User talk:Emperor/Archive 2009

USS Tortuga

I removed some negative info about real people from the USS_Tortuga page, there were no citations and Google and the Tortuga page itself had nothing. But...am I supposed to be doing anything else? The whole deal seems extra, extra off-kilter to me so I figure better safe then sorry. Especially dealing with real people info. Lots42 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the removing info part, I just thought it deserved extra consideration considering the extra-serious accusations. Lots42 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression one is not supposed to actually mention the negative stuff on the talk page or in history summaries. Thus, 'flagging it' confuses me. Lots42 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Colin Bennett (writer)

I have nominated Colin Bennett (writer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Bennett (writer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you get time...

I could use a second set of eyes on a content dispute on Aguaman that I'm looking over.

The relevant threads are at Talk:Aquaman#Edit Warring IP. and talk|history|links|watch|logs) and the involved editors are 2 IPs and ThuranX.

- J Greb (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, E.

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at this one; wildly weird

I'm definitely not up at all to handling this one at the time, possibly not ever: a Wiki-page about some non-comic non-fiction novel. Definitely out of control, quite possibly hideously offensive. I would report it, but I don't want to go around crying racism when I am not sure myself. That would be poor wiki-behavior. Thank you for your time. Lots42 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification; if it is just a bunch of racism, I wouldn't want to deal with it, it would stress me out way too much just reading it. Lots42 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Final_Fantasy_Legend_name_translation_woes.2C_mk._II

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

Asgardian is at it again with the gut to "his vision" at Rhino (comics), which is going the same choppy, deletable route as Abomination (comics).

It almost seems that he is equating any or most plot summary as "fancruft" now.

- J Greb (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Added note here WT:CMC##Abomination. (Emperor (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

A very, very minor matter

Would like your opinion on All About Eve, a movie. Original research keeps getting added back in in the forms of quotes the person likes...for some reason. Not quite sure why they think the quotes are so needed for the article. Detailing and linking to WikiQuotes has failed to persuade them. If there is a Wiki forum more appropiate for this kind of foolishness, please to be reminding me. Lots42 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Goliath (comics)

What's the rationale on adding trivial templates to SIAs, such as here? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the listings there are related. Spshu (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware, however, that isn't my concern. Just asking Emperor for clarification because he usually deals with set indexes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be helpful if in context, although I don't like footers put into the main body of a page (they should probably come just above {{SIA}}). I did see the links in the template when it came up on WT:CMC and thought it might work adding them in, although I didn't actually do anything about it (more from busyness than anything). I have added such a box to War of the Worlds (film) as they all fit. It definitely belongs on Ant-Man (which is an expanded set index like Thor (Marvel Comics) and Spider-Woman) and Giant Man, as they are mainly Pym's successors. A good argument could be made for adding it to Goliath (comics) and Yellowjacket (comics) as there is a good argument for their inclusion in the temaple (as a number of characters of the same name are Pym and successors). Clearly if there was just one character on the Set Index that is a big NO to that kind of thing (it would fail the inclusion criteria for a template and be removed there, this disqualifying it). So while we should judge these on a case-by-case basis (if it referred to only 2 items amongst a dozen then it might not be wise) but those seem OK. (Emperor (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

List of Avengers members

There is a revived dispute with Slamburger over List of Avengers members particularly D-Man's members given new source DK's Marvel Encyclopedia. Discussing it here. Darkhawk is also in question. Thing will probably be in question soon too. SlamBuger has made a request for mediation with other editor only poking at it. If you would interven that would be great. Spshu (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Comics Star
		To Emperor for your excellent work on Final Crisis while overcoming the unconstructive attitudes of other editors. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Punisher

One of the things I hate about dealing with the Punisher is the confusing mishmash of names. I don't think we have an article on "Punisher" do we? the John Ostrander series before he began an angel? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually have the series - I'll see if Ostrander has talked about it anywhere - or any of the artists for that matter and then generate the article. Then I can do Marvel Knight (Marvel Knights) :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility question

Regarding the following sequence:

Asgarding reverting a good faith expansion of Rhino (comics) - [1]

My note to Asgardian - [2] (Asgardian then blanked his talk page.)

His 2nd revert to Rhino - [3]

And my second note to him - [4]

- J Greb (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Squid (DC Comics)

Do you think you could adjust the formatting of this article? For instance, I'm not sure how to order the stub tag to its proper position. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary requested

Hey there. :) Could you have a look at my thoughts and see if there is any commentary you would like to add? Maybe if I'm not alone in this, we can get some action going? BOZ (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Slow but steady 'revert war'. Please look.

Just slow enough to slip past the 3RR but... Rorschach (comics)‎. Basically, some wanted it redirected to a cast list, some do not. Mucho reversions lately. There is probably a 'revert war' Wikipedia board I could be posting this to, if so please tell me. Lots42 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchman film

Hi, E. I saw your posting about List of Watchmen characters, so I thought you'd want to know that I watched a 26-minute promo containing the opening scene & credits; the scenes of Dr. Manhattan's creation; and Silk Spectre and Nite Owl helping Rorschach escape prison. The credit sequence alone deserves a Best Picture Oscar.

Assuming the rest of the film holds up, and what I saw gave me no reason to think otherwise (whether they use the octopus monster or not doesn't matter to me — any uber-threat accomplishes the same purpose), I strongly believe this is going to this year's Iron Man and The Dark Knight in terms of critical acclaim and high box office.

I just thought that after the train wreck of The Spirit that you and my fellow editors might feel some relief, if you haven't already seen a preview yourself at a con or elsewhere. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be a heretic and say I thought the space squid was kind of goofy looking in the original comic! &nbsp::-)

You made some very nice edits at Dark Avengers just now, BTW. Those kinds of background quotes are important. You kept the gist of their thoughts on the creative process without including any hype. Nice tightrope -- bravo! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

I could use an outside pair on Talk:Bucky#Herobox with an eye towards Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Recent vs Iconic... again.

- J Greb (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk_(G.I._Joe). Just deleted the 'current status' section. Not sure what it was, 'cept it made no sense. At the end it was advertising a blog. Can you look at it via the history and ask the relevant user to change his or her ways? I don't know the official HTML text to go and recommend using the 'Sandbox' for testing. If that is even the response called for. Lots42 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the edit in question. Whatever it was, it was weird, illogical and a little creepy. Lots42 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now the whole Hawk thing has degenerated even further, with weird vandalism going on. -I- probably screwed up as well and I am willing to 'take my lumps' if anything is forthcoming. But in conclusion, please take another look at the recent history. I don't believe I'm handling this right or am nuetral. Lots42 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

References

You might want to see if we can get something like this started for the comics project? Drilnoth has done some absolutely brilliant things for the D&D project... BOZ (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Northern Earth

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Northern Earth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unsourced stub on obscure magazine. No indication of WP:Notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Final crisis aside

a comment rather than a question - I find it really interesting how so many of our "readers" seem to really hate any form of real world commentary or referencing in our articles, like it, I don't know degrades the article. It seems a step beyond the "in-universe"/"out of universe" debate we have internally. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Northern Earth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Northern Earth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Earth. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Strange

I'm thinking we could hatnote this in some of the character articles. Which ones and what wording would you suggest? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically you could hatnote the lot with that - it'd certainly be more comprehensive than the existing ones at Doctor Strange and Hugo Strange and make Doc Strange neater. (Emperor (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

So which one(s) do you have in mind? There's {{Otheruses}}, {{For}}, {{Dablink}}, ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to prefer {{for}} although {{otheruses}}. Hugo Strange might require {{otheruses4}}. (Emperor (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. I'll cook up something later ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Impy

Another one bites the dust... BOZ (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not done yet. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yah. :) Brace yourself... BOZ (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to stop it from happening, and it seems like you and I are the only ones objecting. BOZ (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Abomination (comics) is now more appropriately named? :) Yes, we should bring it to the project's attention, but with some solid arguments and examples on why it's not working. BOZ (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey... would it be too pointy to nominate Ms. Marvel for GA just to see what happens? ;) It would tell us, one way or another, if that approach has any merit. BOZ (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not what you guys want to here, but I could modiy the Ms. Marvel article into a GA pretty easily. They may not be pretty, but they are way closer to GA than before. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It may not be eligible anyway, as recent edit warring kills a GA off the bat. If you can add what others have not added (think Drizzt; commentary, analysis, development) then GA becomes possible. BOZ (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you can do to improve the article would be very much appreciated. I'd have preferred to have seen the PH expanded and improved before the plot was hacked back and "converted" but, unless we revert to the earlier version we may have to work with what we've got. As it stands we can't nominate for GA - I'd settle for something that is worth including in an encyclopaedia. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

That's hardly settling. :) Peregrine, if you can lift anything out of the previous version (much of it can be left out, I'm sure) that deserves to be in the article, just so a reader is fully informed about the character, have at it. Keep in mind, your changes may be quickly reverted, but a good justification has a chance to overcome that. :) BOZ (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Vimanarama cover.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Vimanarama cover.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Chillum 03:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Emperor,

Good to hear MI-13 got a long life ahead of it; and even getting a cameo in Mighty Avengers. Plus im really looking forward to Doom!.. Its also good to see that Cornell is getting another go with the Young Avengers. -- Paulley (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets just hope the numbers stay steady. It does annoy me when good second tier titles get the shove when they are often the best material produced by Marvel. -- Paulley (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

[This account] 's contributions are a long list of vandalism. Anniepoo (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Marvel UK

Thanks for all the links and suchlike. :o) Far too busy this end, irritatingly... But yes, I recall reading about that book a while ago and looking forward to it. Nice to read that it might be nearer to publication now, though. I hope Mr Skinn's publishing does well, though. I found a very positive comment about him recently, so I'm still building sources to re-write his page. I'm sure I've got a couple of those pictures somewhere, although I've not got the right Seduction; haven't been able to buy Stan's book and missed out some utterly fantastic and implausibly rare UK fanzines not so long ago. Still, I hadn't seen that list, so now I can at least ask around and try to help.

Alex Raymond seemed reasonably solid the last time I checked, but I do appreciate you mentioning it - I'll try and keep an eye open..! Hope you're alright, too. ntnon (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Eternals

The Eternals gets mentioned on one page in the Kirby book, it does have a quote and a tiny bit on what prompted Kirby to do the series, it seems he was inspired by Chariot of the Gods. Make of it what you will, give me a shout when you want a quote. I also have the Comics Journal Library edition on Kirby, in there there isn't much but it is described by his wife as an afterthought, Kirby saying after New Gods, what else could he do. I'll keep digging. Hiding T 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Full quote is "a Kirby extrapolation on the Chariots of the Gods theory that aliens had visited Earth in prehistoric times." p.186. Evanier also mentions that "Something was wrong with sales ... Jack wasn't connecting with the current Marvel readership ... (y)ears after, his seventies work would be regarded more favourably [and] (s)ome would even say the sales figures weren't as dour as the rumours of the time insisted." p187. In the Kirby TCJ special, Roz Kirby is agreeing with the interviewer that The Eternals is a little halfhearted "because it was an afterthought. After he did The New Gods, what more could he do? [It was an] anticlimax." p48. On p54 to 56 there's a great piece stating that Kirby's eye for design and mastery of teh form was still evident, there's a real in depth analysis of the splash page in The Eternals issue 2 pp2-3 which states that "This stunning set piece admirably demonstrates how Kirby's mature style constantly enacts a dialectical struggle between two-dimensional design and three-dimensional 'realistic' rendering." That would probably be a great image to add with impeccable fair use credentials. Christopher Brayshaw, "The Monument Carver's Stone". That's all I have to hand, there could possibly be a fair amount more buried in the Journals. Hiding T 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Alien

Hello!

You are receiving this message because you have previously identified yourself as a member of WikiProject Alien, either because your name appears on the Participants page or because you have placed the project userbox on your user page.

There is currently a discussion on the project's talk page regarding a proposal to merge the project into a task force of either WikiProject Horror or WikiProject Science Fiction. As a project member, your input would be greatly appreciated in this discussion. Do you think the project ought to be merged into a task force, or remain separate? If you are in favor of a merger, which WikiProject do you think should be the parent? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alien#Task force merger.

Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class

I never got around to demoting all unreviewed B-Class articles to C-Class. Should I implement that now, with a message that anyone seeking a review list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment? Should we spin that page out to a separate one, with archives and so on? I'll run through and tackle some outstanding ones over there. There's a real momentum going now, so it just seems to be a matter of getting the resources we currently have in the right places so they get used better. Hiding T 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I made a start yesterday, going to finish up now. Bloody boring! Might look at Spider-Man and see what needs doing after that, if I get time. Hopefully that will pass, and then I think Boz was talking about the FF? Hiding T 11:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An odd redirect

Someone went and redirected Kilg%re to Maxwell Lord, which I don't see the logic behind. They are important figures to each other but it doesn't gel. I hope I am making sense. Lots42 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my computer does not register the punctuation as well as I thought it did. That was the name I was thinking. Also, I believe the character is distinct enough for it's own article and it -had- it's own article that I clearly remember working on. But whatever did or did not happen, I believe it is silly for said character to redirect to Maxwell Lord. Lots42 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kid Flash

An anon turn this SIA into a character article [5]. Caught this on my watchlist. Do you know if this is a possible copy-paste of another article? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems legit as far as I can tell. Ideally we would like articles on an alias like that within one company to be expanded like that. The infobox needs updating to {{infobox comics set index}} and it needs Kid Flash (Iris West), but I have looked around and can't find it replicates anything. (Emperor (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

(Sigh)

Not sure if I've crossed a line or not in replying to Danleary25 at Talk:Eddie Brock#Images and hatnotes, but his mass edits to orphan Venom (Eddie Brock) really looks like he's trying to divorce Eddie from the material that only related to Venom while Eddie was Venom. - J Greb (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian

Asgardian has again begun to delete storyline names and dates from FCB/PH sections. This is despite our discussions, such as on the Black Bolt Talk Page, in which both you and I opined that there was no reason for this, despite the fact that he claimed he would get a Third Opinion, only to abandon the discussion, and despite his fourth block some time ago for enacting these edits without resolving the discussion. In addition to this, he violated WP:Civility in both this Edit Summary and this message to an editor. I placed a warning on this Talk Page, and naturally, he deleted it, and once again claimed the non sequitur that the poor quality of the edit he undid means that his comment to that editor was not uncivil. I restored the information in question to the Black Bolt article, but he again deleted it. Since he has previously been blocked for two weeks, I have blocked him for a month, since other admins and editors seem unwilling to do anything about him. If any objective, level-headed admins want to discuss my blocking him, I'll be more than happy to do so, but not with those like Hiding and JC37, whose conduct during the past blocks was not constructive. Nightscream (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm pleased to see that you perceive his behavior correctly; I was expecting a more lenient position, or perhaps that I'd have another uphill battle again convincing you or others about him. And yes, I noticed that message he left on your page. I didn't perceive any condescension on your part, obviously, and where did you use terms like "awful?" I don't see that. I'm not interested in ArbCom or any other procedure that will simply spin its wheels and let him continue with this behavior, as has been attempted in the past. The way I see it, he either ceases this type of dishonest, policy-violating behavior, and responds positively to polite attempts by people like your or I to help him understand those policies, or he will simply be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. It's just that simple. Nightscream (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If his reworkings looked a little more like this one, that would help. Still, removing detail for the sake of removing, I'm not so sure. I'd have to look at them more closely and think about it. BOZ (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you post your comments here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Qusetion...

Is this a problem from User:JoeLoeb?

His edit... to Green Arrow

His explanation of it.

Not sure it I should scream or bang my head on a wall...

- J Greb (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article drive

Hello,

I have started a new section on the comics talk page for a start of discussion on bringing more comics articles to Good Article nomination. Please provide any input you think will help. BOZ (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just on the talk page. It was circa September or October. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, psst. It's a bit out of date, but still plenty useful. :) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? I don't think I had anything to do with it, then, but you never know. Maybe try a google seach using the Site function for Wikipedia? I think that gets talk pages, but I'm not sure. BOZ (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you know! Never trust my memory, I did have something to do with that. Maybe I'll update that list when I have the time. BOZ (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Hopefully we can get things moving in the right direction this time! BOZ (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Another one bites the dust... I feel like we're trading one mishandled approach for another, rather than actually improving the articles. Ms. Marvel may now be entirely out of universe, but it offers virutally no development, commentary, or criticism, and since it offers just as little plot summary, it really offers very little of anything at all.

Anyway, on the bright side, I did live up to my promise and took a good, long look at the FF and Spidey. Check out my comments on the talk pages, let's discuss, and then let's get to work. On the bright side with these two, there's too little plot summary for anyone to feel the need to remove any. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When you say mishandled, I think you may mean more discussion is required. Unfortunately, not enough editors give a damn for there to be any real consensus. A quorum of even 5-6 ediors is not rock solid, and can hardy claim to speak for the majority. Now, as to the matter at hand, remember everything is a draft. They can be - and will be - improved upon. If I can source a few books like Marvel Masters I will lift a few quotes and build on the material there. That said, however, I took this approach for a reason. I've written - accurately - more FCB that most anyone here. Some took weeks to source and get right. Unfortunately, however, it is all in-universe and fictional storytelling. Even cited examples of supposed quality out of universe material need reworking (eg. Punisher ) as it has a few technical glitches and some opinion. It is also not really any longer than some of the others I've had to rework. I believe the third-party sources are the key to correctly helping to filling the articles out, but this takes time. I would also like to remind all concerned that much of what was removed was pretty bad. That kind of fancruft we can do without. And therein lies the challenge - finding accurate, sourced out of universe material. Asgardian (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No it means you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:WAF - it doesn't say you can't write about fiction. You can discuss events that happen in the comic you just need to do so in an out-of-universe manner. That means keeping things in the real world chronology (so if an origin is shown later on, it is not added at the start) but critically for your edits it means you don't just remove everything plot related it means you use a form of words that flags the fact it is fiction: "the character is shown doing X", etc. All you've done is strip everything plot-related out of the story leaving pretty much just a list of issues the character appeared in. Clearly with some articles, like [[Ms> Marvel]], WP:PLOT also applies but all that means is we don't need a blow-by-blow retelling of the plot, not that we can't have any. Have a thorough read through those guidelines and see if that helps explain where you are going wrong. (Emperor (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

I suggest being less condescending for starters, and stop inserting emotive terms such as awful or terrible. That applies to the fancruft I removed. The bones are laid down, and what is now needed is the meat - the third-party sources such as Marvel Masters which can provide commentary and quotes. Also note that it took some doing to find all the appearances for characters such as Rhino, and that not every appearance can have a detailed summary, as articles would become unwieldy. By the by, note that the aforementioned Punisher article is actually about the same length as Ms. Marvel, and has a few technical problems and some POV. Good, not great. Asgardian (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, rather than continuing to debate the merits of one style over another, I think continuing with the Good Article drive will give us a good idea of where we need to be heading. I have nominated Spider-Man, so let's see where that goes. :) BOZ (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't already seen. I printed out all of the items you linked to on the article talk page, and I'm going to read them over as I had the time. I don't want to go crazy with those, you know with recentism and all, but I'll see what we can use. Note that the reviewer is actually thinking the publication history section may be too detailed already! BOZ (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put some work into it, but I'm kind of stalling because I'm not sure where else to go. The references section needs to be standardized somehow, so I'm going to look into that if I can find some free time. BOZ (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Spidey has passed, thanks to a little help from some friends. :) BOZ (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

Thanks for your support on the successful Spidey GA. :) I've begun some work on Fantastic Four, so that we can get that one promoted as well. Check out the article talk page for some of my thoughts. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I can remove the Cultural impact heading for FF, but I strongly suspect that any reviewer will wonder at its absence if we don't add something before nominating. I'll have a look at OMD once I'm done working on FF a little more. :) I've got the day off of work tomorrow, so I might have some time to work on stuff like this! BOZ (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll drop a line to Cameron regarding that. Hopefully later today I will have some time to look through the OMD and FF stuff (will be busy for a few hours, first). BOZ (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Odds and sods

• The starts you've made at List of 2000 AD stories and List of minor 2000 AD stories look good to me, especially the latter, which, if we can carry this forwards, would be the ideal way to create such articles, with sourced information, little nutshell points and are pretty much informative, concise and encyclopedic, snd so hopefully in keeping with policy. I think if we can get our lists looking like this, we're fulfilling our side of whatever bargain ends up getting struck over "notability".
• Comcs by region looks like it should get rolled back, I'm not sure how well organised the content is at the topic level, truth be told, nor how well it all fits in. Might be something to consider one day though.
• The Jack Kirby requests. I'll look into what I have. You want this sourced over at Jack Kirby, yes? There have been a number of reasons given for this dissatisfaction, including resentment over Stan Lee's increasing media prominence, a lack of full creative control, anger over breaches of perceived promises by publisher Martin Goodman, and frustration over Marvel's failure to credit him specifically for his story plotting and for his character creations and co-creations. On Captain Victory I have quotes from his talk with Will Eisner in Will Eisner's Shop Talk, where he notes it is a reaction to Steven Spielberg, and that it is about life in general. Evanier calls it a reaction to Star Wars, which Evanier states "people were saying was Hollywood's version of a Jack Kirby comic to begin with." Had a pass at Secret City Saga but Evanier barely touches it. Can't turn anything up on the Bounty Hunters as yet. Haven't checked the Masters of American Comics yet though, but don't hold your breath. I need the time to catalogue those Journals. Who was it who said they had the Jack Kirby Collector?
• I'll buzz through Spider-Man: One More Day but it's not my area of expertise, and the time I have is limited and getting shorter all the time. I'll hopefully have that Journal issue by the weekend, and look to make Alex Raymond my project of next week. Now that we've got some sort of conveyor belt going, is it time to roll out A-Class reviews, get articles to A-Class, which pretty much means they're as good as featured article candidates? Hiding T 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

sup!

hi emp! long time no hear buddy =] ive been very busy with my youtube account and i cant find time to edit wikipedia now. happy new year! †Bloodpack† 12:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirby and Raymond, etc

I'll try and give these my attention next week. Sorry. Hiding T 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kid Flash revisit

Mind taking a look?

The initial IP, which looks to be dynamic, is in a constant "But Wally isn't and Bart currently is" flip of the 'box image. Which is very odd since the IP set up the article with Wally in the 'box.

I've change it to the 2nd option - no infobox image and each character getting their's in their section. But to be honest, since the "most notable" costumes is are almost the same, using Wally, first in publication order, in the 'box makes sense. Similar to the Robin 'box.

I'm very, very tempted to semi protect the page since it looks like 1 editor on the IP not 3 and it would be easier to talk to them at one talk page instead of trailing the messages behind.

- J Greb (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you moticed... but I replied on my talk page... - J Greb (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "meta" series infobox

I think I've got most of the bugs worked out... well aside from the cats.

I've got it sitting in a sandbox here with examples of it in use on the associated talk page.

Thoughts?

- J Greb (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The comics (C)/TM templates

I could use a second or so set of eyes on Template talk:Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright#Template content change with an eye to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 4#Comics-trademark-copyright.

Yes, it appears the nom is coming back after a year.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

One More Day GA

I've been posting some thoughts on the talk page.  :) I've started reading Quesada's interviews (there's a lot and I've just begun) and I think there's some good stuff to add, but need some input before I get too far along. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from this article for at least a few hours, if not until tomorrow or even later. Got some stuff going on to keep me busy, but at least I put some work into it. :) BOZ (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On the D&D project, we often have as many as 3 nominations at any one time, with fewer active editors. :) The idea is, we would need more comics editors to join in (and positive encouragement never hurt; show them successes like Spider-Man and skepticism wanes). I'll help with any nominations we get going in whatever capacity I can. And yes, I've found that the smaller an article is, the easier it can be to pass, since you have less content to have sourced. :) Bigger articles have more sections that need sourcing, and if you're not already ahead of the game then it can be a trick to get it across the finish line. BOZ (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to be the point man, and I feel the same way about your sentiments! :) Carry on... BOZ (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did some more work... I think I'll turn in early tonight, long day. :) BOZ (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, good deal! Hopefully some momentum is building up now? BOZ (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm basically done doing anything I wanted to do with OMD before we take things forward. I used stuff from parts #1-3 of the interview; part #4 seemed to be repetitive on things we already have in the article (you can read it yourself to see if you agree or disagree), and part #5 did not discuss OMD directly. If you want to do something more with the stuff we discussed here, or want me to do it, then that's fine; otherwise, I think this one's ready to go. No rush, but if I don't see at least one article among Spider-Man: One More Day, Alex Raymond‎, Pride & Joy (comics), or one of the others we've been discussing on the Good article nominations page in the near future, I may just have to take matters into my own hands. ;) I want to do a bit more with Fantastic Four soon, maybe in a few hours 'cuz I need a break and have other stuff to do, but I want to get that one going soon, too. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate it tonight, rather than waiting for replies; generally, it takes at least a couple of days for a nomination to get picked up (could be a few weeks!) so anything else someone sees that needs fixing should be done before any reviewer even sees it. :) And even if not, then usually the reviewer will give you some time and put it on hold if you reasonably have a chance at fixing all their concerns. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

All done - now the waiting begins. ;) I'll probably do some work on the FF article before turning in tonight. BOZ (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... now it's starting to look like people are taking an interest in our project - and all the best people, too! :) BOZ (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The best way to get people motivated is by showing them it can work; actions speak louder than words, after all. Success on Spider-Man, and likely success on this one should prove that with some elbow grease anything is possible. FA is a disturbingly difficult challenge, which is why I'm advocating racking up a number of GA's first. ;) Now, did anyone ever actually identify those 300 "critical" comics articles? BOZ (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Pride & Joy (comics) GA

Sorry for late reply - my computer is off for repairs, which is why I haven't been on Wikipedia in a long while.

Thanks for considering the article as a potential GA article. I've been trying to actively improve Runaways related articles and considering that was the pilot story arc, I thought of it as crucial as to bring it up to a better standard. I must thank you for taking the initiative to help improve the article, and for contributing heavily to the Wikiproject Comics community. Your amazing! I apologize for my lack of assistance right now; I guarantee that by the time my own computer returns, I'd resume my work upon the article. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! How are you? Just dropping by to say I've returned; I've already read through your comments on the article's talk page, and I'm working on where to start right now - thanks. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow ...

It's a good thing this came up on my watchlist. How many SIAs are you keeping an eye on again? I'm starting to think every one of them need watching. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware I have all 240+ SIAs on my watchlist (as I've either converted them or edited them) and most of the 300+ comics disambiguation page (although I do still occasionally stumble across more - if something with a company level disambiguation pops up on my watchlist I doublecheck the disambiguation and convert them if possible). However, I do have 16,731 pages on my watchlist and I may miss the odd one or two, so it is handy of others are keeping an eye on them. I do wonder why people jump in an turn them into redirects if they don't know what the page is. (Emperor (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

This is an interesting category: Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations. It shows how SIAs are much needed in film and music. I also scooped up another comics article: Bliss (comics). (Emperor (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks man. Should we post something of this matter at WT:CMC or do you think we're alright? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if (as seems likely) SIAs turned to redirects end up in that category then we seem to have done OK catching them so far.

However, I have floated the idea of merging minor characters to a list of minor characters by company and when we start doing that the whole thing will be held together by the main character list, the categories (as we'll categories the redirects for the character) and SIAs (where names overlap, as they will tend to do even more with links to minor characters). So when that all gets rolling I'll have to put something together to explain all the bits and how to keep everything joined up. Might also be worth a note at WP:NCC, because if you need to do start using the second level of disambiguation (and beyond) it means there is either a SIA nearby or an article in the top slot that needs a hatnote (to avoid orphaned articles and make sure people can find the article). That should mean more people ultimately watching the pages naturally. (Emperor (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

That's actually a good idea. When do you want to start listifying? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been floated a couple of times on the Comic Project talk page and never really got anywhere. I've just been discussing it with Hiding (section above) and sketched out a bit of a plan over on his talk page. It looks like a plan is taking shape so in the next few days I'll refloat the idea and see if we can get a consensus and move forward from there. I'll sketch out some text to add to the guidelines (somewhere) and something for WP:NCC too. (Emperor (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Here's one for you: Piper (comics). BOZ (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed it up. (Emperor (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Spider-Man: One More Day

Hey. I put in the review page what my possible additions to the One More Day article could be. I didn't want to just drop them in without checking with you guys what you thought of them, whether you thought they were necessary, etc. Please take a look at them in the review page and leave comments. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I put them in and added some new comments to the review page. Check them out at your leisure. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm about ready to pass the GAN here, but I wanted to make sure your question about the collection was answered. Please let me know! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The article has passed. Thanks again for all your help and for your patience with me; I know buying the hardcover was probably a bit over the top, lol, but I think we've improved the article and I was happy to have heard about this and am glad the comic. Incidentally, although I haven't really been into comics in a long, long time, one day I'd like to be involved in getting the articles No Man's Land (comics) and Maximum Carnage up to GA and perhaps FA status. I plan turn my attention to these articles someday, and if you knew of any sources I could use I'd appreciate it, or if you ever decided to work on them yourself I'd like very much to be involved, so please keep me in mind. Thanks for everything once again, I enjoyed working on the article with you! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Shōnen Jump

Would you say this edit by Dekimasu was helpful? I'm undecided on whether or not the page can serve as a dab. And while I'm here, do you think Ultimo (comics) may be better off as a SIA? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand the comment the editor made. It is worth noting that it was the only article in Category:Set indices on manga and we do include manga in comics SIA.

Yes it makes sense I'll look around for other characters and sort it out. (Emperor (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Something should be done quick, as the cat will end up with the {{db-empty}} tag if it stays that way for too long. Oh, I just remembered one page that was discussed: Batman (manga). What do you say we add that one too? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added that and another to the cat but the thing is I don't really understand what the edit summary they left meant. (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

That makes two of us. Should Batman (disambiguation) be added as a see also to the SIA? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I also found Batman (film) and so I started set indexes on film - I'm not going to monitor them or hunt them down (there are hundreds) but its a start. (Emperor (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

So what'd you decide for the Shōnen Jump page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't decided anything. I don't really know what they meant in their edit summary. If it was a comics one I'd probably just revert it but I don't know enough about the situation to judge it. Feel free to revert it, raise it with the editor or drop a note to the anime/manga project as they keep an eye on manga articles. There was a lot of confusion over the Shonen Jump articles (which this is designed to help address) but I never got a full grasp of the issue - it is possible that some are manga, some are comic magazines (there are some published in other countries which might disqualify them from being manga - as they operate a pretty strict definition. Then again are they mainly reprints of Japanese manga?), so I don't know - you'll need to follow it up. (04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

And I think you'll be interested in updating Go (film) and Love (film). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I say I won't be dealing with the film SIs apart from ones I've worked on or run across (and only when I'm passing through). Someone else can sort them out - I have enough on my plate already. (Emperor (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

If you got room on your watchlist

Captain America's shield is being targeted for pointless vandilism. There's probably other places to report this but I am pressed for time at the moment. Lots42 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox markup...

Is it just personal preference between having <!--Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics--> on the same line as the infobox name and on the line below, or is it general practice?

If it's the latter, the docs can be updated to reflect it...

- J Greb (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

hrm...

I can see the logic there.

Since, for the most part, editors copy-n-paste the entire chunk of mark-up (or at least should), having the comment on the first line of it in the docs shouldn't be a problem.

- J Greb (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh... side note {{Infobox comics meta series}} is up now... - J Greb (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Century and catching up

Given we've been talking about lists of characters, what do you think we should do with Century (comics)? It's been tagged since June 2006 as requiring third party sources, and I'd doubt there are many. Probably Wizard issues of the time would have mentioned the character, but I would imagine that would be it. Do we have a sandbox we could begin to build such lists in? Going back to Jack Kirby, I did a bit of work on it. Also did a bit on Fantastic Four. I'm hoping to read the Journal this week and get to Alex Raymond by week-end. Just managed to get a rewrite of {{Cite comic}} out of my sandbox after nearly a year of festering, so I'm on a roll. Hiding T 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Editorialising

Hello! Busy, busy, busy... but (occasionally) still around to notice things. I keep saying that it'll change soon, but in theory, it might, and then I'll be able to be busier here.

I mentioned to Ms Schutz in e-mail (and maybe copied here) that I still feel that as-complete-as-possible credits are worthwhile. More widely for everyone, but specifically here for an editor of her standing. Julius Schwartz. Karen Berger. Shelley (Roeberg) Bond. Diana Schutz. (And others, but you get the point! ;o)) Not least her involvement on the editorial side says something about the book - it's a stamp of approval that implies a considerable degree of quality (to me, at least, but from critical reactions and her standing within DH, I'd say generally).

You could be right, though that "Editor (Collection)" is less important, but consider that (small) section: Martha Washington, Sin City (x4) and 300 - which I believe she edited the issues of, too. Bringing Miller's work under her remit, and adding the collections of issues she didn't edit to issues she did. Possibly superfluous, but also telling. She edited the issues for Batman/Grendel and The Escapists as far as I know, and probably Billi 99, too. Maybe those could be folded into earlier mentions, but I wasn't - and am still not - utterly positive that she did edit the orignal issues of Billi. Similarly, Too Much Coffee Man, which I imagine she brought to Dark Horse.

As you like, though. I'd favour keeping it, but then... I would, wouldn't I?! ntnon (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourced the awards. I'm wondering whether the credits might be more "acceptable" if they were column-ised...? ntnon (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll make a mental note to have a think about this, and hope I don't forget..! ntnon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2000 AD question...

Just wondering, but isn't "Prog" used for the issue numbers?

I was wondering because in a few of the places you added the "meta" infobox, it's being used to refer to the year.

- J Greb (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Livewire (comics)

Have I brought this up before? Forgive me if I have, just want to make clear if it'll make a worthy SIA. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I found a Kestrel (comics). Can you rectify that one too? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for spotting them (as it didn't have the Comics Project header Kestrel was off the radar and we alre ady had Live Wire (comics) but things were clearly not joined up). (Emperor (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Also found Isis (comics). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. (Emperor (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Tracer (comics) should probably be one. BOZ (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I've sorted it out. (Emperor (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

BTW...

Category:Military science fiction comics is up, though it may take some time to populate.

- J Greb (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You seen this?

I reckon you probably will have, but Zarjaz is doing an issue on Pat Mills. [6]. Could be useful. Mills is probably the most important writer of British comics, as opposed to the most important British comics writer, although I'd argue there's a case to consider for that. Hiding T 10:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

OK, I did a little more work on Fantastic Four. What else can we do? BOZ (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'll do a little more begging on the project talk page  ;)

Question on fanmade stuff

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but what's Wikipedia policy on fanmade stuff? I'm thinking about Flight 29 Down. It's a television series (with official books). Several fans have made youtube video spinoff stories and insist on linking to them via the official article. Or, at least one person, who posts the videos on Youtube, insists on linking. Please to be clarifying or suggesting. Lots42 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pride & Joy/Ms. Marvel

Hey, Emperor. I'm about to nominate Pride & Joy (comics), but I'm not sure if there's anything else I should add - I couldn't find some detailed scholar analysis for this story arc. Also, would it be possible if you could give me your opinion on something that came up here? If it isn't too much of a bother. -- A ^talk/_contribs 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Emperor. Out of curiousity, I was wondering why there were some good articles listed on the Wikiproject Comics page, but hidden. I've checked the project's discussion page, and I can't seem to find/understand why the good articles listed are hidden - I was hoping you could tell me, because I'm assuming this was something the Project agreed on intentionally. Thanks, -- A ^talk/_contribs 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, nevermind. I got it now, sorry. -- A ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Liam Sharp

Liam Sharp would like his article reassessed. Do you want to chip in on Talk:Liam Sharp. Hiding T 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mergers

I'm helping Gentleman Ghost assessing articles at the minute, and I'm posting likely merge candidates to User:Hiding/Merge candidates. Hiding T 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian comics referencing

Hi! In October you wrote this on the Discussion page of Hungarian Comics: If you'd like, when I have more time I'll go through and flag the things I see which need sourcing. I thought I'd just remind you. It would really mean lot! Thanks! Zoli79 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it out

Wikipedia:Articles for merge - brand new. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Com.x

I'll have a dig. I fear they're too "new" an outfit for my vaster array of paper sources, but there'll probably be something that can be dug out the Wayback Machine from earlier incarnations of their website - archived news from various dates, for example. I'll search around, though. ntnon (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Banner removal

Hello! This is CarpetCrawler from that Henry Pym lead debate. I thought I'd go to you for this question, since I knew you were an admin. What happened was that User:MarkRae was called a sockpuppet, and banned for 24 hours, as evidenced by this SSP form. However, the above user e-mailed AGK, the one who had banned him, and admitted to the admin that he was that I.P. and had only used it when he would accidentally forget to log-in. AGK had promised the user that he would remove the SSP banner on MarkRae's page, ("He said that he would remove the sockpuppet banner on 30 August because he felt that I'd 'learned my lesson', but I guess he's decided not but AGK retired before he could [remove it]"). MarkRae didn't know if he should've deleted the SSP banner or not, since the admin had retired before he could, so I decided to go bold and remove it myself. However, recently, the user who had reported MarkRae for sockpuppetry has reverted my edit and re-added the SSP banner. I decided to go to you and ask you this: If an admin has said that they would remove the banner but retired and left Wikipedia before they could do so, would it be correct of me to go bold and remove the banner myself? I ask you because you're an admin, and I'm not. I was wondering if I was able to remove it, or if MarkRae could, or if an admin could remove it themselves. Thank you and have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I will take it up with them right away. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been around a week, and I haven't received a response. Do you know of any other ideas? Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I possibly try the Help Desk? The user wasn't a member of the Comics Wikiproject... Thank you for helping out! CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me out in where to go to solve that SSP situation! Now it has been resolved! Thank you for going the extra mile in helping me out! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you noticed...

But please see Belgian comics and {{Infobox comics nationality}}

- J Greb (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jones Comix

Don;t know if you have heard of this one, but Jones Comix is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones Comix. Describes itself as a British underground, can't say I've seen it on my travels, but then I haven't exactly been looking for it. Hiding T 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I couldn't turn anything up. On a tangent, I used to write for Bugpowder, and still have a log-in. It fell by the wayside when Wikipedia took up more of my time. I can't personally consider it a reliable source, because it would just be too easy for me to game. Hiding T 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Phobos

Uhmm, actually yes it is.

Your changes:

It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. No.

What points within the article are not cited? Really, point out one.

It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. No.

What major omissions about the character are you referring to? Phobos has a short history. Does it mention the original Phobos and his appearance / history ? Yes. Does it mention Alex's first appearance and give a brief summary of the mini? Yes. Does it mention his first re-appearance in Mighty Avengers and identify the significance of that appearance? Yes. Does it mention he is part of Secret Warriors and list developments about his character in that series? Yes (mention he has displayed pre-cog powers, he's done nothing else in the 2 issues of that series that would qualify as a major omission). Does it talk about the continuity issues with the character? Yes?

So what pray-tell is the major omission, hmmm? The article is not Start Class. It covers every major point of the characters history, is up to date, and all the points it makes are cited. It is a C class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Project Fanboy gets Google News result

I know this was a raised issue when we first tried to get an article going for the Project Fanboy website. Project Fanboy recently picked up a news result on Google.

Google News Results for "Project Fanboy".

Direct link to the news article. It's really not much more than a mention. But with the Project Fanboy Awards Ceremony that was held this last Sunday at MegaCon and the awards plaques given to the creators, I'm sure there will be more to go on in the next week or two. Does this help our case at all? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that Jim Balent talked about the Project Fanboy Awards in and interview he did with Newsaram, if you think that will be of any help.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, an excerpt from a Project Fanboy review makes it into a Seattle Business News site. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ape Entertainment just posted a blurb about the awards on their site and there's a blog about it on the Fiction Clemens site as well.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the News stuff, ComixTalk linked to Steven Forbes column on Project Fanboy regarding legal issues concerning publishing comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millennium Cowboy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort

Hey, Emp, it was my understanding that the "sortkey" field in the new comics creator infobox negated the need for DEFAULTSORT. See our recent edits on the Jim Starlin entry. Please let me know... -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hiding/Coroners and Justice Bill

I don't know if you've been following this one, it's a new one on me. I'm kind of on teh fence a bit with this one, I can see both sides of the issue, but since it is causing a stir, and there's attempts to get it into Watchmen, I think it's worth doing it properly. I figure we'll have to cover the whole bill, rather than just the comic affecting aspects, to avoid bias. There's plenty of material on google news, as well as [7]. Appreciate any thoughts or help you can give, and any other people who might be interested or able to offer advice on how to move forwards. See Talk:Watchmen#Coroners_and_Justice_Bill_external_link for some formative discussion. It's also in the latest LITG. Hiding T 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I quite agree with your #cough#. Christ knows what we should do really. I suppose those articles should be tagged, and we should keep an eye on them to keep them this side of neutral. I must admit I'm not to hot on the ins and outs on all of this at all, and the last time I got dragged into this it really made me evaluate free speech; I tend to agree with whoever it was who said free speech doesn't give you license to shout fire in a crowded cinema rather than Neil Gaiman's dogmatic approach. Anyway, I'll go let anime and manga know. Hiding T 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alex Raymond

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Alex Raymond you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done It has been reviewed, and has been determined to be passed as a GA. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

MI:13 sales

Hey saw your recent editions, hope that all the hype and advertisement for the Vampire State will boost sales. --- Paulley (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, luckily the reaction to that possibility was pretty much in favor of keeping the book alive. And the reviews have always been full of praise. So fingers crossed! -- Paulley (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

An extra 2000 readers for the start of the Vampire State arc, i was hoping for a few more but thats still good.. i wish they'd list the sales of the book outside the USA i'd love to see how its selling here. --- Paulley (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In a world were Loeb's HULK series and Spider-Man BND issues sell out repeatedly then anything can happen. --- Paulley (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

tohughts on 2 infobox options...

I've been kicking around two thoughts with regard to the comics infoboxes and would like your imput.

1) With {{Infobox comics story arc}}, would it be a good idea to default the articles in to "Year in comics" categories?

I had originally set up the 'box so that only the "notable" events could be sorted out. But I'm starting to think that noting all the story arcs in the category may be a good idea.

2) If a "Based on" set is added to the genres (Buffy, Trek, etc), would it bee a good idea to "migrate" categories?

That is, right now I'm going through the story arc articles and I'm hitting the Buffy arc and issue articles. As I've gone along I've added the "Action-adventure comics" and "Vampires in comics" tags. But it got me to thinking, since all of these are winding up in "Buffy comics storylines", shouldn't that be a sub of the genre cats and the genre cats not be showing up on the articles?

And as a slight aside to this...

Would re-structuring the genre section 'box be a good idea?

Right now the Buffy arcs are popping:

Action/Adventure, Vampire

I'm thinking that:

Action/Adventure, Horror

Based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Vampires in comics

may be better...

- J Greb (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the 1st part in place... it may take some time for it to propogate though.

And I've started to slowly weed through the second part. It's a small slogh to restructure {{Comics infobox sec/genre}} for it. Once that's done though, it should be easy to set up the switch triggers in the infobox templates as needed.

- J Greb (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like I've got the second part working... at least for Buffy. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK... what I've done to this point covers the all or some of the articles in:

• Category:Buffy comics titles
• Category:Buffy comics storylines
• Category:Avengers storylines
• Category:Iron Man storylines and
• Category:X-Men storylines

I've got the code in the storlin box looking at the "cat" paramater to trigger the information in the infobox but not the categories.

Any article using an infobox template relying on {{Comics infobox sec/genre}} should be showing a slight restructure of the genre field. The coding for that was in the module. As for adding the "Based on..." for Trek comics (for example), it just needs a line added to the infobox to set Adaptation based on the cat/subcat parameter...

hrm... I may be able to rush that with Star Trek: The Manga...

- J Greb (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

'k add Trek the Manga to the list of ready examples... - J Greb (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics

Hey, Emperor. I've been cleaning up the WikiProject Comics/Participants list right now (which, quite frankly has gone completely out of hand), and I've noticed your not on the list. This strikes me as odd, seeing as you are one of the more predominant contibutors to comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I was going to add you while I'm cleaning the list, but out of curiousity is there a reason why you don't want to join? I'm just asking for your permission before I add you. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the change? While going through the list, I've noticed there are several users that "haven't been created"; but due to the discussion a while back (regarding removing users) I haven't removed them from the list. Should I bring this up at the project talk page? It seems minor, but then again I'm not entirely sure. -- A ^talk/_contribs 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. I noticed that (around the "j"'s, I think?). I checked to make sure I hadn't misspelled their names, and it repeatedly leads me to a page that asks if I'd like to create those accounts. So I'm not entirely sure. -- A ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For instance, click on User:Jester Press. Apparently that user doesn't exist. -- A ^talk/_contribs 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Grant interview

Hello, Emperor. You have new messages at Cast's talk page.
Message added 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Emperor. You have new messages at Cast's talk page.
Message added Cast (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eternals

The Titanians were introduced as Titans, but no connection to the Eternals was given, as at that time (1973), Kirby had written of the mainstream Marvel Universe characters as purely fictional in Eternals, placing them in a seperate continuity. The same later retcon that made the Eternals part of the MU also connected them to the Titanians. BTW, "revealed" and "retconned" are not mutually exclusive terms, just different ways of saying "a writer thought of something new about the old stories." Using "revealed" in that context makes it sound as if the comic is documentary, not fictional. --Noclevername (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

Since you lent your support previously, I'm letting you know that I've had some time to think about it, and here are my thoughts. BOZ (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New pages

Was doing a bit of new page patrol and Sha (comics) and Captain Compass popped up. Just wanted to put them on your radar, especially the former. Hiding T 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I might need a second set of eyes...

Regarding Ultimate Nullifier, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#OHOTMU query, and User talk:David A#Ultimate Nullifier since I just unloaded a long list of what's wrong with the article on him. - J Greb (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I was trying to highlight the first 3 points which I believe David had trouble with regarding the powers section with the Hulk. And given the theme with Galactus et al, I'm more than willing to hammer the "This isn't a fansite" as hard as possible.

And the pair I was thinking of: Fantasticar and Unstable molecules.

- J Greb (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

European series using the Metaseries 'box...

Before I go blundering in... well at least too far...

I've been looking over the articles that have had the 'box added and a few things are nagging me...

• Series that are titled after a single main character... Shouldn't these be using the "character" section, or is it better to leave those like Buck Danny, where the strip focuses on 3 characters, without it?
• Reprints/albums/bibliographies... The reprint field is set up as a blank text field, so it can be set up as an internal page link to the biblio/albums section. (yes, I'm thinking about changing the docs text) Is it routine for the stories to be repackaged this way, or should the field be left blank unless the article is explicit that the material has been reprinted?
• And just an odd thing I noticed about Devlin Waugh and the cats there... Category:Judge Dredd characters is a child of Category:2000 AD characters and the way the article is written implies that the Devlin Waugh strip was separate from the Judge Dread strips. Shouldn't the character be categorized as one or the other, not both?

- J Greb (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh... and another thought... good idea to have a pair of language fields? One for "Originally published in" and one for "Translated into"? - J Greb (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Devlin character first appeared in the megazine in his own strip but it was set in the Dreddverse - so he's a Dredd character in that he exists in the same shared universe (he did later make some appearances in your actual dredd strip..) --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

hrm... and double hrm...

I think I can cover part of the problem... Right now the template is working with subcat (the basics like 2000 AD or DC Comics) and altcat (the odd ones like Rogue Trooper). It also has the limsub which may be useful with some of the Dark Horse related articles.

It should be possible to add a charcat that will serve 2 functions:

1. Allow for a difference between the "<Foo> titles" and <Foo> characters" categories. For example:
   • Devlin Waugh would use:
     |subcat = 2000 AD
     |charcat = Judge Dreadd
     Yielding the "Judge Dread characters" and "2000 AD titles" categories.
2. Allow for an override.
   • So Buck Danny would use:
     |subcat = Dupuis
     |charcat = Nul
     Yielding the "Fictional characters in comics" and "Dupuis titles" categories.

As for the languages... It's easier to add, and can be based off of the article text for the most part. Though, just for general principles I'd leave off "Originally published in English". (And there is the likelihood that the same section can be used with the Asian titles 'box.)

- J Greb (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough...

I'll charcat in since it shouldn't interfere with your moving ahead with creating and populating a new cat later on.

- J Greb (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Biography sections

I know that some people seem to favor them, but aren't they redundant? Isn't the entire article for a real-life person a "biography"? (I mean, isn't that why they're called BLP's?) Is it really helpful to the article to enclose three sections that don't really have a strong categorical relationship under one section? I think it's a bit arbitrary, and a case of "over-sectioning". What do you think? Is it really mandated by any policy? Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only ones I can think are the ones I mentioned above. Perhaps it's just my sense of aesthetics, but let me ask you: Is part of policy or MOS, or is it just your viewpoint? Is there a policy page that goes into this? Nightscream (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Set indices on stars

I see you have been adding {{SIA}} to quite a few disambiguation pages for star systems. I thought I'd float the idea of {{SIA|stars}} which would add them to their own category. There seem to be enough already to warrant this. Anyway just an idea. (Emperor (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Sounds like a good idea, though someone will have to create Category:Set indices on stars (my IP has rotated, since I did those SIAs) 76.66.193.69 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep that won't be a problem - can anonymous IPs start cats? If not why not sign up for an account? If you don't want to just let me know when you are ready.

Also it might be worth floating this past the relevant project(s). They can pitch in ideas too - for example they don't have to confirm so strongly to WP:MOSDAB but it is often wise to get a consensus on what formatting is required. (Emperor (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

No, IP editors cannot create categories. It usually needs to go through WP:AFC.

The WikiProject in question is WP:ASTRO, I'll leave a note about a standard for SIAs on stars.

76.66.193.69 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll keep an eye out for that and chip in if necessary.

And I see the problem - I'll sort out the category when needed. (Emperor (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Green Goblin (set index)?

Uh, why didn't you move it to Green Goblin (comics)? I listed the precedents back at that discussion. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons I have in the discussion - articles like that are redirected to the main one, as we have with Batman (comics) and Superman (comics). That is the current precedent for comics articles that occupy the top slot like these do. As I said in the discussion I have no objections to coming to a consensus about changing this. However, as the discussion didn't take off and "(set index)" was better than the existing disambiguation (and there were other issues to be resolved like Captain America (set index), I spoke to J Greb about it and went ahead and made the changes. As I've said, if we arrive at a better option then we can always move it. (Emperor (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

It is worth noting (as I think I've also mentioned) that other characters have taken on the Superman and Batman alias (esp. with the current Battle for the Cowl story about who gets to be the new Batman) and I suspect we can create set indexes for both of them but the precedent is currently a redirect and I'd want a consensus before overturning that or we could just end up returning to this somewhere down the line. (Emperor (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Point taken. Could you make Green Goblin (comics) a SIA or is it better off as a redirect to Green Goblin? Regardless, I'll be glad to watchlist it for you if the link is created. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As the current precedent stands it should be redirected to Green Goblin, I didn't do it as it seems the best longterm option to have the SIA there (after all the Superman and Batman redirects were put in place long before there was any coordinated effort on SIAs) but I suppose it wouldn't matter as an interim measure. Once J Greb has looked over the Captain America one I'll bump the discussion again and hopefully we can get a consensus, so this is only a short term fix, hopefully (as I can't see changing the precedent being a big deal but it will need kicking around). With an eye on a possible Superman SIA there is quite a good series on replacement heroes and there is one on Superman with some examples I'd overlooked, like Batman standing in for him [8] (although some of those filled-in for him rather than adopting the alias so don't count, but there are still half a dozen). (Emperor (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

RE: A couple of Runaways thoughts

Ahah, thanks. I'll get to it as soon as possible. I planned on adding those extra Immonen-links after I updated the main body of the article, but you got ahead of me - so thanks. As for the B&N source, I recall the only reason it was there was because it (apparently) had some information that other sites lacked; I guarantee however it can be found somewhere, whatever the information is. -- A ^talk/_contribs 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. What article currently uses that infobox format? I'm slightly confused as to how to merge the Runaways information to the new infobox, and an example would be awesome. Thanks in advance, -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate to ask...

But I could use a second look at The Blackest Night regarding Talk:The Blackest Night#Check list part one, the anom edits to include the material by sourcing an unpublished/unreleased comic, and my responses to i.

- J Greb (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Continuum has several respected books in comics studies. See http://www.continuumbooks.com.

Comics and the City edited by Jörn Ahrens edited by Arno Meteling

How to Read Superhero Comics and Why by Geoff Klock

Power of Comics by Randy Duncan by Matthew J. Smith

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth

You can find numerous relevant books at BenBella like The Psychology of Superheroes. http://www.benbellabooks.com/catSmartPop.htm

I know the authors of some of these books, so it would be inappropriate for me to be the one to decide which are and which are not worthy of inclusion on the list. Again, you might consider subscribing to the comics scholars listserv to ask some of the scholars themselves (and even the wanna-be-scholars) for sources. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ComicsPlace

I'm cross posting this here and to Jc37, so I'm not sure if/where a consolidated thread is going to pop up.

This is in regards to something that had originally cropped up last March but still seems to be an ongoing issue.

User:ComicsPlace had popped up in connection with some edits made by CmdrClow. That came to a head on May 28, 2008. The upshot being Clow was re-coloring various navboxes I had on watch in a way counter to WP:COLOR. He questioned me on my talk page, I answered, ComicsPlace then responded, making what IMO amounts to a passing accusation of stalking Clow. At the time I responded to the points raised and pointed out that the intersect is what amounts to a coincidence. I also pointed out that the "floating" comment was tenuous coming from an editor that was, to that point, only editing to champion/reinforce Clow.[9] (CP's edit history: [10])

CP faded at that point. They have made a spate of edits though with regard to uploading covers, a total of two (one today and one in October) that intersect articles Clow was working on at the time.

One thing that CP did almost off the hop is set up their user page - an plug for their comic shop.

At this point I've got a few concerns, and I'm not sure how to move forward.

1. The user page. Frankly, IIUC, it's counter to policy since it is an advert.
2. The user name. If the user page weren't there, it would be pretty innocuous. But with the page... it smells like the store's account that anyone can use.
3. At the time of the fade, it felt like CP may have been a puppet, but there was damn little to go with.
4. There is also a situation with Clow, something Emperor pointed out with regard to Kid Flash. The up shot there is that there was a dynamic IP with a strong edit push along with Clow.

- J Greb (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Angel (comics)

I've probably asked about this before, overlinking is still a "bad thing" on SIAs right? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes overlinking should be avoided (especially publishers or nouns) but if it is helpful you can add an extra link. I'm not overly sure how helpful some of those are but the link to the Buffy character might be. There is nothing problematic but I'll have a look and see what can be removed. (Emperor (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Christopher Knowles (comics)

Needs work. :) BOZ (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I've been pretty busy myself today, you know with that thing that you, me, Hiding, and Jc37 were talking about a few weeks ago. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. :) Well played! BOZ (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT! tHANK YOU!

Hi. Thank you also for making At the Suicide of the Last Jew in the World in the Last Cinema in the World look more proper.Knowliege (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan Moore

No, he definitely does not seem like the videoconferencing type, but who knows? He frequently surprises people, so they might as well ask. I think it's neat that you had some information to contribute there. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And getting a family member interested surely raises the odds of getting him interested. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Article classes

Just wondering, but what are we using as the threshold fro moving a set index from "dab" class to an arrticle class?

- J Greb (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logic there, but I was looking at the Comics Project header. Most of the set indexes using infoboxes are more articles than just lists. They see to not belong in the "dab" class on the talk page headers.

- J Greb (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mad Dog (comics)

Should this be turned into a SIA, like you did to Ballistic (comics)? Or is this an "obvious" case like Cheetah (comics)? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep that is pretty simple and straightforward. I've sorted it out now. (Emperor (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship, and thanks for prodding me to actually accept. ;) It's been great working with you, and I hope to continue making progress on the comics GA drive as time allows for me. :) BOZ (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not actually "back," but...

...here and there. :o)

Thoughts, comments and catch-up welcomed, although not necessarily noticed immediately..! ntnon (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I did see those, yes. Mr O'Mealoid once again putting almost everyone else to shame... (Well, I've got two things he hasn't, so I'll be smug about those while rueing missing everything else!) I think Mr Bissette's information is definitely in Prince of Stories, and as to whether I have it or not... well, hopefully I'll have a chance to assess everything in not too much time, and find out! It's something I will own before long, anyway. It'll be interesting to see it all set down, but I don't imagine there's much we/I don't already know (hopefully, though!), since although so many people get very, very confused it's mostly all common-knowledge information, just confused by misremembrances, court cases and oddities. Zenith, Marvelman, Big Numbers, 1963, Flex Mentallo - will they ever be reprinted or finished..?! ("Eventually/Yes/Unlikely, but hopefully/Possibly, hopefully, but probably not in the intended fashion/Yes" are my best vaguesses.)

My time has ceased to be my own again, but I'm hopeful I'll find some soon. ntnon (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Flex front, what few people seem to notice is that the court case didn't (I think - I've read the transcript, but it was a while back!) preclude DC from republishing it. So, with any luck, and little fanfare, it'll be included in a Doom Patrol collection before long.

I'd be interested to know who owns the Starblazer rights, and whether Mr Morrison would mind (much) his very early work being more widely seen again! For completeness' sake the early Stargrave stories might be nice to have, but... they're not great, are they!?

Crisis, Deadline, Toxic! - all of those have had stories escape and be reprinted (aren't we still expecting a nice big Marshall Law omnibus soon..?), but several others that haven't. Yet. More importantly - where are the Action! collections/continuations? Bizarre in the extreme that the only reprints are included in the hard-to-find (but finally found) "Story of a Violent Comic" book, since they're so a) important, b) star-studded and c) 'violent'..

I do have some faint hope that Prion will get round to collecting a whole lot more than they already have. I worry that their 'best of' approach will mean that a vast swathe of material will never be reprinted, but then "anything's better than nothing" is mostly true. Not best pleased with the (non) credits for most/all of their collections, but at least Mr Holland has put them online.

It seems even more bizarre that the MORRISON/MILLAR "Summer Offensive" hasn't been collected in its entirety (and the Morrison-Millar Dredds are out-of-print or uncollected, too, aren't they? I've got - somewhere. Maybe. - "Book of the Dead," but otherwise nothing), although perhaps Big Dave would be potentially libellous in reprint form, in much the same way that the 'Cursed Earth' episodes are unreprintable, and Mr Milligan was warned off using Diana in X-Force.

On a 'greed will out' front, the biggest ridiculousness is the BATMAN TV series! If only there were something in the Watchmen resolution smallprint that brings it to us with West/Ward/Craig commentaries before too long. Maybe there'll be a domino effect when - if - the Green Hornet film is made, leading to GH DVDs, and then onto Batman.

Do you have the three "Sequart Research & Literacy Organization" (I assume Sequart is SequentialTart?) books...? A good start, I think.

I've got fanzines coming out of my ears, which I hope to go through before long (famous words), since I'll hopefully be able to soon... And pseudo-academic books/magazines as well as a handful of High Academic texts, which I'll also hope to categorise before long. Do you have the "Journal", or are you seeking it? And your comment on the Invisibels - is that something that exists; something you're compiling; or just a throwaway..? I've been re-reading many Morrison things lately and picking through the influences and references as best as I can (I'm still learning, sadly, but not surprisingly!), and seeing a lot of ITC overtones and undertones - interesting that the reach of The Prisoner and The Avengers and Department S et al. is threaded so widely in comics of all stripes. Not altogether unsurprising, but still interesting. (When will Marvel publish the Kane and Kirby Prisoner beginnings..? If DC could get co-operation for a sequel when Mr McKern and Mr McGoohan were still with us, surely Marvel can get permission to do so now - and doesn't "New Kirby artwork" (and even "New Gil Kane artwork") have any pulling power..? ntnon (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting/galling/amusing about many of the Prion reprints of olde English comics is the "By permission of DC Comics" notice in the indicia..! (N.B. Did I ever ask you if you knew how/why Prion was able to reprint a "Best of 2000AD" collection..?) I've been very much enjoying the Battle and War comics, not least for the hard-hitting realism and pathos which shines through even the most.. [polite words] scripts. They're almost all about heroic self-sacrifice rather than basic heroism and self-serving scum. Barely a gung-ho single-handed-war-winning Army Character among them. Which is interesting. Not least in a compare-and-contrast with (many) American war comics.

If you're looking into the Invisibles, do you have Anarchy for the Masses? I can't remember off the top of my head how much help it will be to you, but it is a good, inciteful read. And the original issues have letters pages which may have something of interest on that front, too.

If you're looking into semantics and language (and particularly in the Invisibles), are you going to go into Glossolalia much - and drift back into the religious side of 'speaking in tongues'..? I'll read through the implications of Sapir-Whorf when I have time(!), but on a linguistic front, Moore came up with a 'new' language for Dahlua's people in Tom Strong, and also wrote an issue of Swamp Thing in Pogo-speak. Plus Voice of the Fire. (Ignore me if I'm grasping at the wrong end of imaginary straws!)

Yes, certainly the reach of Steed and Number 6 (..and Ms Bastedo..) must have had a far-reaching impact, but it amuses me that it's Jason King who's 'in' the comics so much...! Must have resonated more, I suppose.

Wild Worlds was scraping the barrel somewhat, yes... still nice from a completist angle, but obviously there is so much more that just hasn't come out, and lists abound. And lengthen... Licensing and rights and other factors play a part, but I also fear that plain lack of interest - especially, sadly, in some of the most legendary/groundbreaking/"important" early comics - also plays a part. Why, for example, aren't there collections of the non-Superman Action Comics and non-Batman Detective stories? Etc., etc., etc... ntnon (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a list here, alongside brief speculation about copyright alongside the more mundane (if still odd) talk of it being designed for the Christmas market... although I don't immediately see why it would thus be published by Prion and not Rebellion. I wonder if Prion is linked to Rebellion in any way - it seems to be close to being "DC UK," because DC owns IPC (I think), and is credited in at least some of Prions titles... also, they published some 2000AD titles: might DC hold onto some reprint rights for those titles, perhaps, under arcane rights laws..?

"Ontological terrorism." Right. Well, I'll keep my eyes open for you regarding articles and suchlike. :o)

The ITC shows featured a whole lot of crossover actors, so it is quite common to see familiar faces turn up in various guises in various shows... But in this particular case, it is notable (and speaks well for Mr Wyngarde) that he - perhaps coincidentally, but it'd be a large coincidence - turned up in the ways he did: star of Dept. S and Jason King; one of the better Number Twos (albeit perhaps in part from his recognition factor) in The Prisoner; and the leader of the Hellfire Club in the infamous, banned, but otherwise not that great episode of The Avengers... ntnon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Project Fanboy again

Not sure if you ever saw this but I thought I'd drop the link here. Also, there have been several Project Fanboy Award winners spotlighting the award they won.

• Jason M. Burns main page (Best Indie Writer - bottom left)
• Fiction Clemens main page (Best Storyline - very top)
• Tarot Witch of the Black Rose NSFW main page (Best Title/Best Indy Title/Best Indy Villain - top).
• Hack/Slash Best Rookie Title used as selling point for Hack/Slash #22.

Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon Reassesment

Thank you for upgrading the assesment of the Typhoon article. I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from on ways that it could be further improved. I can probably reference the power section, but it might be very difficult to track down creator thoughts on such a C-Lister. :) OPMaster (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop a line to let you know that I fleshed out the first Typhoon a bit and added power references. If you don't care, take a look and let me know if this is what you were referring to.

Thanks, OPMaster (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning against vandalism

As you can see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.125.129.142 ... both contributions are vandalism, one vulgar (Scrubs) one not. What/who/how is the best way to warn someone off this track? Lots42 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

MAX Imprint

Are the MAX Imprint comics in canon? The issue has popped up in MicrochipLots42 (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible serious matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scottishb5 and the last message in my talk page. When I am accused of possible racism, I figure it's time to ask for administrative help right away. If such help is needed. Apart from the weird racism accusation, I'm not one hundred percent certain of his motives. Lots42 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating redirects in Dynamite Entertainment

I have been eliminating redirects—not fixing broken Wikilinks but merely eliminating redirects from quite functioning links—in many articles for most of the two years plus that I have been a Wikipedia editor. Yet you are actively reverting my doing this to several in Dynamite Entertainment. Your edit summary contained a link to a regulatory page, which failed to convince me of anything. Allow me to quote and reply:

There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. There is certainly nothing inherently correct in it, either.

While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental. There is absolutely no hint here as to how it can be "detrimental" beyond that blank assertion. None whatsoever. And the arguments made in support of the claim of unhelpfulness are quite lame:

1. Redirects can indicate possible future articles. Possible, yes, but few are at all probable.
2. Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. Pure gibberish. The definition of "invisible" is "cannot be seen," and something that cannot be seen cannot make the text difficult to read. Furthermore, redirects are far more likely to introduce additional but unseen text to the situation. And if, like me, you have Preferences/Gadgets/Browsing gadgets/Navigation popups enabled (and I recommend this highly to every registered editor), redirects are a pain in the ***, as they reduce what you can see of the actually linked-in article; you may be unable to tell that it is really a disambiguation page.
3. Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. I do know what piped vs. non-piped links are, but most of this is incomprehensible to me, other than the blatant assumption that a direct link is much more likely to be piped than a redirect to the same article. This is in direct contradiction to my experience, and in the instance of the article under discussion it is irrelevant, as most of those links are piped either way. One typical example: [[Lone Ranger (comics)|The Lone Ranger]] vs. [[The Lone Ranger#Comics|The Lone Ranger]] (I'll admit that I'm not entirely certain that I've gotten the usage of the articles [the] correct, but the point is surely clear). In fact, in a number of instances here, what I did was not only eliminate the redirect, but fine-tune the link to the precisely relevant section or sub-section of the article actually linked-in. To eliminate that is "unhelpful" to the general user.

It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. Perhaps not, but I can't see it being noticeably problematical, either. Furthermore, this example is absolutely lacking in analogical validity, as a better description of the situation would be " [[redirect]] to [[target]]." The point here is the elimination of redirects, so to have that word in both versions is indefensible, and the resultant example is highly misleading. I've already dealt with the unspoken and invalid assumption here that a direct link is more likely to be piped than a redirect, and given the number of Wikiregs that I've found to be unilateral, arbitrary and lacking in common sense, I find this one suspicious. Don't misunderstand me, there is no doubt in my mind that you did what you did on the basis of the reg you linked in.

Sorry, but I can see no validity in, or support in that reg for, your going out of your way to restore the redirects that I eliminated. However, I do concede that by the same token I do not have grounds to go out of my way to re-eliminate them, so I won't. But I won't stop making a practice of eliminating others when encountered, either. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Message received. My apologies for forgetting to point out that for the duration of this discussion I've got you on my watchlist so that you could respond here. You have a good point about disputing the validity of that reg on its own talk page, and I plan to do that. Let me just add that in a number of instances on the Dynamite page, what I did was to eliminate a redirect from an article that does not exist and is not likely to ever do so to the top of another article (e.g., the various Army of Darkness miniseries redirected to Army of Darkness (comics)) to the specific relevant (sub-)section of the article reached. This is by definition more helpful to the general user than the redirect to the top of that article. Not open to reasonable, reality-based debate, so I will restore those. But, again and as you said, this is better discussed on the talk page of that reg. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice Please

People keep adding into Cloverfield, at the end, that the final radio transmission says stuff if played in reverse. Not only is this never cited, but it makes no sense at all. What, if anything, can be done? I was thinking of one of those little notes that only show up in the editing window but I can't figger out the HTML. Plus, I'm going to 'outside' help because I already reversed this info a bunch of times over the last few months and I don't want to be accused of a slow-term edit war. Lots42 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I talked with you. I didn't think backmasking was actually ever real ever. Still, I definitely got way too caught up. Lots42 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jerry Stahl

I just left a comment there. Its been aaaages since we last crossed paths on Wiki, good to see that you are still around.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on...

Got a minor recurring problem with User:Doctor Doomsday.

The appearance of his talk page to the contrary, he has been made aware that the Amalgam characters need some reliable source to add them to the supposed components. He's pushing to add a section to Alternate versions of the Green Goblin and Two-Face.

After removing the sections I left him a note here (and the image thing has also been a constant issue here, every so often he reloads scans of various Amalgam art cards which have been downed as fair use vios.) That engendered this gem and summary-less reverts to Goblin and Dent.

I've reverted with a BRD link, but I think another set on this would help.

- J Greb (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've got it covered - the bottom line it isn't about what we know it is about what we can prove.

I should have most of the Amalgam Comics characters on my watchlist and will keep an eye on them. I do wonder if there is a way to source all this once and for all - you can bet your ass we could do it if it happened today. Might be worth putting a call out on WT:CMC - things to check might be the various Amalgam trades e.g.. (Emperor (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Amalgam characters still have their own wikipages? I thought they were all purged. Lots42 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Long-n-short? The "condense down" was more or less agreed to but never initiated, so most of the articles are still there. The issue here though is the "This DC/Marvel character along with that Marvel/DC character were spliced together to get an Amalgam character." un-refed material that is getting pushed into articles on the DC and Marvel characters. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet, the reffed material, as I saw it, went the way of the unrefed stuff. Very frustrating, it was. Lots42 (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends... If the primary reason a section is in an article is unsupported, it does not matter if the rest of the section is or is not, the whole thing goes. And if an article is found to be non-nontable, same thing. - J Greb (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown this open here: WT:CMC#Sourcing Amalgam Comics characters. (Emperor (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Follow up:

At this point Doctor Doomsday is showing every intent of not engaging in a discussion.

IMO he's WP:OWNed the Amalgam sections of Alternate versions of the Green Goblin and Two-Face to the point of being disruptive in putting them back sans any references. He's also branched out to Alternate versions of Batman.

He's also blanked warnings dropped on his talk page by ThuranX re Edit warring and inserting non-sourced information to the first two. (Also of note, there was a civility warning regarding DrD-day's post to my talk page.)

Would you review this and see if any blocks are necessary? I'm tempted to do it my self citing the flouting on the Project level consensus on the Amalgam components needing a reliable source cited, but I'd expect a screaming fit about "admin abuse" since I'm involved in the situation.

- J Greb (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had much time recently - they are on my watchlist but I don't think I've managed to check it yet so have missed the "fun." I haven't had a chance to check all the edits but from a quick scan of the ones you link to:

• It seems his edits on Two-Face violate WP:3RR (despite warnings) and those on the other two skirt the borders of violating it. That should be enough for a 24 hour ban (and I can't see how any unbiased reader could think it was anything but blatant policy violation - I'd need to compare the edits but it seems like 4 reverts in 24 hours so it'd be difficult to argue against).
• Users are allowed to remove messages and even blank their user page - doing so does imply you've read the warnings and taken them on board though.

So, while I'm still checking through their edits, there is more than enough for a non-controversial 24 hour block. What I'd be interested in doing is finding a way to head them off because all that this path will lead to is their getting a long block and other people wasting their time. I also want to check to see if this fits any pattern we've already seen - this seems to have come out of the blue so it is either a new editor boldly romping into this minefield (presumably with the idea that persistence will win out) or someone picking up where they left off last time (if you know what I mean). (Emperor (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

It's not quite "out of the blue". This editor gravitates to the Amalgam articles inbetween Wiki breaks. One of the other issues has been the constant re-uploading of scans of trading cards for infobox images.

The item about the blanking is more of an FYI - theres more, alot more, that's hit their talk page than curently shows.

- J Greb (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dark Reign

sigh.. I've had a bit of a go cleaning up the recent additions and it reminds me my first thought on in-universe content is simply to erase it.... this one is going to run and run. Since the article was altered significantly before I got to finish my off-line rewrite, I think I'll continue to write the couple of sentence "this is what this title is about" so that the basic publication content is there and then rewrite all of that so it flows better as prose and across thematic areas. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PhotoCatBot

Hi - just checking in. :-) If you have any feedback on the changes I made to PhotoCatBot, please let me know. I'm eager to get it running again, and want to be sure that it'll be a help and not a hindrance. Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to be a noodge, but User:PhotoCatBot is still blocked. If you're comfortable lifting the block now, would you please do so? thanks! :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod

Sorry, I'll do that in the future.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have three questions

I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Futurequake issue5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Futurequake issue5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby

Hey there. The review has just started, and the reviewer has identified a number of trouble spots in need of work. We may not be able to fix it up enough to get it to GA at this time, but I think this would be a great opportunity to put some work into improving the article in general. See the reviewer's comments and fix anything you can, or just have a look at the article and work on anything you can identify yourself. Thanks, and thanks for what you've already done on this one. :) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mjolnir

The article on Mjolnir, Thor's hammer. There seems to be evidence people are outright ignoring long, cited discussions and evidence just to revert things. So I'm trying to bring in help that is more successful at being nuetral. Lots42 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not even sure if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill or what. Secondly, the 'Weilder's' section. According to cites on the discussion page, the Hulk never lifted Thor's hammer. Only really decent folks can and such are listed on the main page. But many people for some reason believe Hulk has hefted Thor's hammer and keep changing it back. Lots42 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding templates

Thank you for the heads up, on the etiquette for adding templates. After modifying the Avengers template, I thought it would be beneficial to add it to some of the characters that have been established as Avengers, because there are characters that I added the Mighty Avengers template to, that already had the Avengers template attached to their article (such as Sentry (Robert Reynolds) and Vision (Marvel Comics)). I was not trying to create more work for other editors, but I will be careful in the future to only add templates to the articles that are linked to from that template, as I did with the Mighty Avengers template and the Avengers story arcs. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

CB

Oooh i will throw in a nomination submission too. With CB and DR Young Avengers coming out it looks like a good week for Cornell and i heard he is even doing a story for Dark X-Men The Beginning all good. Hopefully sales will stay stable enough to keep the title going. I hear some of the art duties have been passed on to keep the title on schedule, not sure thats in the article but i will have to find a good source and make a mention of it. --- Paulley (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!... why does Marvel hate quality :( --- Paulley (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, same here. --- Paulley (talk)

You know, with Cornell's blog getting msg after msg, maybe we should start an online petition. I understand that a fully fledged ongoing isnt possible but imagine a yearly miniseries in the vain of Wisdom. lol maybe they can make it a series Knight, Britain, Blade, Spitfire etc.. lol i can dream. But still if we could start a petition and get the word out on the numerous blogs and forums we venture too just image what a unified response might do.. if anything it might persuade them to consider a follow up mini rather than letting the team vanish altogether.... i dont know maybe im just extra annoyed the news came out on a week were poorly written title like HULK is coming out and you know thousands of 12 yr olds are gonna buy it and it just makes you think why!? ---20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea i have talked with Mark/Sword a few time before.. and i agree with his statement that the Marvel Universe is strinking and i also was a big fan of the aftermath of Civil War with the spreading of team and characters all over the Marvel landscape. As for TV shows Fox's/Wheadon's Dollhouse series ran on very low rating yet got praised by many ppl (like much of Joss post buffy work) and that got renewed for a second season. --- Paulley (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Fanboy... again

I know by now you must be getting sick of me but I found this on CBR where they talk about an interview Project Fanboy did with Colleen Coover.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/05/comics-am-the-comics-internet-in-two-minutes-70/

There is also an interview on Newsarama where Jim Balent talks about the nominations Broadsword had in the 2008 Project Fanboy Awards.

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/020903-Broadsword.html

Project Fanboy's Alexa Ranking has also shot up 1,017,317 spots in the last three months and it's google search results are up to 14,600 when searching the quote text "Project Fanboy".

Will any of this help? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Head's up warning

A nasty edit war is brewing over at One Above All between Asgardian and another dude. And it's Asgardian in the -right- (mostly) this time. Lots42 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Minis, Events, and Stprylines

I'm slowly working through the storyline categories to clean up the infoboxes and the categories, and I've about to run across something I'd like some input on.

Basically, I'm at the point of checking the article in the "storylines" cats that don't use the story arc infobox. Seeing if the template needs to be changed or if the cat needs to be pulled. Normally easy enough.

But I'm getting to the "Cross over event storylines with self titled minis" stuff. I'm looking at Marvel at the moment and Category:Marvel Comics storylines has:

• Annihilation (comics)
• Annihilation: Conquest
• House of M
• Infinity Crusade
• Infinity War
• Maximum Security
• Secret Invasion
• Secret War (comics)
• Secret Wars
• Secret Wars II
• War of Kings
• World War Hulk

I believe we had touched on this before with the Annihilation pair. IIRC the result there was to treat them as storylines that incorporated multiple titles, including an incidental self titled one (story arc infobox) instead of as a limited series that happened to touch other titles (title infobox). I've applied that same logic to House of M, War of Kings, and Maximum Security and can see it applying to Secret Invasion and World War Hulk. But I'm not sure it ring true with the older events.

And that without looking at DC with:

• Crisis on Infinite Earths
• DC One Million
• Final Crisis
• The Final Night
• Genesis (DC Comics)
• Identity Crisis (comics)
• Infinite Crisis
• Invasion! (DC Comics)
• Legends (comics)
• Millennium (comics)
• Underworld Unleashed
• War of the Gods (comics)
• War of the Gods (comics)

- J Greb (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Identity Crisis & Asguardian

He may have some points, but...

Bulling out the Publication history and a relevant character from the character-section isn't helping his cause.

- J Greb (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's "Asgardian". There's no "u". The changes are outlined on the relevant Talk page now. Nothing too radical, although it does mark my arrival into the DC universe. Wonder if I'll get a crossover? "Run! Asgardianactus and his Herald have arrived to consume our articles! Aieeee!" Asgardian (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Well, I don't really have much of an agenda besides organization and privacy (my previous username I had used all over the net and thus it was easy to find out who I was). The only articles that I really have any 'vendettas' with are spam/COI articles, which the Spider-Man ones don't fall under. The only reason why I nominated them for deletion was because I genuinely believed that they weren't notable--I was surprised, for example, that a plot summary about a single issue had gotten an article. (And I admit that I only thought warnings were necessary on AFDs, although I was wrong on that). Could you direct me to an admin who would take my other user information privately? --Sandor Clegane (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I sent a message to arbcom and everything's settled.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin was the one who responded to me. I'll ask him to put a message on my talk or user page.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Streets OF Gotham

Thank you for doing a great job cleaning up the article so quickly. Ridernyc (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but you should get a picture of the first issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you started both articles well in advance of the publication dates so there is no cover and not an awful lot of information. When they become available I'm sure someone will add them, until then it is a bad idea to add sections given general backgrounds on the characters and adding in numerous images for which there is no fair use rationale - there is no deadline and we don't need filler material to pad out the articles until we have actual information on the contents of the comics. That will all come with time. (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Well Batman and Robin was also started in advance and if you wnat information just go on Dccomics.com they give plenty of information on issue 1-3. Also they include the pictures for issues 1-3. They include more information than you revert. Ign also has more information.--Schmeater (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with starting an article before the comic is out (although if done too far ahead it tends to be deleted) but if I recall there was already information about and if there isn't then we can wait until it is (rather than adding filler not connected to the series). As I've said before when removing the plot - we don't include plot based on solicitations. (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Well there are pictures on google on dccomics.com of issues 1 all the way to three why don't you get a picture from there and add it. I mean there are a lot of pictures about it out already and you can just get the picture.

I did not leave my signature last time but read it and get a picture! --Schmeater (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah there are also pictures on ign.--Schmeater (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'm not sure why you are telling me to "get a picture." This is Wikipedia - everyone is welcome to add a picture (as long as it is appropriate and properly licensed for use). I haven't yet added an image to either article because all I've seen so far is the cover art, not the cover. These have been uploaded and used in infoboxes but as these are just promotional images (and not necessarily the final one - I've seen them with added photoshopping before) these are usually replaced when the actual cover image becomes available. As I've said before there is no deadline and I'm in no rush - if you wish to add the cover art as a placeholder then you are welcome to do so, but I won't be. When the comic book is out and if no one has uploaded the cover, then I'll do it. (Emperor (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Okay I'll tell you why. It's because I don't know how you put it on and well I'm going to make an edit just please do not revert it.

Sorry I forgot to sign it.--Schmeater (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing why don't you put the cover art on it because the cover art for Battle for the Cowl 1 is on it --Schmeater (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC) P.S I really think you or Ridernyc should do it because you two are the best editors I know.

How do I report vandalism?

Namely, Shake88's recent vandalism of John_Byrne. I reverted it first before coming here, of course, considering it's nature. Lots42 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder info. I'll try to keep it in mind. LOL. Lots42 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Hey, Emperor. Xavin was created by writer Brian K. Vaughan and who? Adrian Alphona was the artist at the time, but Takeshi Miyazawa actually drew the issue Xavin first appeared in. But since Alphona was the series' drawer at the time (Miyazawa drew two issues as Alphona prepared for the next arc) who am I to say Xavin was created by? Just need a little clarification on this part. -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Project Fanboy - Top 20 Comic Writers of All Time

The Project Fanboy Awards were referenced in a news article on Mania.com where they were discussing the top 20 comic book writers of all time. Geoff Johns won best writer for the 2008 awards and is listed in this article as one of their deciding factors in including Johns in this list.

http://www.mania.com/top-20-comic-writers-all-time_article_115430.html

Also, I re-wrote the article on Project Fanboy in my sandbox and was hoping you'd take a look and see how you thought it reads now. Thanks for all the input and direction you've been giving me on this. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to ask...

But could I get a second set of eyes on this?

The TfD for the template in question is here.

- J Greb (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) And I think I may be hitting a serious hot button, but it's wearing thin. - J Greb (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just stick to WP:NAVBOX which is pretty clear - you can't have these ultra-specific templates stuffed with ever possible connected link. It isn't a substitute for an article. Going back and forth on minor details just distracts from the core.

It all goes to underline my thoughts that we should really discuss starting templates and major expansions - a lot of them are pointless and quite a few are huge and out of control. (Emperor (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Fair point... But I've all but had it with TMC on this. It's become fairly clear that his choice of words and his trying to redefine them is being used as a shield. A kin to "It is as bad as the last, but it isn't because I say it's 'stripped down'.". Either that or he really can't comprehend the concept of "stripped down". - J Greb (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The important thing is - this was put to TfD and the consensus is that we don't want a template like this. They are going to have to take that on board or they'll just end up getting templates deleted. WP:NAVBOX is pretty clear, after all. (Emperor (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Good Article Drive?

By the way, Michel Vaillant is up for review if you didn't see my notice on WT:COMICS.

Also, if you didn't notice, I let the GA drive thread pass into the archives. To be totally honest, while it was and is a great idea, and we accomplished some good things, I just don't have the time, energy, or resources to do much of the work myself. We have a lot of articles in decent shape, and a lot of articles that should be GAs, but I think a lot of us are unsure just what to do to get that extra step in to make them GA worthy or maybe we do know but don't have the time.

I still think my idea of making a centralized spot for "this is what these articles need" is a good one. We got a lot of useful info on improving Jack Kirby on that article's recent failed GA. I think we got some of the same on the one for Belgian comics. I'm thinking to propose some of our more important GAs and Bs, and maybe even some Cs and put them up for peer review. We could go through your whole "300 list" over time that way. :) BOZ (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you agree. :) I'll start (maybe not today) with some of the ones that we have discussed but decided not to go for GAN yet, and maybe even try to get more input on the failed GANs and some delisted GAs. BOZ (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Got things going, although my impetuousness took over again and I got greedy. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

About the Blackest Night:Batman AfD

Just wondering... but would this and the like comments in the AfD approch disruptive trolling? - J Greb (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See also above. They are a relatively new editor whose enthusiasm might be getting ahead of the information we have to demonstrate notability. I'll leave more specific comments on your talk page. (Emperor (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

And there is also Talk:Dick Grayson#Dick Grayson ... Batman (image) where they're steamrolling for Batman in the infobox. - J Greb (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It does, it does. In this case though it's the... petulance that comes across. It reads as "Batman is now and oh so notable, that has to be the pic." Hang that the Nightwing image has been more or less stable and that both that and Robin or more connected to the character. - J Greb (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True.

Personally, I'd rather not denude the infoboxes unless we absolutely have to - the Scorpion/Venom issue for example, where the only way to shut the edit war off was to nix the image.

And I've been thinking... While it may be easiest to go with a sans costume image for articles like Grayson, West, or Harper. And you hit upon it with the "We should use Robin" post. It may just be that we need to tweak the guideline to point out "If there are multiple 'universally identified' costumes of equal weight, use the first." It would also work well with image progression for multiple images. hrm... might also be worthwhile to not in the guideline that ancillary image used to illustrate later costumes should also hit the 'box criteria...

- J Greb (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now that Blackest Night: Batman is gone why don't you add what you wanted to in Batman R.I.P because I've added what I want in Battle for the Cowl. Oh and can you add the Cover or Cover art for Red Robin 1 on it's article page.--Schmeater (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a mention into Batman RIP but at the moment we don't have very much information on how it connects to that so I'll add more details later. I'll also add cover images when we actually have covers (as with the other titles mentioned earlier). (Emperor (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah thanks. Oh and Batman: Reborn continues in Red Robin two. So when I am writing the Batman: Reborn summary should I include it's summary in the Batman: Reborn section.--Schmeater (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant to say "Batman Reborn" three times but that isn't very clear. Basically mention Batman: Reborn in the Batman and Robin article and then if the storyline continues in Red Robin then mention that it continues in that article. There is no need to repeat the same information in different articles but it is also still months off so I'd say wait until the comics are out and see how it goes. (Emperor (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Sure. Oh yeah the varient and original covers for Red Robin are at this blog. www.gothamknightsonline.blogspot.com. --Schmeater (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Those images are animated and it is unclear from that what the main image is. I'm happy to wait for the comic to come out.

Also looking at thins there it strikes that "Batman Reborn" is more of a banner for the Bat-titles rather than an actual storyline, so it might be worth waiting and see there too. (Emperor (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Oh well the issue has been released so you can get the picture now. --Schmeater (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

Not sure if you saw this - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#"the most universally recognisable appearance of a character" - or the note left on the project talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Intercession needed

Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Strange

The one shot wonder is at it again. - J Greb (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh... and there is also this gem. - J Greb (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comics Project Notice Board moves

I proposed a move on the Comics Project notice board, but it doesn't seem to be appearing. The proposal was posted on the move page [11], but fails to appear on the main notice board. I thought you might best know how to resolve this. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Sharp962 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for quick response, will keep you suggestions in mind! - Sharp962 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's been 2 days (with one prior to my last message) and the note is still not appearing. For this specific instance, it's not that big of a deal as consensus seems to be gelling quickly; however, this might point to some sort of system problem. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Hungarian comics - some progress

Hi! I went through the Hungarian comics article. Most of the work was filling out the missing references. I've wrote some thoughts and questions on Talk:Hungarian comics. Could you take a look at it? Thanks a lot! Zoli79 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements notice board

Aha, finally got it started. :) Feel free to have a go, do whatever you like to make it look better/more functional/whatever. BOZ (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good start? :) BOZ (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wunderbar. :) BOZ (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Check user secon opinion

I spoke to Hiding about this and he said you might be the man to ask about such things. If the accounts I flag (and at least one more that has edited the article) turn out to be sock puppets (as my analysis suggests) then they are being used to drive a coach and horse through various guidelines about not starting your own articles and (in some of the deleted articles edits, they have also been disruptive removing legitimate tags and the like). So I wanted to check if there'd be a case for taking this to checkuser and if it is worth doing.

Hope you are keeping well. (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I think so.

That said, my experience with checkuser of late hasn't been the greatest. The new bureaucracy seems to work well for their bots, but makes it rather difficult for the average user. (I personally was rather confused by the new formatting.)

And thank you. Life happens, as they say : ) - jc37 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn I hate it when they change the rules - looks like I'll need to read up on it again.

And I didn't think it was "life happens", I thought it was sh... something else (Emperor (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for the pat on the back at Wednesday Comics. I don't have a lot of experience with article edits. HAZardousMATT^toxic 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you...

...take a cursory look at Template talk:Infobox comic book title#Blue bars?

It's feels like the start of a pissing match, and I'm not sure if I'm accelerating it or not.

- J Greb (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.... I'm a touch over cautious given the general "hair trigger" reaction that seems to be prevalent (I think I may be skimming ANI waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to much...).

- J Greb (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of hair triggers... sheash - J Greb (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could use a second set of eyes on this

Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Categorisation

I get the distinct impression that I'm missing something here.

- J Greb (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Strange volume and issue

I wasn't sure, but did a little digging around (it was one of the first comic books I ever read, right after Flash's "Fastest Man Dead!" issue). He assumed both Wayne's and Batman's identity during the "Strange Apparitions" storyline ( in Detective Comics #469-476, 478-479). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackest Night: Batman

On Battle for the Cowl a guy keeps deleting what I write down. Can you explain to him about Blackest Night: Batman's significance in Batman R.I.P and Battle for the Cowl. --Schmeater (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

¢-ish

The references provided - the 2 IGN re-posts of DC's solicits - do not contain any reference to the BotC material. Nor do the support or justify the inclusion of the 3 issue mini in the BotC article.

Can you find anything that shows DC, Didio, or Tomasi explicitly stating that the Blackest Night mini follows directly from BotC?

- J Greb (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to take this over here: Talk:Batman: Battle for the Cowl#Blackest Night tie-in. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm not really asking for J Greb's help but Emperor when the issue is released I'll check on the internet and we'll all find out where it deservses to be. --Schmeater (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne wants to know your position in Blackest Night: Batman being in Battle for the Cowl. He want's some info about it's connection to Batman R.I.P I think. --Schmeater (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Something to mull

I've asked Arcayne for an opinion on two somewhat related things here.

I'd like your opinion on them as well.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Its over

Gonna go cry now... oh well atleast Cornell and Kirk are working together for Dark X-Men and Cornell got Black Widow mini too.. so its not all bad. Hope Cap and the team are not left on the shelf for to long. --- Paulley (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea hope so. Considering how much Cornell had to fit in that last issue, he pulled it off well.. he couldnt draw out he fight scenes as much as im guessing he'd liked to plus that last push of cameos at the end really makes you wonder what plans Cornell had for future arcs. --- Paulley (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Batman: Reborn

Hey I don't think this article should exist go to the talk page to see my reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Me again

I'm back (after a hospital stay) to ask more questions. Can you look at the 'Abandonment' section on the Hypertime page? Normally I'd throw this into the BPAL (is that right? Libel issues, for sure) violation pages, but since it is so comics intense, I'd thought I'd ask someone who knows both aspects. If that made sense. Lots42 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential Article Critique?

Hey there. Don't know if you remember me from the Wednesday Comics talk page. Anyway, I'm in the process of building an article in my sandbox and was wondering if you could critique it for me. I've never built an article from the ground up, and I'm curious if this has any potential at all. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle for the Batman: Reborn

--Schmeater (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)I wan't you to see the pages I made on Reborn and cowl's disscusion.

Boo

Hey pal.

Just thought I'd drop these in your lap, although you'll likely see them on your watchlist. I;ve tagged them up as or/unreferenced because I think they are, but cast your eye over them and see what you think. I was gonna wait a few weeks and then if no sources are added just remove. Chromium age, [12] and [13]. Take it easy, see you on the other side. Hiding T 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Batman: Reborn

An article that you have been involved in editing, Batman: Reborn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman: Reborn. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. J Greb (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What are your thoughts please.

Concerning Vincent Margera, this is a man with plenty of useable photographs from his work in reality television shows...yet the one being used is his mug shot when he was arrested (accused of a sick crime). It doesn't seem kosher to use that when so many other possible photographs exist. Wikipedia nuetrallity should extend to the photographs as well. What do you think? Lots42 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Chief Judge Fargo

GentlemanGhost rated Chief Judge Fargo as Start-class, but I think it is clearly much better than that, perhaps B class. Is there a particular procedure I have to go through to request a second opinion? If not, would you mind taking a look at it and seeing if you think it is worth re-rating? Thanks very much. Richard75 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, and for the advice on improvements. (Not really sure which issue to give as his first appearance really - 107 is his first mention, 377 first showed him but just when someone was talking about him, and 559 was the first in which he was given an actual part to play.) Richard75 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Can you please head on over to the Battle for the Cowl disscusion and please check out the conclusion section, it would really help me if I got your thoughts on it.--Schmeater (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

PH and FCB sections

Hi. Has the Fictional character biography section been replaced by the Publication history section, as Asgardian claims here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you've seen some of my posts, you know I'm in no position to complain when others are "long-winded". :-) But the bottom line is, Asgardian's implication that one section has been replaced by another as a matter of policy or consensus is clearly false, correct?

What do you think of our edit dispute on Red Hulk? He not only spoke as if it was a settled matter (again), but removed citation info from the books, (author and volume numbers) and removed mentions of the books from the text again . He seems to have an aesthetic problem with mention issues anywhere outside the refs, which makes it read confusingly when the text says "some books are split books" without mentioning which issues, how many, when etc. He also removed information about the Red Hulk's identity, and the way the PH was written before (to which he reverted it), two pieces of info about those involved in creating him were broken up, which I merged. He also introduced his own POV regarding whether physiological differences between the two Hulks are "minor". Can you chime in on these points? Thanks? Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman: Anarky

As you've witnessed my work on the series of Anarky articles, I have a question I thought I'd bring to you, rather than a peer review process. I asked in October what precedents existed for comic book trade paperback anthologies, as I worked to bring Batman: Anarky to GA status. At the time, I did not really think it would be as easy as it ultimately was. I assumed that the paucity of third party reviews would sink it, but luckily the introductory essays written by Grant and Breyfogle covered a lot of ground. I now wonder if it would be possible to promote this article to FA status. Measuring it against the FA requirements, I feel it lacks a certain comprehensiveness. There simply is no commentary on the trade paperback itself. All reviews are related to a few of the individual stories, which means I could sooner create articles for the story arcs rather than a reception section for Batman: Anarky itself. What do you think? Should I try to integrate reviews for the individual stories, or should I keep them off, and try to nominate this article without a reception or legacy section? --Cast (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be a good ida to include reviews of the individual stories if you can find them. It shows you've covered all the bases.

Otherwise it is looking pretty solid - give me a nudge when you think you are nearly ready to nominate it and I'll take a spin through and see if anything needs sourcing (I was wondering if the lettering problems might need some source but wasn't sure). (Emperor (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Please pardon me, but I've moved your comment back to this page as I would prefer to keep the discussion centralized, as indicated on my page notice.

Sourcing is only ever required for controversial statements or quotations. As such, you can disregard citations for anything that is uncontroversial or for which the citation is obvious. In the case of the lettering for the DC Comics edition, the sentence is its own citation, and even includes the page number. You'll notice that all other potentially controversial statements are covered, and in the future I can easily cite anything another editor might think to tag with a "Citation needed" template. --Cast (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Hulk

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin hat issue

'lo guys,

I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.

What he posted is at User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.

Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other' than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.

Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.

Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.

- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just getting back

Hey, Emperpor! (And I see my fellow friend J Greb just above.) Sorry for not responding sooner; as you probably surmised from my contribution history, I've been away for several months. I plan to return to Wiki-editing regularly (if not often), and it's good to see some of my old and treasured colleagues still here fighting the good fight. With kudos and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! -- Tenebrae (talk)

Could use a second set on...

User talk:Cyberlink420#Re Twitter and the editors insistence on adding Twittered "conformations" of voice cast for "Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2" to multiple character and character in other media article [14] starting with the "Confirmed via Dan Tanguay's Twitter" set.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have this sorted out now. As Twitter is a micro blogging tool WP:SPS applies - we can use it in exceptional circumstances (as long as we can prove that the person is who they say they are, which is pretty important) but this doesn't seem one of them and I think WP:DEADLINE applies here - it was pretty much being used to get information in a few days before it'd be officially available and it just seems unnecessary. (Emperor (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

I hereby invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance has been marked as part of the Manual of Style (permanent link here, section 22). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Most_Unusual_Camera Twilight Zone narration -is- noteable, but isn't all the writing down of it a copyright violations? I'd go researching off by myself, but I am on a computer time limit, so I thought I'd raise what might be a problem. If that made sense. Thanks. Lots42 (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your reply. I'm talking about the quoting of actual lines of dialogue from the episode. Lots42 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where would I recommend...

Where would I go to recommend that Hercules and Amaedus Cho (Herc's bud) be rewritten by experts? The two articles contradict each other, contradict the issues I have read and are just outright badly written. I don't think I am enough an expert. Lots42 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian debate, again

You've been a part of it here, so I thought you might want to be aware of concerns I've expressed there re: Asgardian and the time and effort all of us are expending. In a nutshell: Oy. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That aside (heh), I have been keeping tabs on the Marvel link argument, and the opinion seems to favour inclusion. I'm happy to restore some, so long as of course people don't start quoting from the included power grid, which like the OHOTMU is invalid for several reasons. Asgardian (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why they would - it is very specifically not a source. In fact our not including things like the power grid makes the linking to the Marvel Universe articles an even better idea - if people want that kind of thing then it is done official over there. It is pretty much the definition of reasons we should include such links. (Emperor (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

There were a few instances with the superstrong characters, but it now pops up only once or so a year. That said, I take your point. Asgardian (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging

That popular pages tool is probably going to be a great tool for working out bold mergers. The lowest ranked articles start here, so that's a useful tool for working back. I think it would be uncontroversial to work back from there, yeah? I'm going to work out what redirect templates we have and then make sure we are on the same page. I'd prefer to follow your lead, since I'm not au fait with list structures any more. I'd like to try and merge character info as best as possible, I think we should be able to list powers and first appearances and all that. I can;t remember what we previously agreed. Hiding T 17:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maberry article

Generally I only use Wikipedia for reference but I found out today that they seem to have added a feature to tell me when I'm looking something up that I have new messages. Since now and then I'm suddenly obsessive . . .

I've spent the afternoon on the Maberry article and, while in the end I only made a few changes, I think it's now mostly in line with Wikipedia. At the same time I'd like the warnings about the article being mainly written/edited by people with connections to Maberry strengthened. Would it be possible to renew the Conflict of Interest statement?

FWIW had I read my first comments I would have remembered the circumstances rather than the article about him. Having done so I doubt that I'll be doing more work on this article. Fortunately I think it's now pretty much okay, and hopefully going ahead with the extensive -- probably more than was appropriate -- comment will keep various people from making changes.

--Kovar (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Life on Another Planet DYK

Hi, thank you for the wonderful work you're doing on the article I created! I nominated it for DYK but the reviewer expressed some reasonable concern. It seems you're much more acquainted with comics than me. Do you think there's room for enough improvement to go to DYK? I am trying to find more sources on the web but with little success. Thanks! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

Could you please go to the Red Robin merger thingy and leave your thoughts on my plan. --Schmeater (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone want to get a grip on this guy before I start action to get him blocked ? He's reverting clean-up work on articles on the basis that it hasn't been performed on other articles? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you have to give him points for creative edit summaries. I believe you are now at the D in WP:BRD - discuss.

To cut down this process I'd recommend Schmeater read: WP:WAF, WP:PLOT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Emperor (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

But it's not simply that article, Azrael (comic book) is a mess after recent additions. For example,

Batman ejects Question from the Batmobile since the Canton boy is at the building, but is too late for the boy is cone at the hands of his father (who is one of the thugs).

various uses of the first person, spelling mistakes etc. I don't see the basic level of competence needed to write article content. He doesn't understand the MOS, he doesn't understand or is unwilling to understand why we don't write in an in-universe style. If someone is consistently creating clean-up work for other editors then it's a problem. What is the point of allowing him to continue to write material that has to be cleaned up/removed by others? It's a waste of everyone's time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that is an interesting problem - how do you address the problem of an editor not being up to standard? WP:Qual pretty much suggests it is down to the editors to correct or remove material not up to spec. It does seem like a waste of good editors time though but I see nothing in the guidelines saying you can take sanctions against someone for good faith edits just because they can't write coherently. The best thing I can come up with is either remove/revert the edits and if they insist on putting them back you can take it from there. It might also be worth raising at WT:CMC as you'd probably need the projects consensus before going down that road (if only so that people know what you are doing and don't revert your reverts). This might also be useful: WP:COMPETENCE. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

but I see nothing in the guidelines saying you can take sanctions against someone for good faith edits just because they can't write coherently. You can, it's generally done via AN/I or a RFC - first, they try and get the user a mentor but if the problems persist, it's goodnight. It's generally used with people who use English as a second language and although they are trying to help are actively degrading articles by their actions. It's a long drawn out process (isn't everything here?). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are such things that can be done - I was really talking about anything directly. It is a grey area, so going down that route will be long and frustrating with no guarantee of success. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try it but there might still need to be some short to medium term solutions. (Emperor (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

GCD templates

I haven't run a check yet, but are these still working right since the GCD upgraded? - J Greb (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it has largely been just fine as the old links kept working (apart from one case where they seemed to have changed Marvel UK from an imprint to a publisher - it was always a grey area). I have updated the templates and it seems to be working fine. As far as I'm aware this is mid-point in a complete overhaul (that might allow us to link directly to different characters of the same name) so it might be we need to do a complete rewrite further down the line, or create one central template that can now do everything in one (we can transclude the others through it). I've left a few notes here and will monitor the situation. (Emperor (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

RFC draft

Hello, just bringing your attention to User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could use a review on...

Revision history of Template:Iron Man

{{Iron Man}}

And

User talk:J Greb#Iron Man Template

- J Greb (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

2000AD Online database links

Hi. As you can see 2000AD Online now does have some database content, but the links are different and at the moment, BARNEY still has more information and is easier to navigate. If 2000adonline.com/? links could be replaced a a robot to 2000ad.org/? then that would fix a lot of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakecarter (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Children of the Dog Star‎;

Heya - I'm taking a look at Children of the Dog Star‎, which badly needs sources, and I am not turning up a lot so far. It;s sort of uin your area (scinece fictiony commonwealthy fortean thing), I'm wondering if you mmight know anyone who might want to take a crack at it? Artw (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And on infoboxes...

Sorry about the creators 'box miss... I had updated it but it seems to have gone unnoticed.

I had also added a "nationality2" since I've run into a few bios that insist on dual nationalities, I just didn't note it in the docs.

Also, I've re-worked "Furry" to change the cat and to allow a bit of flexibility to put "Funny animal" or "Furry" into the 'boxes. And at least for the meta 'box, WW1 and WW2 are live. They'll put the specific "In comic" cats into the articles.

- J Greb (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Batman Split

I just want your thoughts on the disscussion I posted at the Batman article talk page if you have any questions feel free to contact me. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Circle (comic)

Thought I would introduce you to The Circle (comic), it needs a bit of tlc or something. Hiding T 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs or something ;) I can't believe this has say around for a year and a half with effectively no content. (Emperor (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, it must have slipped through the new page patrol and it's been off radar ever since. I just caught it on a deep trawl of Category:Comics. You wouldn't believe the things we have in sub-categories of that. Schrödinger's cat is lurking there, under Category:Fictional cats, and to be honest, I think that category is badly placed at that article. Hiding T 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I find Category:Comics is a good hunting ground for badly categorised articles as they eventually seem to bob up there.

Not sure I understand the Schrödinger's cat business (how it fits with the comics classifications - my grasp of quantum physics is just fine ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help with my first article, Fall Out Toy Works. It is most appreciated.

BlazerKnight has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

BlazerKnight (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmm cookies. Although to be honest you did all the hard work. (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

SubArticle

Hey. Just came across {{SubArticle}} on the talk page of Talk:List of minor characters in Dilbert while assessing, it looked like it might be a useful one to keep in the locker? Hiding T 15:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder - would it be possible to add a subarticle or parent field to the Comics Project header? (Emperor (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Tricky. I could do a subarticle field, so we could have

subarticle=yes

and text like

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Main Article, due to size or style considerations.

but I don't know about adding links to the main article. That would involve a template inside a template, I'd have to look see if that's possible. Hiding T 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this could be done by adapting the portal1-name and portal1-link fields at Template:WPMILHIST. Hiding T 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have added a subarticle field and a subarticle-link field. Will work on mainarticle fields another time, and document as well. Hiding T 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Great - is there a working example? (Emperor (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Not yet. Well, barring a quick test thrown up this second at User:Hiding/X7 although it is still buggy, I need to work on it more apparently. Hiding T 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the bugs look sorted, so see User:Hiding/X7. Is that what you wanted? Hiding T 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice - gets a thumbs up from me. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Would it be better to use parent or mainarticle instead of subarticle-link? Hiding T 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

I could rig it up so that only one parameter is required, i.e. |mainarticle=Comic would trigger the note and feed the link to the main article. Could I just suggest that you experiment in a sandbox rather than on the live code? (I know I'm hogging the main sandbox at the moment!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was using the sandbox, if you check the history. I just made an error in thinking it was right when it wasn't. No biggie. Hiding T 18:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a hoax?

I can't turn up anything on this character, and the article isn't even consistent with regards where he appeared: Alteror. I've stuck a prod on, but am half tempted to just delete as a speedy. Hiding T 14:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks it. Googling shows nothing [15], looking at the possible issues:

• Marvel Premiere #54 had the introduction of Wild West hero Caleb Hammer [16] [17]
• Fantastic Four #54 had the introduction of Prester John (it is in Essential FF Volume 3 which I have around here somewhere. [18] [19] [20]. Although there is FF (vol. 3) #54 although again no mention there either.[21]

If such a character was introduced in ff #54 (which seems the most likely from the text) I don't remember them and no one has seen fit to mention them in connection with the issue. So even if it isn't a hoax the character is very very minor and appers to only have had one appearance, so it fails any inclusion criteria you can think of (Emperor (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Which FF#54? If it was the first volume, then it has to be a hoax because that pre-dates Storm. Hang on though, if one of the creators is Jim Craig, that places it later than 1965, since Craig was born in 1954. More digging required. Hiding T 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Craig never worked on the FF but did work on Marvel Premiere, issues 35-37. I can't help but feel like I'm on a wild goose chase. Hiding T 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson

Want to help me work on this one? :) It's likely to pass GA after I work on the lead, and if there's anything you can add to the article in general that would be helpful. BOZ (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bliss (comics)

I just reverted this. Just skimmed through the person's contributions, so it would seem this was the only one. Any thoughts man? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it seems to be a one off - they were cleaning up and X-Men-related link and stumbled across that It happens from time to time.

For future reference - I have pretty much finished (at least I've been through those with disambig-class Comicsproj headers). The set index count is currently: 329 - if it changes dramatically there might be a problem. (Emperor (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

How so? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure which bit of my post your are referring to but if it is the count, then if tomorrow it stands at 200 then someone is making a systematic attempt to remove them and if it is 600 then someone is dicking around. (Emperor (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Reporting someone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.8.193.114 Not quite sure how to report this, or even what this person is supposed to be doing besides vandalizing. Lots42 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reptile Aliens

Hiya - heres yet another thing that you might be able to russle up some help on: The Reptilian Humanoids article is undergoing a bit of a renovation and it's emerged that wikipedia currently has nothing on the common reptile alien type in ufology[22]. The namespace Reptilian aliens currently just redirects to Reptilian Humanoids but we should probably create an article there in it's place. Your thoughts on this appreciated. Artw (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Johnny Cash Show

Let me run something by you and get your response. This DAB page is unnecessary. The Johnny Cash Show should go directly to the more well known TV show, with a DAB link at the top of that page for the album. The DAB page could then be deleted. Does that make sense to you? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't my area of expertise (although I am partial to a bit of Johnny Cash now and again). Looking over both articles there is no verifiable claims that one is more notable than the other. Also worth bearing in mind that while the TV show might have got a high profile on US TV it is possible that a general international audience might know the album better. So just going by the evidence it is difficult to call and unless one is clearly a lot more notable than the other then it is difficult to call. (Emperor (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

I appreciate your thoughts. One thing I would say in response, as far as notability is concerned, is that the album follows the show, in other words, was only possible because of the show. That would, in my mind, indicate the album's secondary nature. And, as the album article indicates, it is one of his lesser known records. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, the articles don't even mention that. Looking over the album I don't think it would be too outrageous to suggest merging it into the TV show article and moving the result to the top slot. That'd be a solution I'd prefer as I see no reason for a separate article for the album - there is no claim to notability and it could easily get deleted as it is. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Subarticles

Hi. Would you care to comment on my question about the subarticle parameter at Template talk:Comicsproj/sandbox? Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations

I hadn't spotted it, but kind of felt something was going on, especially given the response I've had in a couple of deletion debates. Trouble is, there isn't much that can be done. I'm having real trouble turning up "reliable" sources for a lot of this stuff. Hiding T 10:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• You can have a go, but my impression is of a single minded editor. Hiding T 13:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also

Here's a page for your watchlist: User:AlexNewArtBot/ComicsSearchResult. I'll transclude it to the noticeboard. It's a bot at User:AlexNewArtBot that matches articles based on rules at User:AlexNewArtBot/Comics. There's a log at User:AlexNewArtBot/ComicsLog which suggests I have 2000 AD weighted too high, or I have misunderstood reg exp. Need to find a regex expert. Hiding T 10:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Will have a bash. Hiding T 13:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Gauntlet

I saw your post on the talk page for the (incorrectly) titled Enter the Gauntlet, so I thought I would let you know that it is now moved to Spider-Man: The Gauntlet. --Spidey104^contribs 22:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye; your participation would be welcome. Fences&Windows 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas K. Dye merge

As requested, here's my attempt to convince you against the merge. I'm very opposed to a merge. Thomas K. Dye is notable enough for his own article. As demonstrated by his colaberation with D. C. Simpson on works (I Drew This, and others), having been one of the subjects of a published book - Attitude_3, and having a plaque in his honor at his home town of Reno! [23] --Barberio (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please revisit Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_13#Category:Comics_ambox_templates, because I have added a related category to the nomination. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17#Category:Ambox_templates for the folow-up to your suggestion. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Steampunk, et al.

I know that you are not as active on the Steampunk, and related, articles of late, but I could use some advice or at least some thoughts about a situation that is brewing. If you take a look at this exchange on my talk page, you will see what I am dealing with. When it comes to most topics in the larger "steampunk subculture" I am generally clueless (by choice), so questions of notability might elude me. But, there are basic issues of verifiability, referencing, and just plain good, encyclopedic content. If you would not mind throwing in your two cents worth, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't claim to be too knowledgeable about the lifestylers and the Steampunk subculture (as my interest is largely in the media stemming from my already existing interest in early sci-fi, and my attention has wandered back that way a bit recently) but be sure to give me a nudge if there is anything I can do - I have a lot of pages on my watchlist and can always miss gathering storm clouds. (Emperor (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, my attention and interest has always been on the literature, not the subculture. Still, the policy issues are fairly clear, I think. I appreciate your help. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Pollack

Looks strongly like our blocked editor is back at it. I'd appreciate you casting an editorial eye towards Rachel Pollack now and again. The previous round was pretty disturbing to her. I think the block's expired. Anniepoo (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange Tales et al

Indeed. Thanks for the head's up. I'm heading over to Leon Lazarus, since an interview with him just ran in Alter Ego.

Sorry to hear about the issue just above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, you beat me to it!   :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

I'd like your advice on Dana Perino, the whole 'edit-war' dispute has gone completely down the 'what the heck is going on' path. Details on talk page. Lots42 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

new article: Alan Class Comics

I've just dropped this one in, Alan_Class_Comics_(publishers) and would appreciate any comments you might be able to make. Bearing in mind just how ubiquitous these were in the childhood of British kids in the 60s and 70s, I can't believe that there's been nothing on this subject (and the net material is rather thin and scattered too). Thanks in advance for any thoughts. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)