User talk:J Greb - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qilinmon (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 29 June 2008 (→Another set of eye ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:08, 29 June 2008 by Qilinmon (talk | contribs) (→Another set of eye ...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:J Greb/Archive Jan 2025. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

Etrigan

I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but I just thought a Kirby image better suited the article than a Byrne one (and I'm also the one who uploaded the Byrne image, btw). --DrBat (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of figured that was the reason, but it's just an "I like" change. Both image satisfy the 'box criteria, so the change made very little sense. More so since it was a recolored, reworked Kirby image for an upcoming trade.

I could see it if "By the artist that help create the character or group." But I don't think that would fly since a lot of good 'box images would be turffed out, some of them to be replaced by less than iconic ones.

Something to mull over for the Etrigan article though — Would it be considered reasonable to have a spot image of The Demon #1 (1972) at the top of the publication history? It would be contextual since the section gives a bibliography, and it also be of historical significance to the charter - 1st appearance and by Kirby. - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Doom

I know Doom is known for being the Fantastic Four's villain, but isn't he also a villain of The Avengers? He was the villain in an arc just last year. Rau's Speak Page 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The premise of the navboxes is for easy navigation of the core elemnts of the topics. For the super hero/team ones "core" for foes should be limited to those central to the topic. In Doom's case, that's only the FF. Yes, he's been used in Avengers stories as a foe, and most other Marvel books, but he isn't a core villain to them.

About the only two exceptions to this that I can think of are Kingpin (core to Spider-Man, where the character was created and more or less regularly returns, and Daredevil, where the character was "loaned" and was made intrigal to the character by long use) and Punisher (core to Spider-Man where the character was introduced and fleshed out early one and to the Punisher, natch). - J Greb (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Kay. Just wondering. Rau's Speak Page 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Vision

Need some help here. Check out Talk as I'd like to see some consistency with images and I think one editor has some ownership issues.

Asgardian (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Smith

Could you delete Kevin Smith so Kevin Smith (film maker) can be moved back (it was moved against consensus less than a day ago from the original title)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the trouble. I forgot that you can't move titles over existing titles unless the existing title is a redirect to the current title. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nico Minoru

Actually, I was swapping the image back. But yeah, there are probably too many images in that article. — Gwalla | Talk 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

your reasoning on category removals

Hi. I was just curious about your reasoning behind removing the 2 categories associated with this edit.--Rockfang (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That they're built into the infobox that was added. Note that both are still at the bottom of the article. - J Greb (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel dumb. :) I saw they were removed edit wise, but forgot to check if the end result was them being gone, or just added in a different fashion. Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem... Though I should likely be adding "... and restructure categories" to the edit summaries. Especially since there are cases where I'm removing parents to subs that are inplcae at the same time. (see Hall of Justice) - J Greb (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BatgirlHelenaBertinelli.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BatgirlHelenaBertinelli.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SpectacularVenom2.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SpectacularVenom2.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Removing actors who portrayed Spider-Man from templates serves as a double-standard!

Why is it okay for actors who portrayed Batman (e.g. Adam West, Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, etc.) and Superman (e.g. Christopher Reeve, George Reeves, Tim Daly, etc.) to be included in templates that also featured the various television and film adaptations of said characters throughout the years, but not Spider-Man!? I seriously don't believe that you're doing the Spidey template any favors by removing the actors' names. TMC1982 (talk) 11:51 p.m., 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean {{Batman}} and {{Superman}} where there isn't a real person listed aside from the creators, nor a specific film, television show, or game? Or are you looking at {{Batman in popular media}} and {{Superman in popular media}} which are dedicated to that? I seem to remember at least implying that the second would be appropriate for Spidey as well. If I was to vague, let me try again:

The list of actors, as well as the detailed list of shows, films, and games should be moved to {{Spider-Man in popular media}} not crammed into {{Spider-Man}}. This is consistent with the methods used for both Superman and Batman.

Clear enough? Actually... lets get that done now.

Also, you may want to doing blind reverts as you overrode other editors contributions just to get your version back. - J Greb (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea to "cram" the various Spidey related TV shows, movies, video games, etc. into the general comic book stuff in the first place. So don't blame me for instantly assuming that the actors who portrayed Spider-Man should also belong in the general template (at the time). TMC1982 (talk) 12:15 a.m., 23 June 2008 (UTC)

JL/JLA

I only RR'd twice. In the spirit of accurate information, that will cause confusion amongst readers as soon as the JL debuts. Are they JL or JLA? I understand the name shifts in the past, but here and now we are talking about two different teams with different team members. -CmdrClow (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, once it be came a point of contention when BBiA pulled it the second time you should have taken it to the talk page, not just simply added it a third time. The kicker was the all caps in your edit summary for that third insertion at the JLA list and the Outsiders. That elevated your burgeoning edit war, good intentions or not, into a shouting match.

You have now inserted the information for a fourth time, even though it has been brought to your attention the general etiquette would be for you to explain why the change needs to be made on the relevant talk pages and seek a consensus for that change. When this fourth insertion is reversed, please take it to the talk pages instead of just doggedly re-adding a fifth time.

As for the name itself:

Team members on the JLA list currently lack notation when they have served on specific incarnations of the Justice League that existed in tandem with others:
- Captain Atom — Justice league Europe which was concurrent with Justice League America
- Elongated Man — Same
- Wonder Woman — Same
- Flash (Wally) — Justice League Elite which was concurrent with JLA
- Green Arrow (Ollie) - Same
Are you proposing the same naming change be made to the base article, Justice League? Or will the information for the new series be treated a supplemenatl to the current article?

- J Greb (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I just re-added the information for a third time. Not a fourth. Second of all, the Justice League article sufficiently represents the correct name of the current team in the herobox at the top right of the page. There's no need to change the name of the parent article. When representing current leaguers, then the correct names must be maintained.

When Robinson's team premieres and we have the article say that Batman is active in the Justice League and Supergirl is active in the Justice League, it will be factually inaccurate. If it says that Batman is active in the Justice League of America and Supergirl is active in the Justice League, then it will be correct. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clow, you do understand the difference between "inserted" and "reverted", right? Just to clarify:

You have inserted the information four time now. That is you have added it in with out respect to it having been there before.

You have reverted to you initial edit three times now. That is you have undone edits to remove the same material you want there.

Beyond that, you are making your pitch in the wrong venue: post the suggestion either at the list pages in question (JL and Outsiders) and/or the project talk. The project page might not be a bad idea since we could use a bit more consistency with listing other team memberships as well as minor points.

And as far as the list goes: the JL members list article has always been a problem since the rigid status quo is to treat it as one and only one team. Also, inherently in-universe changes should absolutely wait for the book to be published. As the members list is wholly in-universe, wait. This is the same problem that arose with Blue Beetle and the TT list. Adding to the list based on solicits and interviews before the books hit the stands was wrong then, and it is wrong here. - J Greb (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Software bug?

I think there might be a bug in the Template:Infobox Asian comic series. For all manhua articles using it like The Ravages of Time for example, there is a ] at the top. Benjwong (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed it too! Manhwa is the same way and Category:Manhwa is all but empty, LOL. Darn bugs! Benjwong, if you're reading this, J Greb just deployed the new infobox today and there's been a small side effect, as you can see. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK... the bugs should be dead... and Benjwong, there is a thread here (Infobox fields (_name)} where I'm posting a bit more information. - J Greb (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about numbering

Just wondering: what's with renaming issue #13 of a DC comic "#DC-13"? Ford MF (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I dug the information up here, with the extension series here. Looking at it, I should have added those as references, both in the article and for the images, as well as this and this. One thing the indexing makes clear is that issues #DC-7 through #DC-13 were double numbered as part of the DC 100-Page Super Spectacular and titles the title each issue headlined. - J Greb (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, my bad. I didn't see the part of the article that dealt with the series' numbering. I thought some new Wikiproject numbering style was being introduced or something. Thanks for explaining. Ford MF (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:New Gods 1971 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:New Gods 1971 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Marvel Zombie 2 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Marvel Zombie 2 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Batman139.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Batman139.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GothamKnights43.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GothamKnights43.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Another set of eye ...

Was wondering if you could be another set of eyes on Talk:Captain America#Intelligence. There has been an on-going discussion about Cap's intelligence. It was my impression that the consensus reached was for "no evidence of peak intelligence" and was based on an evaluation of fictional stories in the initial discussion thread. I have posed to insert a statement for "intelligence augmentation" (no extent qualifiers) and have provided both fictional and 3rd party sources; however, most of the purposal has been met with incivilty and threats. This is a lengthy discussion thread, so it might be a little time consuming, but any time you could provide to look over the content of the discussion would be appreciated. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Psylocke

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. There was no reason for you to revert that image..you merely don't like it and have been pettily wathcing this page like a dog over his favorite rawhide chew. Qilinmon (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)