as opposed to having to repeat it on every line? Obviously there are rare exceptions like the crossovers, but if spelt out at the start it should be obvious that someone like the Hulk only appears in Marvel titles. Thoughts?

Asgardian 09:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Personally I think the articles' leads should say something like "in publications from Marvel Comics" (which some of them do) rather than "in the Marvel Universe" because (1) non-comics readers don't know what the Marvel Universe is and (2) "the" Marvel Universe is a darned complicated multiverse. Doczilla 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that. It covers not only the regular ongoing titles but encompasses one-shots, limited series and cameos in other titles (even the rare magazine appearances for characters such as Galactus). A clarification could be added for the crossovers, which are admittedly rare. Thanks Doc.

Asgardian 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc's comments, at least as far as the lead goes. I seem to remember a similar proposal getting shot down though. That may have has more to do with that discussion being a tap-dance around the use of "fictional character" though.

As for the citations... proper conventional formatting for magazines is: "Author(s), Story title, Magazine title, Volume, Issue, Date, Publisher". Right now the general Wiki usage is to avoid the first two unless it is absolutely necessary for the article, or comics aren't the major source material for the article (see Batman for an example of this). Volume is left out, generally, if there is only 1 volume of a particular title. And Issue gets dropped in cases where the publisher didn't bother to number the single issue published. The remaining three items are, and should be, constants through out the cites. This is also how the {{Comic book reference}} template is set up, with those three as required variables.

Even with the lead tweak that Doc suggests, I still see the publisher as being an essential part of the cites, and it should be consistent across articles. - J Greb 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ntf21.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ntf21.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some things

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines you mention stuff about the Superhero box that makes a lot of sense. Do you want to edit the main page to add that stuff into the relevant section?

Also, a rewrite of the exemplars; how would you approach it. They need re-framing, the fictional bio is at odds with the MOS and is creating tensions within Wikipedia. Appreciate your thoughts. Steve block Talk 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Also have you seen:

• WikiProject Novels guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Films guidelines on plot summaries
• WikiProject Soap Operas guidelines on character articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual of style

Could we utilise them in a recasting of the exemplars as part of our project guidance? Cheers for listening. Steve block Talk 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the exemplars... At this point, I think the biggest thing I'm looking at is the preference among editors at large to give the FCB preeminence over all else (As an example take a look and [[Amphibian (comics) before my edit spate today and after). Next would be the misconstrued use of the PH, with at least one vocal editor treating it as an "Appearance list only" (The PH on Avengers fits this, though I tried to flesh it out a bit...).

I'll have to look at the guidelines for the other projects that you mentioned to see what other projects are aiming at, there is likely something there to address my concerns.

As for the Infobox... I'll take a stab at it, but I'd prefer more input from the editors in general. Both on the images and the "team/partners" thing. Given some of the back and forth things in the Asgardian RfC (Speaking of which, he killed some merge tags even though the discussion had been centralized elsewhere *shrug* likely on a page he doesn't watch or care about.) I'd rather have some sort of consensus rather than a issue what will look like a dictatorial fiat.

Last thing... since I'm typing here. The comic book cite template thing on Absorbing Man in a nutshell: I put the refs into the template for formatting, As reverted them. When pressed, he said the were very difficult to read. Nothing more, nothing less. Jc pointed to the cite guidelines, I dosed a question, and never got an answer from As. Eventually I inserted what is apparently an acceptable, to him (no actual comments on it), compromise: ref in the end result format, but not using the template.

- J Greb 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'm guessing I'm "As". Do what you have to do. As long as it doesn't come to citing the entire creative team and the title of the story itself or putting references in the actual body of the FCB, I'm OK.

As to merging the PH and FCB...that's a minefield. Pick a place to discuss this and I'll post my thoughts.

Asgardian 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On the side note... that is what struck me as odd with your revert as "difficult to read", the cites were sans creative teams and story titles, and were showing in the list at the bottom of the page.

As I said though, what's there right now seems to be woking for all conserned.

I doubt you'll get much input from other editors on the infobox until you make the change. We're not very good at pulling together on the comics proj, or even at pushing through decisions we pretty much agree on. That's why the exemplars ended up such a mess, there were three of us involved and we all pretty much got our own way. Having both an FCB and a PH was the only way we could get agreement. Now, I think there's a clear issue and one or the other has to go, and the manual of style guides that out of universe is appropriate, which means the FCB goes. As to the refs debate, fair enough. I just don't get what JC was up to, especially when he reverted your edit to the wrong version. For me, you either protect and stay neutral or you edit and get involved. I can't see how you can edit and remain neutral. Anyway, have a read. It looks like the rewrite of the fiction notability has been pulled, and I'm starting to rethink my arguments against it somewhat. Steve block Talk 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, have you any thoughts on the work they did turning List of Final Fantasy VIII characters into Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. That's an area I think the project also needs to evaluate. I'm looking at Bevatron (comics) and I know the article needs to go somewhere but I don't know enough about superhero comics anymore to work it out. Steve block Talk 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the applicable sections of those guides, and taken a look at the FF8 list. On the whole, I like the way both plot and characters are handle in them, or at least how the should be handled in theory. It would be nice to be able to implement some of the concepts on the comics articles. Putting a word count cap on plot summaries would help in a lot of places. And the idea of "Characters of the X-Men franchise" or Characters of the Justice League" has a big appeal for finding a useful home for character article that will forever be stuck as "Stub" or "Start" class, such as Bevatron, and scores, if not hundreds, of one-shot Marvel Mutants.

Using that as a starting point for the exemplars though...

• Character: (ie, Batman, Dick Grayson, Spider-Man, the Spirit)
  • Lead: What we have seems good. It drives home the idea that the lead needs to be real world instead of in-universe.
  • PH: First it needs another name, right now its too easy to equate PH with "list of appearances". Or, and this is also the second it needs, it needs to be bluntly clear that this is the reason for the article's existence in a general use encyclopedia. Who had a hand in the character's creation, why, how has the publisher used the character, who has expanded the character, and how was that done, and so on. Looking at the FF stuff, this can also include the character's standard appearance, motivations, and themes.
    It's also important that it be spelled out that some of these statements can be supported by in-universe examples. (overly simplified ie "Kane envisioned the Batman as a character that would gain information by intimidation. He established this in early stories where Batman surprises thugs by appearing form the shadows, severely beats them, the demands information from the.")
  • FCB: Again, it may need a name change, something along the lines of "Character plot summary". It also needs to be clear that it should be a summary of the broad, primary plot lines the character has been involve in, not inclusive of every comic, page, and/or panel. This is where I'd like a cap, though it would almost have to be based on years of actual use.
  • Powers: Folded into the PH. This is part of the "standard appearance, motivations, and themes." As a general use encyclopedia, the article doesn't need a laundry list of all the contents ever taken from the utility belt, or running speeds or "can lift X tons"
  • Other versions: To be honest, the more I think about this, the more I believe it should split and fold into PH and IOM. Elseworlds, reboots, and other-dimensional doppelgangers that appear in the publishers comics are under "how the publisher uses the character", and should be in the PH. Everything else is IOM, the non-comics uses and the "homage"/rips in other publishers comics.
  • IOM: I'd like to say this should default as part of the PH, albeit one that can be easily broken into its own section. But it may be wisest to start it as it own section instead.
  • Awards: Fold into the PH, but highlight that it is, generally, a notable point that should not be the first thing clipped for size reasons.
  • Appearance list: Sadly I think we'd need to keep this...
• Characters: (ie "Huntress", "Atom", "Tarantula", "Nighthawk")
  This would need to be one of three things:
  1. Each version gets a shortened version of the above;
  2. Each version, assuming notability and long enough articles, gets a {{main}} with a variation of that articles lead; or
  3. A combination for cases where there only some of the versions that need to be split off.
• Characters of Foo: Full list with {{main}} call outs to major characters and minor characters that share a name.

That's most of what I can think of at the moment... - J Greb 07:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• They all seem good suggestions. To be honest I thought the way I'd written the PH section already demonstrated it was supposed to do as you say, that was always the agreement during drafting them, and I can't understand why people take the heading so literally. I think we'll have to look at drafting a rewrite along those lines. The only issue I have is with section headers. I never wanted to be prescriptive on the actual section header names, I just wanted to describe what should appear in the sections, and if you have some literally minded people around it is hard to come up with an alternative. I think it would be better to avoid using section headers, and simply describe it as the main section. Steve block Talk 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it maybe two slightly related things:

1. Most people that turn to exemplars are looking for more or less firm guidance. By nature they will gravitate to "bolded text after bullet = header text".
2. Most people who care are looking for consistency across articles, and those using the exemplars will want that default formatting used at all times.

- J Greb 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, again good points. I think we'll have to get some good examples in of articles which actually are exemplars, along with rehashing a lot of this as guidance. Steve block Talk 19:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That may mean we need to look at the "A", "GA", and "FA" articles and add specific examples as links to the exemplars. I'm tempted to limit that the the "B" and "A" articles since the "GA" and "FA" are, in general, held to a standard higher than the project level.

On a slightly related note, I'd like you to take a look at Amphibian (comics) and give me some feedback on the overhaul there. Is that a reasonable direction to take a "blended" article? - J Greb 06:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's certainly my feeling on where we should be going. I think with regards the exemplars, I'd like to aim high, so maybe if we have FA as our ultimate aim, a comprehensive article, but pick A and B class as how articles should be built along the path. Your rewrite could certainly serve as an exemplar for minor characters. I'll try and work up a draft rewrite in the next few days. Steve block Talk 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Superman423.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman423.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frankchotitans.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Frankchotitans.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:ZerohourcrisisintimeTPB.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ZerohourcrisisintimeTPB.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian

I appreciate your messages, but if it's okay I think it might be better for all concerned if you post any future concerns regarding Asgardian to the admin's noticeboard, listing details as to why you think the behaviour is disruptive. I have suggested to Asgardian that he consider listing at WP:MENTOR and look for an objective, impartial mentor, somone unrelated to comics articles, and I think it is probably better that someone also unrelated to the project analyse his behaviour in the future. I have made my points to him, and I will continue to make them, but I think outside views are required. I am a little disturbed that Jc chose to open a comics project specific RFC, since I don't think that helped the issue, indeed I think it may have intensified any issues of potential persecution. I think if there is behaviour which gives a number of users cause for concern in the future, a full and proper user RFC should be considered to engage with the wider community and broaden the perspective. Anyway, sorry to come across somewhat negatively, but hope you understand. Steve block Talk 11:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement, and the tone here seems reasonable given the tone of the response to the block on your talk page.

In that vein, 2 things:

1. You've got a typo in your response to Asguardian that may set things off again: "Nobody disputes that some of your contributions are not valuable." The "not" doesn't seem to fit... "Nobody disputes the value of some of of your contributions." Maybe?
2. His "testing the water" edit after the block expired seems to show he got at least some of the points, 1 major item and spelled out why in the ES, but still needs to work on the "minor edit" tag. Your reply may help to address that though.

As for the RfC, I'm not sure how Jc could have broadened it short of canvasing editors/admins from outside the project, either randomly or that Jc knows from editing other sections. Either would likely have been looked at as trying to stack the deck. And if it were just a "general announcement" I think we would have still only gotten the voices we did, people who've run into Asgardian's edits on the, relatively, narrow scope he works on: Marvel Comics.

- J Greb 18:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Wildcat animated.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wildcat animated.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Big man in the little panels

Thanks. That will have to do for now. The problem was the site I was originally using gave a brief description of what happens. I guess I could keep that information, and have it cited under the comic itself, acting a primary source. I trust the site I used, it just went debunk, so I can't verify it there any longer. Thanks for think, that's better than eBay. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Victor Stone-Cyborg.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Victor Stone-Cyborg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)