This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've noticed a discrepancy between our Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men articles that needs to be reconciled soon. The members of the Ultimates are linked to, and have articles titled as Ultimate Captain America, while the Ultimate X-Men members are merely linked to as the original continuity characters- the ultimate profile is folded in, and has a section within the page (as seen on Colossus (comics). I find two problems here:
We are not consistent across articles.
The naming of articles for heroes such as "Ultimate Captain America" and "Ultimate Giant-Man" are misleading. They are never referred to as "Ultimate Captain America", or anything of the like.
I propose that we move all of the "Ultimate" character data and SHBs into subsections of the original characters' articles (as has been done with Colossus, and other X-Men. If the Ultimate character data grows large enough to warrant its own article, it should be titled something like Captain America (Ultimate). Comments? --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 16:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree on putting the Ult character articles in as subsections of the MU character articles - indeed, I actually keep meaning to seperate the Ult X-Men ones out, and haven't got round to it yet.
As for the naming scheme, it actually started with the Ultimate Iron Man article, which started out as a speedy-delete candidate about the mini-series [1], [2]. I expanded it to a semi-decent stub about the character, and the others have followed from there. The problem with an alternative, suffix-in-brackets, naming scheme is the length. (Ultimate) isn't acceptable, since it doesn't make clear it's comics, as the general comics nomenclature requires in superdisambuguation. You can't do (Ultimate comics) since the imprint name is Ultimate Marvel - and again, it's an imprint of Marvel Comics, not a publisher - and (Ultimate Marvel Comics) [which I would expect people to end up using] isn't accurate either, as there is no "Ultimate Marvel Comics" company, besides being 24 characters, plus a leading space/underscore to make it a round 25. Which would swamp the character name - "Hulk (Ultimate Marvel comics)" [I pick Hulk since I know off the top of my head that that article is too long to incorporate other stuff into]. Ridiculously long. (SoM, who accidentally left out his name)- 17:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Universe article is at Ultimate Marvel, so what about Hulk (Ultimate Marvel)? I don't think it's that odd to have the Ult stuff in the MU article, because that has been done for alternate continuities for a lot of other characters (see Blink (comics). As most of the rebooted characters share a lot of characteristics, and a comparison of the two is inevitable, it seems logical to me to include it in the same artice... but that's just my .02 power crystals. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 18:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Ultimate characters ought to be described in the articles on the main MU characters except where article size necessitates otherwise. -Sean Curtin 04:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
SoM, I too must disagree with you here. There's not a separate Supreme (comics) article for each of Rob Liefeld's and Alan Moore's takes on the character, or for Age of Apocalypse Wolverine, and I'd argue that Ultimate Spider-Man is a similar case: another creative team presenting another "take" on what is essentially the same character, albeit making many changes. We certainly don't need an entire article on Ultimate Arcade, for example, who appeared in one or two issues of Ultimate X-Men and will probably never be seen again. Any information on him should be folded into Arcade (comics), although Vaughan's "Ultimatized" version of him was quite different from his "regular" counterpart. In your defense, there are several different articles for Sandman (comics), and rightly so. But I think that's only because attempting to combine them would make an impractically long article. I suggest we stick to that rule of thumb (as suggested above by Sean/Gtrmp and detailed here): keep them all together, unless length gets prohibitive, and then spawn sub-articles, either leaving a short summary with a "see foo for more details", or just a disambig page that points to them all (like Sandman). It's a general WP policy; I think it works in this instance too. -leigh (φθόγγος) 02:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
SoM, do you still have strong feelings or arguments about this? It seems like the consensus is to go with merging into the MU articles unless prohibited by size, but if you'd like we can start a poll. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 14:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see a poll. A mention and link in the MU articles would be a good idea, but I think putting them both in the same article tends to lead to a rather overcrowded article - especially with multiple SHBes and "Powers and abilities" sections in addition to bios. The occasional alt. reality Blink is one thing, where one version (MU in Blink's case) isn't really notable in and of itself, but where multiple versions are notable, I'd prefer to see them given their own articles. - SoM18:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that multiple infoboxes and such are inappropriate. See below. -leigh (φθόγγος) 02:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Ultimates Naming Survey
There are currently two different naming conventions being used for Ultimate Marvel characters. Some Ultimate characters have their own articles such as Ultimate Captain America. Others have entries in the article of the MU character, such as Colossus (comics). It was suggested that a poll be held to determine consensus.
Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".
Ultimate characters should have their own articles
Ultimate characters should have entries in the MU article
Hiding (In fact, it shouldn't be thought of as the MU article but as being the named article.)
Ultimate characters should have entries in the MU article unless the article grows unmanageably large, in which case the Ultimate character article should be spun-off
Samy Merchi (Talk) 2 July 2005 00:51 (UTC) (IMO, 'unmanageable' is 2-3+ paragraphs...1-2 paragraphs, about stub-length, is what I'd tolerate inside the 616 article...longer than that, own entry)
The Timeturner 7.17.05 8:49PM (EST) - (I agree with Merchi: unless the Ultimate version is so similiar/so new that only a stub-length mention is necessary, it should be seperate. An example would be Ultimate Iron Man, who is radically different from his 616 version, versus Colossus... Who is not.)
Most Ultimate and MU characters share a lot of backstory, so separate articles may lead to unnecessary duplication. --DropDeadGorgias
Comment While there are - obviously - exceptions, I don't think that's really true. Ultimate Storm's an American who's never set foot in Africa. Ultimate Colossus was a mafia enforcer, and is gay. Ultimate Longshot's not an extraterrestrial. Ultimate Thor bears almost no resemblance to the MU version. Ditto Ultimate Sinister. Ultimate Nick Fury, even besides the race change, has no Howling Commandos or Infinity Formulae in his history, and debuted as a US James Bond, basically. If you limit it to one-or-two sentence summaries of the characters, they'll come out somewhat similarly. Otherwise you're splicing lots of "But in the case of the Ultimate character"s in between the similarities, and there's very little in the way of economy saving to be made as you appear to be suggesting. - SoM22:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (Moved from voting section by DDG)
The number of characters is very small who fit both of the following conditions: A) Ultimate version is drastically different from "regular" version andB) character is "important" - has made lots of appearances and deserves a long article. I agree that characters that meet both criteria should get their own articles (which should, incidentally, be linked from the main article along with a short summary). Other characters (a vast majority, I believe) would be perfectly fine with just one paragraph (maybe two) outlining how the Ultimate version is different. e.g.: "In Brian K. Vaughan's Ultimate X-Men #55, Arcade was reimagined as a video-game-themed bounty hunter hired by Mojo to kill the X-Men." Actually, I just glanced at the Longshot article, and it already looks perfect. I vote for this method. -leigh (φθόγγος) 02:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to the length of the Ultimate section and its placement/relationship to the main article. Should've spoken more clearly. -leigh (φθόγγος) 05:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I guess what I meant is that most Ultimate characters share a lot of backstory, and can share an article. It seems kind of ridiculous to have an Ultimate Iceman article at this point, as he's pretty much the same guy. Even in cases where the character has changed dramatically, the mere mention of the differences begs an analysis of the difference between the two characters. I agree with leigh that the Longshot article looks like it handles the Ultimate section well. As for the multiple infoboxes, I think that they can be avoided in cases like Blink (comics), where the user's name, etc. hasn't changed much. However, if a character changes drastically enough for his/her 1) Codename 2) Name 3) Alliance or 4) Relatives to change, then I think that multiple infoboxes are in order. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 14:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Relatives are very commonly different (or outright absent) in the UU vs. MU versions. And Alliances are often different, with most of the MU teams non-existant (plus the X-Men article is too big to fold Ultimate X-Men in. And the Ultimate equiv. of the Avengers is the Ultimates) - SoM17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Please not multiple infoboxes, that makes a page look far too cluttered and ugly. I think the best bet is to keep the Ultimate version as a section on the character page, and only if it is notable enough. How is this handled for DC characters that have had more than one name? I think Flash is a pretty damned good example. In fact, that could serve as a featured article/page template, no?Hiding15:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I *really* hate the practice you mention, with the different Flashes' bios crammed onto one page, and only one infobox. I still think (as I've said before - check the archive) that the Flash (comics) page should discuss the general lineage (pretty much the intro; the "Publication history," as it stands, perhaps slightly expanded; the "Other Media", which should be "Appearances in other media" for consistancy, and the links), with different pages for different characters, and an infobox on each page - SoM17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of an example from another medium, but I can't. Doctor Who and James Bond were the closest I got, but they're not quite the same. I think if we don't have enough people on this project to get a consensus, we might have to broaden it out. But I'm definitely of the opinion that they should stay on the one page. I don't think the character bio and the info box is the most important information, though, which I think places me very much on one side of the fence. Is it absolutely neccesary to be exhaustive in superhero character biographies? Also, if Ultimate Captain America has his own entry, there should at least be some mention made on Captain America's page, if that's the way it is decided to go. Hiding18:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I can think of several examples of legends or stories with diverse versions and continuities:
Optimus Prime, whose article includes at least seven distinct continuities.
The Land of Oz, which besides the classic books and movie also has a different continuity written by the Russian author Alexander Volkov, and a revionist history given in The "Wicked" Books and their broadway adaptation.
Iphigeneia, the daughter of the greek hero Agamemnon, who in various versions is either sacrificed by her father, transformed into the goddess Hecate, transported to Leuke where she marries Achilles, replaced by a goat and spirited away by Artemis, or in a variation of the latter, escapes from Tauris to Mycenae with her brother Orestes.
I take no position on this particular dispute, but I do point out those articles as examples of this sort of thing elsewhere on wikipedia. --Peter Farago 07:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I voted here long ago, but never left a comment. As a long-time fan of the original continuity, I think that those Ultimate characters whose story is not well-developed enough to warrant a separate article should be given a separate section at the bottom of the 'named' article. The majority of the article should be devoted to the main MU character, and, ideally to my mind, the Ultimate version should not be mentioned at all except in its own separate section. LordAmeth01:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see Ultimate articles needing to become large unless they refer to the title. Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate FF, Ultimate X-Men and Ultimates should get their own articles because they have monthly titles. Ultimate Cap, Ultimate Thor and Ultimate Black Widow do not, as their title is Ultimates. Even Ultimate Iron Man, who had a mini-series, does not warrant his own article, as any mention to it can either go the Ultimate section of the main Iron Man article or to the Iron Man section in the Ultimates article. Ditto for any of the Ultimate X-Men, as the highlights would just go to any differences. There's a separate articles for Ultimate Marvel Team-Up. Why? Ultimate Daredevil & Elektra and Ultimate Elektra have separate articles. What for, as most of those character appearances are apocryphal now? All the mini-series have their own articles. Why? Ultimate Six and Ultimate War should be mentioned in USM and UXM. The three "Ultimate Galactus" minis have their respective articles. Why not merge the three into one? --Pc13 23:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't have a problem with multiple infoboxes in one page. What I do have a problem with is the large pictures stuck inside infoboxes.--Pc13 23:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Conclusion
While I would have preferred higher participation, I think that this poll has been lingering long enough. As it stands, the policy that is winning in votes is:
Ultimate characters should have entries in the MU article unless the article grows unmanageably large, in which case the Ultimate character article should be spun-off.
However, the vote doesn't express as clear a consensus as I would like to start making these sweeping changes. JamDav, SoM, Hiding, are any of you still adamantly opposed to the merging of these characters into the main character articles? If any of you are, are there any middle-road proposals or changes to the existing proposal that you would like to make? If not, we can add this policy to the main WikiProject comics page, and start fixing the articles that do not comply with this policy at the end of this week. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 21:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I thought I was supporting the merging back of content. That's certainly what I thought I voted for. Hiding 12:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Umm, I'm stupid and I apparently don't notice strikethroughs :p. Yes, you're right. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 14:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Phew, you had me worried. :)Hiding 15:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After looking at a few more articles, I changed my mind. I don't really mind what happens, but it could get confusing with the affilations etc. I suggest a seperate infobox for the Ultimate character, or mentions in the main article text that some/most of the main infobox does'nt apply, but I'm not going to go into a hissy fit over it! In conclusion, I strongly believe in majority rule, so go ahead and merge. --Jamdav86 17:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merging
I've tagged the articles that I saw appropriate in Category:Ultimate Marvel for merging. I'll try to get to it this weekend, but anybody with free time can help, and that would be greatly appreciated. Just to note, I didn't tag articles for superheroes or teams that have their own title in the "Ultimate" line, as there can be an encyclopedic article on the comic book line itself. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 18:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
OK, this is a little annoying. Pretty much every article I've tagged for merge has been contested by BrownShoes on the talk page, usually with the simple line "Keep", and sometimes the incomprehensible "more info will is add". For exampeles, see Talk:Ultimate Iron Man, Talk:Ultimate Captain America, Talk:Ultimate Black Widow, etc. BrownShoes didn't even vote in the poll, which is even more irritating. If people are still conflicted, then maybe I should put these articles up for VFD, although I'm almost positive that the general wikipedia populace will vote to delete or merge. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 17:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC) NOTE: I just noticed that there is going to be an Ultimate Iron Man mini-series, so the article can stay, but it should be about that mini-series, not the character.
Does this mean we can't merge the articles? Hidingtalk 23:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I was just wondering, do we have any notability guidelines as per WP:MUSIC? If not, shouldn't we knock some up? Hiding 19:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. I think we should have notability guidelines for:
Characters - how many appearances/etc. as a minimum for notability?
Titles - While we want to have independent comics represented in some way, they obviously have to have some provable notability. I suppose if a title has been mass produced and distributed widely through an entire country it can be considered notable?
Teams - Are all superhero/supervillain teams notable?
4. Creator - has been interviewed in The Journal, or has produced a considerable run on a major title, i.e. recognisable outside the field, or won an Eisner, Harvey or Reuben?
I'd think for characters, well, I'd like to see a high level of notability, a major character with at least, to pluck a number, ten, years of publication history, and the same for teams. I don't think all teams are notable, nor are all characters.
For independent titles, I'd think anything collected in GN/TPB is generally notable within the field. Possibly longevity, too, Porcellino's King Cat mini being notable for having 60 odd issues. Lesser works by major creators could be discussed on the creators page, as per Moore's Maxwell the Magic Cat. The same could also apply to superhero material, couldn't it? (Forgot to sign, sorry.) Hiding
I'll try and knock these thoughts up onto a seperate project page and get an RfC up in the next few days to try and stimulate more conversation. Hiding 5 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
"Notable relatives" only, not "Every relative." And stop putting something in the "caption" when there's no image to caption - SoM18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've just blocked this user for 24 hours for repeated copyvio, right after I had just warned him. Looking through his edit history, it seems like most of his edits are full page comic panels that violate wikipedia copyright policy. What do you guys think, should we mass-revert his edits, it seems like it might be necessary in this case. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 22:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
He's at it again. This time he created the incomprehensibly named ThunderbirdExiles (comics), another copyvio from comixfan. I'm blocking him again. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 20:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
My weekend list is overburdened, but I'm going to go through his old stuff this weekend and delete a lot of his unattributed images and copyvioed segments. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 21:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
subpage for Articles needing work/checking?
How about a subpage so there is a place to list comics related articles that need to be worked on or checked? Such as asking that a newly added superhero box be checked for format or accuracy. RJFJR 04:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Best bet would be to list them here. Hidingtalk 23:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Essential Reading
I like the Essential reading section on Ra's al Ghul#Essential reading. Maybe our project should set down guidelines for similar entries in all of our comic articles? We could have links to the major issues/trades that deal with crucial moments in a characters story arcs? --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 18:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, yes. Hiding 19:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Would this be intended to replace the "Bibliography" sections (either just the contents under the Biblio title, or wholesale, title included). If so, I'm iffy. I don't like the current Biblio standard which seems to have emerged over time without explicit discussion of "every solo issue/story of the character/team, and nothing except solo stories", since it all-too often misses out key stories (which occur in team books, crossovers, etc). But, OTOH, at least it's consistant - this holds the prospect of either overcomprehensiveness, including every story the character/team has appeared in, or users editorially deliberately ignoring significant stories under the argument of "What is 'Essential' or 'Significant'" - indeed, is it even possible to isolate such stories down to a reasonably-sized list that can achieve a reasonable consensus that won't include systematic bias against certain periods/creators from 40+ year histories? - SoM19:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Wolverine (comics)
Could all project members help us reach a consensus on this page regarding the level of detail needed to describe Wolverine's powers. Hiding 19:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Only Nightscream is pushing his version against an already-existing consensus, enforced by reverts of his version by most of the other people who have worked on this article (at least 5 other users, not including myself, have reverted Nightscream's version at a glance), and if he succeeds in altering the consensus by sheer weight of reverts, it sets a horrible precedent, and I don't see how that can be good for the community as a whole. I don't see how this even merits discussion, let alone a full-fledged RFC. - SoM19:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
While on RC patrol I encountered the brand-new article Kade. Can someone who knows more about comics than I do (and I know virtually nothing) clean it up and make sure it's in the right categories and stuff like that? Thanks! --Angr/tɔktəmi07:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay this is a bit complicated and may have been covered before, but I think that in certain cases where a character has a long history of multiple titles then that character's eponymous title should get an entry, separate from that characters more "general" page, for the publication history of the eponymous title.
That may read a bit garbled, but for example look at Superman. The character has its own entry of course, (Superman), but there are also pages for Action Comics and Adventures of Superman but none for the Superman comic. If Action and Adventures deserve their own pages then why not Superman? of course the main Superman article mentions the title in passing but is that enough?
This is not a problem unique to Supes of course. Batman, for instance, has separate entries for every notable title he's had save Batman itself, and Im sure the same is true for other multi-title characters such as Spider-Man and the X-Men.
The problem has come up for me recently as Ive been writing a few entries for creators. It seems wrong somehow to link to Spider-Man for a credit, especially after being able to link to Marvel Knights Spider-Man.
I could just go ahead and create the pages I suppose, but I think this idea might be controversial and Im know a lot of wikilinks would need to be changed. So what do you guy think?
Yeah, I've run into a problem with this at Animal Man and Wolverine. However, what info needs to be provided about the series, that couldn't be included at the character's page? I was thinking a line about the publication of the series and launch creators would be ebough to cover it, rather than have a whole seperate entry. Hidingtalk 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen separate entries for Madman and Madman (comics). The first article is about the character, the second article is about the comic. Dawn22 14 August 2005
This is going to keep being a problem for us, but we can cut down on the problem significantly by making our article naming policy very obvious. I copy/pasted a version of it from the Talk archives and merged it with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books), and if everyone likes that policy I suggest we put it someplace where people will see it, and try to enforce it. A couple articles that need renaming/moving, if that policy holds:
The Sandman (DC Comics Golden Age)toSandman (DC Comics Golden Age); both Simon/Kirby's and Gaiman's series were called The Sandman but the Gardner Fox Wesley Dodds Sandman never appeared in a series by that name; therefore the article should not contain a "The".
Plus whatever issues raised by Hueysheridan above.
I have a few problems with this and with the vagueness of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books) in one important respect. The whole (comics) or (comic) thing isn't very clear. I would have thought that when the article is about a specific series, like say Blue Monday cited above, the (comic) tag would be more appropriate, but when the subject is more general like a character or an industry convention or somesuch then (comics) would be better. I understand the desire for simplicity but the issue comes up in examples like the Superman (comic) suggestion I have above - Superman (comics) seems too broad a name for what I had in mind. Hueysheridan14:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
(comic) should be a more specific disambig tag, the way you only use (DC Comics) if (comics) is already taken. Superman (comics). - SoM15:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, but I dont agree. I can see a point when big articles like the Superman entry get too cumbersome and most the detailled listing of the characters various comic book series needs to be shifted into their own article which should then be called Superman (comics). In fact I already see a case for doing that, especially in the Spider-Man article. As the proposed Superman (comic) (and Batman (comic), X-Men (comic) etc.) would concern a single title wouldnt (comic) be more appropriate?
Being guilty of a couple of these names, the Blue Monday one and there's a few graphic novel ones out there, I'd be up for maintaining a clear policy on this. One major problem is that some people are going to argue that the naming convention for comic books doesn't apply to graphic novels, and so is something we should thrash out. If we perhaps confer with the webcomics project and come up with some sort of naming conventions for comics, that would be an idea, and we could then put up an rfc and mention it at the village pump. Hidingtalk 21:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Move, but where?
The article 1959 in comics looks like it should be moved to a different title but I don't know where. Anyone have a suggestion? RJFJR 21:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
(Category question) Comic writers and artists by country
Having categories like "British comics artists", "American comics artists", etc, allows for there to be a page of "comics creators by country". But doesn't this mean that there's very little point in having an all-encompassing category of "comics writer" and "comics artist"? Wouldn't it be better for every writer/artist/letterer to be categorised by country (usually meaning their country of long-term residence)?Vizjim14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I think "comics writer" and "comics artists" have places as container categories for the subcategories. Compare with the pure [Category:Writers | "writer"] category to see how it could work. Something also to consider is that there is debate in Metawiki development section for the ability to show a flattened category, e.g. to show a page listing all the articles in all the subcats rather than just those directly tagged as that cat. So the upper level cats are useful for future proofing, but they're also useful when we don't have a clue as to the their nationality (rare I'll admit).--Jason Kirk06:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point. Most of the artists on the database are American, followed closely by Canadians and British. And then you want to categorise them by country of residency, therefore losing an aspect that makes them unique, or that in some cases are strange exceptions? Just a few examples: Fabian Nicieza (Argentina, lives in US), Sergio Aragones (Mexico, lives in US), Carlos Ezquerra (Spain, lives in UK), Paul Jenkins (UK, lives in US), Jim Lee (US, lives in Italy), Warren Ellis (UK, lives in France), Seth Fisher (US, lives in Japan), Alejandro Jodorowsky (Chile, lives in France), Enki Bilal (Yugoslavia, lives in France), Jean-Marc Lofficier (France, lives in US). --Pc13 08:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the solution there could be a simple one - take a broad view rather than a narrow one, and list people in all appropriate categories. So Sergio Aragones, for example, is listed under both Mexican and American categories, or Siku (comics) is listed under both British and Nigerian comics artists. One thing that i'd hope would be that this would provoke development of sections on, in particular, other English-language countries' comics creators - all it needs is a New Zealand comics fan to see that there's only one creator in "New Zealand comics creators" (David Bishop), and they might be provoked into setting about adding in the others.
It makes sense to have Siku in the Nigerian list (nationality) and the British list (lives in the UK and works for the British industry), and Aragones in the Mexican list (nationality) and the American list (lives in the US and works in the American industry), but not to have Jim Lee in the Italian list (he's not Italian, and he doesn't work in the Italian industry) or Ellis in the French list (since he only works for the American industry). And what about Claudio Castellini (who is Italian, lives in Italy, works for both the Italian and American industries) or Carlos Pacheco (who is Spanish, lives in Spain, works in the American industry only)? It would just be confusing, needing to work things on a case by case basis, so I really don't see the point in having them anywhere else other than their nationality. -- Pc13 10:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Surely better to have people listed under both their nationality and also (if necessary) the country in which most of their work has been produced? So, from your examples, Ezquerra would be Spanish (lives there, is from there) and British (works there), Jim Lee would be American only, Warren Ellis would be in the British and American lists (but not French), Castellini would be Italian and American, Pacheco would be Spanish & American, Bilal would be Yugoslavian (Serbian?) and French, Seth Fisher would be US only...Vizjim11:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I would go for keeping the general Comics writers category as it is by far the most useful, IMO. For one thing Ive started a few entries where I didnt have a clue about the writers' nationality. I cant really see the point of dividing them up by country etc., but if it must be done do it as an additional category. Hueysheridan16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
To my eye the British comics artists category was created first to categorise people who worked on British Comics. This was then misunderstood as an attempt to categorise by nationality and the American category was created. However, the convention seems to be to categorise by nationality and leave the top level category as a holding category, a convention I find somewhat unappealing but a convention none-the-less. I don't see the reason for categorising by nationality here. I asl don't agree with the idea of categorising by nationality and also by the country the creator works in, without clarification of that fact within the category naming, as that will again lead to confusion in the future. Hidingtalk 21:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Flash villains
I was asked about Flash villains on my user page, and thought I'd bring it here:
Three of the primary rogues (Captain Boomerang, Mirror Master, and The Trickster have had 2 incarnations. I'm wondering if I should create new pages for the newer incarnations, or if I should use one page and write about both characters before. I suspect that would be the case for Boomerang and The Trickster, as they are newer and less has been written with them. The first Mirror Master was a Silver Age Flash villain and killed during Crisis. The second one has been primarily a Modern Age Flash villain. Should I create "Mirror Master(Silver Age)" and "Mirror Master(Modern Age)" as the pages? (If that happens, Mirror Master should become a disamb. page...)
Would it be a good or bad idea to create a Flash Villain subcategory? The Rogue's gallery entry mentions the Flash, however he's the only hero of the four without a subcategory. - User:Toffile
My thoughts on the first question were that there should be one page until that grows too large, if the incarnations are seperate people, otherwise follow the examples set by Superman and Batman when discussing characters who have changed through time. I'm not sure what the convention is on the second question, which is why I bring it here. Hidingtalk17:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Hiding. The first question was answered fine by you, I was wondering on the procedure and convention for multiple characters sharing teh same name. I'll try to elaborate my second question.
The rogues gallery page shows four heroes where there are many notable villains. Of these four, only the Flash is the only one without a subcategory in Category:Supervillains_by_adversary. I'm a little afraid of acting unilaterally and stepping on toes...(still a wiki-newbie), and I was wondering if it was appropriate to create a category. There are only several villains that I can think of with existing entries (Captain Boomerang, Captain Cold, and the Reverse-Flashes) that have been written. Is that too little, or should I write some bios and then add in the subcategory? -Toffile18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
616 List
Im not sure where this is appropriate to discuss and am brand new to this project and relatively new to the Wikipedia in general but I think it would be very useful to craete a list of the 616 canon including a detailed list of all comics describing events in the 616 Marvel continuity that and perhaps also a list of semi-canon works such as the Age of Apocalypse because it was a possible future that did come to pass but was corrected AND gave the 616 timeline important players such as X-Man and Sugar Man. Thoughts? Feelings? Suggestions?
Zephyrprince20:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
So, basically, your idea boils down to doing a synopsis of every single comic published by Marvel since November 1961, that's set in the Marvel Universe or set in an alternate universe but impacted the main continuity somehow? Or am I reading it wrong? -- Pc1322:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Zephyrprince, welcome to Wikipedia. Don't you think a list of all the events in the 616 continuity might be rather long? After all 616 includes pretty much every Marvel title except the Ultimate ones.Iron Ghost22:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I don't mean that we would describe the events but rather list the issues and series set in the 616 continuity and it is perposterous to say that Ultimate titles are the only ones not set in 616. A great deal of volume one of Excalibur takes place in other worlds although that would be on the second list that I proposed because it involves key players' 616 personas (the same could be said for Mutant X), the 1602 titles are not 616, the Rogue mini-series is arguably not cannon because of discontinuity, the Children of the Atom series, the Mangaverse, Days of Future Past is semi-cannon as is the XSE limited series, and there are countless more. yes, a great deal of what has been published is cannon but that is the point. Zephyrprince23:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
That would be a very large list. I'm not sure it's practical either, and it would involve a lot of discussion. Even some stories set in the regular books had their continuity slightly changed by further retcons - see the original Whizzer's first modern appearance, where he didn't recognize Captain America's voice, but was later revealed to have worked plenty of times with the original Invaders, or when Wolverine was revealed to have a different genetic make-up than a mutant, because he was supposed to be revealed as one of the High Evolutionary's New Men. Besides, why wouldn't Excalibur v1 be in the 616 list? It envolves the 616 members of Excalibur travelling through alternate dimensions, and still affects their personal continuities. So does Bishop's alternate future. See, we're having an argument about canonity already. :-D -- Pc1307:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless, 616 continuity comprises the vast bulk of everything Marvel have produced for over fourty years. A list would have to include several thousands of issues, you would have to go back all the way to Namor the Sub-Mariner (1939). Iron Ghost 00:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
`Well that appeals to me. If anyone else is interested, please contact me. Zephyrprince01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the listing of individual issues is practical for the wikipedia. Maybe this is something that could be bundled into our wikicities proposal? --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 03:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
That one I could get behind. I've always wanted a Marvel wikicity, although I wanted to one to deal not only with the in-story concepts, but also with the real world aspects, mainly editorial. -- Pc1307:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Zephyrprince. Do you have any idea how big a listing of every issue set in Earth-616 would be? It would literally be thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of entries. —Lowellian (reply) 11:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
British Small Press (mainly)
Thought I'd introduce myself - User:Peteashton. Relatively new Wikipedian though I've been using it for a long while now. I've been involved with the British small press comics scene for a good 15 years now and have amassed a rather daunting number of zines and issues of TCJ. Seems logical to transfer that information onto Wikipedia.
My plan is to circle around the Escape crowd and develop a history of British small press comics, something I've been meaning to do for a couple of years now. Then I'll start on the US scene (Top Shelf, Highwater, D&Q, Non, etc). And then.....
Partly in response to Hiding's post at Talk:Wolverine_(comics)#Section_listings, partly because this came up before, we didn't get anything near a consensus and it fizzled out.
I accept, even if I don't like, the fact that most people want Ultimate versions included in the main articles. With that in mind, here's how I think articles should go, as a starting point. Characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc that have become more general pop culture icons aren't included so much in this.
(Introduction)
Obvious, no actual heading. Basically listing current/primary codename, real name, other significant codenames, publishing company, creators. Since long intros seem to be frowned upon in general, that should be pretty much it.
Publication history (open to renaming suggestions for most of these)
Real-life history of the character, who wrote it, what series they've had, their longevity, etc. Focusing on the comic, but passing mentions of all other-media versions, and acknowledging where these versions have impacted on the comics. Also mentioning reboots, etc.
Primary continuity - Golden Age version', Pre-Crisis version, Post-Crisis version, Marvel Universe version, etc if there's more than one comics version, Character biography if there isn't.
Filling in the first (or primary, if the "main" version isn't the original) continuity version of the character's history. Subsequent sections, Ultimate Marvel version, etc should follow if necessary, noting divergances. If the character is sufficiently different, in name, etc, or the article is excessively long, then this should be short and a Main article: ARTICLE NAME link should be provided.
Appearances in other media
Again, this depends on the significance of the other-media versions. If it can be covered in a sufficiently short space, here, otherwise breakout.
Powers and abilities
Discussing the commonalities only of the "major" versions (except where one, as with SuperfriendsWonder Woman is completely different), leaning towards the primary and current versions but not excluding the others. Should not be excessive, or copyvio OHOTMU, etc stats - which are rarely held to in the comics anyway.
Bibliography
Sub-heading: List of titles
This should be a complete list of all solo stories of the character, as with most comics bibliographies now [i.e. in the form Booperman #1-499 (Geldof 3092 - Hexember 3189, Fictional Comics), etc as a bulleted list]
Sub-heading: List of Significant stories
What it says on the tin, with the same idea as #Essential Reading above. Need to be checked for POV, etc, obviously.
My thoughts SoM responded to were to have the powers section as a subsection of the main cahracter biography, and the Ultimate version and other media at the end, to discuss variations from the main character. Otherwise, to me, it doesn't seem clear which version the powers belong to, and if there are some characters whose divergent alter egos have differing powers, it makes sense to have established the original powers before discussing the diverging character's powers.
(Introduction)
Publication history
Character biography discusses the root version, with subsections on powers etc.
Other versions discusses the differences between the version in question and the root version.
Character in other media discusses the differences between this version and the root version.
Bibliography
References We should start providing these where we can, I know, it's silly to list vast swathes of issues, but if there is stuff like in the X-Men article where we say Claremont left due to clashes with the editorial, we could try and provide a reference for that.
External Links
However, I would still suggest the other media section should be below the powers section in the above version, if that one is preferred, again for clarity.
My main reason for keeping the powers section out of the MU/etc version is to encourage brevity, if I'm going to be honest. I have a real problem where people feel the need to copy out a load of power stats which only saw print in the OHOTMU, etc and have little basis in actual stories (since such have the double-whammy of reducing the readability by including tons of redundant information and potentially copyvioing the Who's Who/Handbooks/etc, as with the pics we're discussing above). In 90%+ of cases, the only difference between "Other media" versions of the powers and the "primary" version is the precise power levels.
And, since you talk about "root" versions for the powers... which is the "root" version? Taking Superman as an example, is it the original Golden Age version (as "root" implies) that could only jump, not fly, the Silver Age version that notoriously sneezed away a planet, or the current, Post-Crisis, version which is somewhere in-between? - SoM16:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc that have become more general pop culture icons aren't included so much in this.. However, yeah, I take the point. I think Jamdav86's version down below solves that problem. What do you think? I have some objections I'll address there. Hidingtalk17:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Not so sure - it doesn't really solve the problem at hand, since it only discusses changes to powers of one version -really, it just makes things that bit more complicated (BTW, as you guessed, Superman was just the most convienient example I could think of :)) - SoM19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it is a pickle. Looking at Wolverine (comics) I'm still of the opinion the other media section should come last before External links as the page is now, since other media portrayals don't differentiate hugely from the character and are seperate enough from the lineage (in the sense that they are not comics) that to me they should be seperate and an addition to the article, rather than within the flow of the comic book character section. Superman, [Batman]] and Spider-Man all do this. Also, looking at Superman and Batman, they tend to discuss the character's evolution and so on, examining them as fictional characters rather than offering a biography as if real. Not sure what the thoughts are on that approach. Hidingtalk21:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the intro suggested is repeating much of the information in the box to the right so that shold be rethought.--Jamdav8609:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought that too, but when I brought that up before I got jumped on since there's apparently some convention that no information should be exclusively in an infobox or somesuch - SoM16:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Might be, although I've never seen templates stop working (Images, yes, templates, no). AFAIK, it's simply a convention that everything should be in the text in some form (I've got no problem with this if it's in expanded/explained form in the text (or falls in naturally), since the infobox is a brief summary by nature). Still, it doesn't do much harm, I suppose. - SoM19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Otherwise, this is the article layout I'll suggest:
Introduction (see comment above)
Publication History (how the character was created, titles appeared in etc.)
Biography
Original version
original Powers
Subsequent versions
Changes to powers
Ultimate version {if applicable} (following much of the same principles as Spider-Woman, with its own infobox (perhaps without picture unless extemly different from convention e.g. Green Goblin) and powers etc. or Main article: ARTICLE NAME at the top and short summary without box (as suggested above) if it has its own article. (Possibly state info outside this section refers to the regular version of this character))
Appearences in other media (this section (along with all others) should be included at all times, even if it means writing "This character has had no apperances in other media", to keeep with the idea that it is confoming to the template.
The problem I have with this is the multiple info boxes, which to me don't work too well at Spider-Woman , with the info boxes hanging down into the next version, especially on versions 3 and 4 where 4 is below the text and creates a lot of dead space. Thoughts? Hidingtalk17:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the main reasons (altho by no means the only) I objected to merging the Ult versions in with the MU versions, actually. I've occasionally used multiple infoboxes on a page (as with Nova (comics)) where there's no real alternative, but then I've made sure to use the {{-}} template to seperate them (at the cost, unfortunately, of more "dead space"). I've changed the SW page to use that - although I don't like the use of Roman Numerals to distinguish them like that (isn't it actually wrong anyway, since even if Mattie is more notable, Charlotte used the SW name first?). Better to use the real names.
Jessica's I, Julia's II, but although Mattie debuted first and is more prominent, I think Charlotte is III in terms of the use of the Spider-Woman name.
And I don't like the use of the Roman numerals because it does lead to confusion (if you'll look, you'll notice that Marvel's most recent Handbooks have dropped the numbering and just distinguish by real name for the same reason) - SoM23:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Where there's a lineage, my preference (as it has been all along) would be to keep the main page (e.g. Green Lantern) to the discussion of the lineage itself, and make seperate pages for the notable holders of the title (minor holders could be grouped into a List of Green Lanterns, etc, or kept on the main page) - SoM19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think that it would add another layer of complication to someone who is interested in starting to read the comics or watch the cartoon of a team e.g. JLA and has only clicked through to Green Lantern to find out why it mentions V after his name. --Jamdav8611:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Another option?
Just to move this on a bit, no-one else seems to have joined in.
I like it, because its similar to my suggestion above and I don't really care about where the powers and abilities section is --Jamdav8618:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Definitions of terms
I'm a newbie to WikiProject Comics, although I've contributed a couple of articles to the general Wikipedia, so tell me if I'm out of line here - for example, if this issue has already been settled somewhere else.
It seems to me that one of the most important discussions to have here is to determine the scope of the terms "comics", "comic strips", "webcomics", "comic books", "cartoons", "animated cartoons", "graphic novels", "manga", and so on. (They may be overlapping.)
Example 1: I was highly annoyed to find that the Wikipedia article on Max and Moritz describes it as a comic strip. Max and Moritz is an illustrated rhymed story, and I don't see any meaningful distinction between it and "The Cat in the Hat" by Dr. Seuss. The reason it's frequently mentioned in histories of comic strips is that it was an inspiration for The Katzenjammer Kids, which is clearly one of the early comic strips.
Example 2: According to the discussion page, Astérix, Jeremiah, and Tintin were removed from the List of comic strips page because they were considered comic books. In that case, the same should apply to Blake and Mortimer. Some other questionable entries are Believe It Or Not!, which is not narrative; Dennis the Menace (UK), which is a full page in a comic book (in tabloid format); and Howard the Duck, which is a comic book.
Since my main interest is newspaper comic strips, I would like to suggest the distinguishing characteristics of comic strips, and open the floor for discussion. When consensus is reached, the next step would be to eliminate noncompliant works from the List of comic strips.
1. A comic strip must have pictures. It need not have words (allow pantomime strips like Henry and Ferd'nand). If it has words, they may be in speech balloons, captions, or both (allow Prince Valiant and Tarzan). Speech balloons are not necessarily enclosed. Captions should be within the panel area, or one or two lines of text directly underneath it (allow Dennis the Menace and Marmaduke; disallow Dave Barry's humor column with MacNelly illustrations, Rodolphe Töpffer's stories, Droodles). A panel is a single picture, representing a scene caught at a single moment, with its attendant text (dialogue or caption), usually enclosed in a frame line.
2. A comic strip is a serial publication. It appears in a periodical printed medium of communication, usually a newspaper or magazine (should the Internet be allowed?). Normally it continues to appear for an indefinite period, as long as it remains in demand, or until the author dies or retires. Individual installments of the strip, corresponding to single issues of its host medium, are narrative - they tell a story or part of a story. Installments may consist of one or several panels (note that most multi-panel comic strips occasionally use a single panel when appropriate, e.g. Non Sequitur). Consecutive installments may or may not form an extended narrative. There may or may not be continuing characters (allow Bizarro and Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend).
3. A comic strip, reproduced in any other medium, is still a comic strip. Some of the earliest comic books were devoted to reprints of comic strips, and there are many collections of comic strips in book format.
4. A comic book is not a comic strip. I wasn't able to come up with a clear criterion to distinguish between comic strips and comic books. Does the word "strip" imply one horizontal row? If there are multiple rows of panels in an installment (or, a fortiori, multiple pages), does that make it a comic book story? Ed Wheelan's newspaper comic strip Minute Movies typically had two rows of panels crammed together horizontally. It would be a shame to separate Sunday funnies from daily comic strips: most of them have the same titles, authors, and continuities as the dailies. In the first half of the twentieth century, many Sunday funnies occupied all or nearly all of a newspaper page. If the daily Gasoline Alley is a comic strip, the Sunday Gasoline Alley page should be too. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to call The Spirit a comic book. It was distributed with the Sunday newspaper, but its stories covered several full pages. Should all magazines devoted primarily to cartoon stories be called comic books? Should Sergio Aragonés's "drawn-out drawings" in MAD be called a comic strip? How about the Hazel cartoons in the Saturday Evening Post, by Ted Key, or Hoest's Laugh Parade in Parade Magazine? How about Pee Wee Harris in Boys' Life? I would disallow The Spirit, "drawn-out drawings", Hazel, Laugh Parade, and Pee Wee Harris. Is that the consensus?
A quick response, hopefully I'll have time for a more detailed one later. You raise interesting points. First, Max and Moritz I have seen referred to as a comic strip outside of Wikipedia, so I don't think it is unfair to use the term, although perhaps not so definitively as it currently is.
The definitions of all the terms you mention are, unfortunately, not extremely well defined outside of wikipedia, and since we can't take a POV, they really have to remain pretty ill defined here, I would have thought?
Well, suppose I looked for categorizations in ten different books about comic strips by recognized authorities, and found that they overwhelmingly rejected Max and Moritz as a comic strip?
Brian Walker, in his book "The Comics Before 1945" (paraphrased), says that comic strips are hard to pin down, because comic strip creators are constantly innovating and changing the scope of the definition. That looks bad for my case... Gwil01:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't looked at List of comic strips, but again, the term is ill defined. In the UK we call most things comic strips, regardless of format, and some scholars hold that a comic book is merely the publication format and what is inside is the comic strip. It all gets rather complicated when you remove the strip from the comic book and place it in a raphic novel, for instance, Maus is often referred to as a graphic novel when it started life as a strip. So yes, I can disagree with the removal of Tintin et al from those lists, but I can also understand why they were removed.
As to your characteristics, I fail to see why one would remove Tpffer's stories from the list, whilst allowing single panels. Single panels are not a strip, since they do not appear stripped, there is no sequence, it is only one panel, and therefore they do not fit the term, which was created to define sequential panels, at least as I understand it. Single panels are cartoons.
Maybe this is a North American PoV (I think also South American). I'm predisposed to calling anything on the comics page of a newspaper a "comic strip", unless it's a feature (horoscope, Jumble, etc.). But if you consider the single-panel cartoons as a serial - weeks' or years' worth of one title - I think they're more like than unlike a multi-panel comic strip. Gwil
The second one seems too inclusive, I can not see anything which would not be included with that definition, but I don't take exceptional objection past the single panel issue discussed above.
You're right, characteristic 2 doesn't eliminate very much. I stuck it in to give a clearer idea of comic strips to the proverbial man from Mars who doesn't know anything about Earth culture. Gwil
The third one, again is how I understand it but is also contentious, as per Maus.
The fourth one seems to me easily solved if one sees a comic book as a format publishing comic strips, as is the case in the UK. In the U.S. market I am not so sure that that definition is still applicable, even though, as you say, that is the roots of the form. I don't think a comic strip should be distinguished as being of one horizontal row, as that disregards European usage of the term completely. Dan Dare, Tintin and so on are all comic strips. However, a neat sidestep of the issue may be to rename the list as a list of newspaper comic strips and thus only include those strips that appear in newspapers. Hidingtalk09:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Last thoughts. The Spirit is most definitely thought of as a comic strip, and I think the consensual fudge at the moment is to use comics as the catch all, possibly for all bar cartoons. Hidingtalk09:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback.
BTW, this discussion isn't from out of the blue. I wanted to make some additions to List of comic strips, but I wasn't sure where to draw the line. Gwil
This category lists newspaper comic strip cartoonists. Those who illustrate comic strips for British or European comics or albums, are categorised as comics artists.
Does that help any? I think as you say, it is a question of usage of the term comic strip around the world that causes the problem. I think if the list clearly defines what is included and not included, that would solve inclusion and exclusion issues somewhat. At the moment the list uses the comic strip article as its definition for inclusion and exclusion, which currently doesn't discuss the single panel, which at the moment has an article at Gag cartoon, but does include the European and UK definition. However the article is currently somewhat North American centric. However, this discussion, if it relates to List of comic strips, is probably best had there. Hidingtalk13:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
