Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 11 July 2009

Comics Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

New article improvement drive

I decided to let the Good Article drive part 2 go into the archives. I think we started out strong, achieving several Good Articles in Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Pride & Joy (comics), and Hergé - that's no small achievement. :) Michel Vaillant is currently up for review; the last one from that GA drive left to be looked at.

I think eventually the idea ran out of steam, though; partly because I am too busy now to do much of the work myself as I did earlier on, partly because I lack a lot of the sources that could really make things work, and partly because other folks had the same issues. On top of that, the crops we were looking through to find good candidates were getting thinner and thinner.

An idea I came up with would be to have something of an "improvement noticeboard", where we could post links to peer reviews and failed GANs/FACs and the like, as well as a place for people to post their own suggestions on how to improve an article. To repeat myself from before: We have articles that we badly want to see as GA, but either no one is quite sure how to fix what needs fixing, or the sources are unavailable to the people willing to do the work, or "circumstance X" is preventing article improvement. I think if we have a centralized place to look for stuff like this, it would help for someone with time on their hands and looking for something to work on. We could list GA/FA hopefuls there, as well as failed or delisted GA/FAs. Nothing below a C-class should be listed there, because there are a ton of Starts & Stubs and having too much on a page like that would detract from people wanting to do something. (And, I would recommend not going crazy with C's either, just the ones where you could spell out the issues pretty succinctly and still get the whole point across.)

Here's what I'm thinking. Say you need more reliable sources for an article but are not sure where to look. Say you need better sources for one section of an article. Say you need a total rewrite for a section or two. Say you need reorganization for certain parts of the article. Say you need an expanded publication history. If the overall goal is to take the article to GA or better, you would start an entry on this page, detailing what you think it needs; other people can add to this as well. You would include notes from any failed nomination, as well as comments from the article's talk page, and any improvement tags which are currently on the article. We could even use this page to list improvements on FAs whose quality is decreasing or otherwise in doubt (Roy of the Rovers anyone?) and same with faltering GAs which have not been delisted. You fix a problem, you remove it from the list. What do you say?

To that end, I have nominated Fantastic Four, Peanuts, Jack Kirby, and Alan Moore for peer review. When we have a few of these pages in the works, I think we'll be able to set up a community noticeboard subpage, for people who are looking to do some "heavy lifting". Any other requests for articles you'd like to see peer reviewed? :) That would best be anything you want to get improved but are not quite sure what to do with it yourself. BOZ (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic... ;) Scott Free just informed me that he has put Al Williamson up for peer review and intends to take it to GA, and he let me know because of our work on Alex Raymond. :) BOZ (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff - I'd definitely go for the idea of a separate page so we can list articles and keep the focus on important ones. (Emperor (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

We can also do the same for current GAs that we want to take to FA. :) BOZ (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant has not made GA (improvements were made, but not enough in time), and Al Williamson has a completed peer review. When I get the other ones completed which I nominated for PR, I can set up the page I've been talking about. BOZ (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Peanuts and Fantastic Four have received peer reviews now. When I get a moment, I think we have barely enough for me to start putting that page together. I'll have to look around to see what other types of noticeboards I can model it on. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby now has a review. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated Roy of the Rovers for review, in case anyone would be interested in keeping it at FA. :) Any other suggestions? BOZ (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, looka that - Superman Returns, Fritz the Cat, Watchmen (film), and Charlie Chan are all nominated for GA. :) BOZ (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just nominated Bill Finger for peer review. BOZ (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Batman: The Dark Knight Returns for peer review now; at this point I am just going through articles mentioned in previous threads with any decent amount of enthusiasm and hitting them, unless someone else has some more recent input here. :) BOZ (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Roy of the Rovers now has a review. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated Will Eisner for peer review. BOZ (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominating Anole for a review. Last time I got some great feedback while fixing the article, but no rating was given. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave you some, too. :) Peer review doesn't actually change the rating of an article, it's just intended to give you suggestions on how to improve an article. If you want to take the next step, and you think it's ready, you go to Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations and see what happens! It would be great to have some more character articles as GAs, especially on ones that are less major than the big names. BOZ (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I'll try there.Luminum (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Finger and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns now have some comments on the peer review. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability and fiction

WP:FICT: There is an RfC discussing the consensus on notability and how it applies to elements of fiction. Please feel free to comment on views and proposals, and add your own at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction.

New article needing expansion

Hi. I recently created an article stub for comic artist Chris Mowry (most notably from Transformers comics), seeing as he was referenced in several other articles, but lacked an article of his own. The article will welcome your additions, since its notability has been questioned. Regards. uKER (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Migraine boy

Hi. I recently created an article on the comic strip called Migraine boy. Although where I live it was quite well known back in the 90's, it doesn't seem to have shared the same popularity in the US. Nevertheless, it appeared in several written press media, so some of you may know it. If you don't, there's a large amount of strips in the author's website, linked at the bottom of the article. Also, since the creation of the article, I was contacted by its author, Greg Fiering, who is open to providing any information he can to contribute to the article. Currently, I reckon it's pretty lacking in citations, but it's hard to provide sources when most of the info comes from the comic itself. So there, your contributions will be much welcome. --uKER (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wazzup_dog

Special:Contributions/Wazzup_dog - I'm going to clean that up momentarily, but please keep an eye out for more. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:A for helping! 67.175.176.178 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

In the interests of not edit warring, could someone take a look at this? If I'm in the wrong, I'll be happy to back down. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the issue is. Can you explain, please?Luminum (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "fictional" in "fictional character" and removing the creators' info from the lead. This seems to be standard practice in comics characters' articles, but a series of anons have been removing that info. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Few ¢...

• I've never really been a fan of the term "fictional character", it's either redundant or implies a level of meta-fiction. "A character in works of fiction" though hasn't met with resounding approval.
• The creators should always be there if possible.
• So should the term "the character", it helps reinforce that this is part of a work of fiction.
• And the lead should be an overview of the article, not just the "fan approved" bits.

- J Greb (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - multiple IPs have been carrying out a revert war for some time now. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when has removing "fictional" become any kind of standard? Where was this decided? We are supposed to stress the fictional nature. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general question, when does "a character in ____" describe a real individual? Isn't it just redundant?Luminum (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Character has a lot of meanings. "John Adams was a character in the drama that was the Revolutionary War", although maybe that's reaching. The real reason we use it is that a lot of people don't like articles on fictional characters, and this resulted in emphasizing that fictional topics are fictional as much as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Infinity Gauntlet

I was checking out the Infinity Gauntlet page and was rather concerned with the content. Although, the info box pointed to the mini-series, the content seemed to focus exclusively on the magic-glove. I was inquiring if there were are any other like minded editors, interested in working on a restructing/rewrite of the page. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

And your tag resulted in a gut and trivialize... I've left a few comments on the articles talk page. - J Greb (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama (comic character)

Does anyone think this article should be moved to something like Fictionalized portrayals of Barack Obama? --DrBat (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I completely agree. The page is silly. I vote to move it along with some sever alteration. (Is a character box actually necessary or appropriate? What about other in-comic portrayals of Obama?) Let's stem this now.Luminum (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

David A and Asgardian

This conflict has been heating up lately, with a lot of edit warring today. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm always suspicious of sockpuppet usage if an informed anonymous ip sudddenly pops up (so if there is a service to check if it is a sock, I'd appreciate the help), but being a habitual truth-sayer, Asgardian's brand of systematic manipulation really drives me nuts with the blatant deceit, false justifications, very selective censoring information-control, and double-standards, especially given that he's a proven sockpuppet user, has stated that he finds my annoyance with his lies funny, never ever lets up, or listens to logic, simply waits for an opportunity, for half a year if need be, or uses a loophole when blatantly disproven, as was the case with Thanos. He's worn me down through literally hundreds of instances for years in a row, and is the by far most distrustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered, and by this time I even include JJonz in that ranking despite that the latter tended to send me and any "helpers" death-threats. At least he was deliberately blatant when he used a sock. I've tried talk page logic, used a variety of compromise versions etc, but I just don't have anywhere near the available energy, focus, or coordination to deal with him, his little schemes, or any severely biased adherent of a character I'm trying to clean up from inaccuracies, that he manages to whip up, anymore, and given that several of them sound pretty much the same to me, and Asgardian's by others proven sock usage, I can't even be sure that some of them aren't the same person. Some of the occasional influx of temporary ips that enforce his edits at times when he's been banned or doesn't want to be directly tied to an edit certainly seem to be at least. Dave (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely not Asgardian - I disagree with him far too often. Nor was I accusing anyone of anything, only stating explicity what you were both doing: edit warring. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I also share your concern. You two need to find a way to mediate.Luminum (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just some observations:

• Dave, "67" does have a solid track record as an editor. And that does include run-ins with Asgardian. I'm more than willing to take note when they say "Folks, problem here" be it on a specific article or with how 2 or more other editors are interacting.
• I'm not a fan of an editor dumping cited sections with little or no reason given in some articles while stating "Needs to be cited" for dumping other sections. But I'm also not a fan of pointed edit summaries used to score points with that.

- J Greb (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• At the most basic level, the ANON user has multiple edits with X-Men, which is not a general area editted by Asgardian. Pointing the finger and yelling sockpuppetry does not resolve some of the valid concerns regarding edit warring. There seemed to be many valid concerns from "match-ups" to the HANDBOOK, which both seem valid and need to be addressed (outside of edit summaries). -Sharp962 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

And while we're on the subject...

I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary. - J Greb (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Project-Class Comics pages
• NA-importance Comics pages
• Project-Class Comics articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject Comics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists