Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)' FAR

I have nominated Captain Marvel (DC Comics) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Quicksilver

Someone might want to mediate at Quicksilver (comics), just FYI. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the issue? Starblueheather (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian edit warring and not taking up the suggestion to talk it to the talk page [1]. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Incorrect and not seeing the whole picture. There is discussion, and comments made in Edit Summaries. Just trying to get another editor who looks to have the "mutant bug" to appreciate some stylistic points. Please don't make generalizations. Asgardian (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD doesn't mean - carry on reverting just use better edit summaries. It means take this to a talk page to thrash out until a consensus can be arrived at. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Obitwatch

Dick Giordano

Seems Dick Giordano has sadly passed away. Worth keeping an eye out for obituaries, as there are probably going to be a few and have a look around for an image we can use for his infobox. It'll also be getting a bit more traffic so worth keeping an eye on the article generally. Emperor (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the DoD in the lead and 'box. Also added a ref to the piece run on Newsarama. - J Greb (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Scarpelli

Henry Scarpelli has died, [2] so I though I'd repurpose the section. Anyway the article could do with quite a bit of work so if anyone finds any obits throw them in. (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Eddie Brock

Wasn't he edit warring over this same image previously? [3] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've reverted it. Given the amount of discussion and a clear consensus for the current image I don't think you can just go changing it without more discussion. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

I still don't think it's right to use an image of Eddie in mid-transformation. It's not like his character is usually represented as having his upper body exposed like that. Either use a picture of him as Brock or him as Venom. DrBat (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA noms

So Boy's Ranch passed the GA assessment second time round thanks to everyone's input.

We now have a couple more up for GA which fall within our remit: An Ideal World and Bizenghast. Manhua and OEL manga may be outside the areas of expertise of many here but such articles often also need a good check on the fundamentals, so there is always something someone can do. (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Can anyone help me with Development of Watchmen? Only sourcing is left for it to pass! igordebraga ≠ 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

removing citation requests

A series of IP anons have been removing citation requests: [4], [5], [6] Please help me keep an eye on these. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one: [7] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Archenemy (one more time)

Is this sufficient? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit of a mess - just Googling X + archenemy is probably going to get you some hits (especially if people use a loose or sloppy definition of the term) but are they reliable? The popurl link, for example is really just an aggregator drawing on io9's article [8]. The comment is classic, they know he is, but what we know isn't important here, it is what we can prove. Sooooo does find a handful of random links make it so? I'd like to see a more solid source - like one of those 500 top supervillain books or some of the creators saying so, as anyone who off-hand says "X is an archenemy of Y" online is going to be hoovered up to prove it. Thoughts on this anyone? (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Will Jacobs and Gerard Jones "The Comic Book Heroes" uses archvillain (one word) - they use it for Dr Doom as the FF's (p66) and may use it elsewhere. But I suspect that the best bet for these problems will be an interview with one of the writers in a fanzine - Amazing Heroes, Comics Journal etc. (and no, I'm not about to go and have a look, I'm still knee deep in Marvelman stuff! :) Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this as an reliable source. [9]Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so much - I think it's a good idea to have a "name" as a source of authority, rather than an anonymous person writing a comic book blurb. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I think if the Marvel site itself says or allows it, it should be ok. But I see your point too. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvelman rewrite advice

I could do with some advice.

The re-write of Marvelman is proving to be something of a beast. I've been essentially swamped with material, and while the original article, which was missing many key elements (see the talk page for a rough list) ran to 40k, currently the rewrite is now pushing 50k even though I've hived off the complex legal issues to a separate linked page (as per the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications legal wrangling - the Marvelman issues are probably the most complex and far-reaching comics legal case since). The new version comprehensively covers Publication history - Fictional character history - Unpublished material - Other versions - Awards - Bibliography and creator, style, philosophy quotes as can be strongly cited (there's some 80+ footnotes/citations). My suspicion is that by end it'll be touching 60k. After 3 re-shapings and savage textual cuts, I can't see how to cut it further without removing key stuff, which will mean remodelling. Bearing in mind the characters historical 'keyness':

• is 60+k acceptable? Or should I be looking at hiving off such as the bibliography (although that's not particularly long)
• is there some other way of slicing it (I can't find any precedents)
• or is it just about being brutal?

Graphics are a problem - there's 4 at the moment which are tilted towards Eclipse publications. Bearing in mind the four distinct publication phases, I'd suggest that the box image should be a classic Anglo period one, with one of the Eclipse images replaced by a second-phase Warrior one, and either dropping the fourth (anthology reprint) one or replacing it with the 'I'm back' one used for the Marvel revival announcement. Suggestions?

I had hoped to put a copy up on my area by now, but it's taking longer than I thought. If it would help, the working version can be slapped up tonight and I'll give the link here (it's pretty solid in most areas but has notes and unpolished bits in some sections). I'm not deadlining this, it'll get finished when it's finished (and I'm having fun doing it), but I'd prefer to publish in a good condition, rather than rough it all out later and cause others' work. Views from the void muchly welcome, the sooner the better Archiveangel (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)