User talk:Ntnon

Hello there Ntnon, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How to edit a page and experiment at the sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages see the naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Cheers! -- Rotem Dan 21:53 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ntnon, and welcome again. You are very likely to get in touch with some other Wikipedians very soon for the picture you just uploaded for People Like Us. Copyright problems, you know. Good idea to write about the series. Looking forward to reading your contributions, --KF 15:08 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Erg. Copyright I thought would bo OK on that.. seeing as how the BBC website said it was OK to use it in promotional repects or something... Hmm.

Not quite, the promotional context is very narrowly defined on the site. But even if it was allowed, we strongly prefer public domain or FDL images, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. No harm done, I'll remove the image right away. --Eloquence 22:12 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah nuts. I presume you're sure..?! I did think quite hard about it... but I can't find any other public domain images, and I thought this would easily be covered by the disclaimers on the BBC site - http://www.bbcprograms.com/pbs/catalog/peoplelikeus/peoplephoto.htm - 'may be used for publicity purposes..' (Although that would explain why the picture keeps vanishing...!)

OK.. how about this.. Can I upload a logo for DC Comics...? Or anything that will promote the parties involved...?

Unfortunately, the part "may only be reproduced in a newspaper, magazine or on-air for publicity purposes in connection with the showing of the program as licensed by BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc. They may not be reproduced at any other time for any other purpose without a license from BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc. " pretty much kills it for us. Wikipedia is an educational resource that does not fulfill the above definition (it is neither newspaper, magazine nor on-air, and it is not "for publicity purposes"). You may of course try sending the BBC our Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission, but it is unlikely that they will agree. In cases like these, the only remaining course of action is fair use, but we try to limit this to very important images of high educational value.

Logos are even thornier, because that gets us into trademark territory as well. I would advise strongly against uploading them. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for further discussion. --Eloquence 22:34 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Righty-ho! I'll e-mail the BBC, then... and cross my fingers. You'd think that any publicity would be a good thing, really...

(What about TV stills? Fully creditted things..?!) :o) Oh, and track-listings, or transcriptions of sketches..? Presumably the former, not the latter..?

I knew it. And Eloquence seems to be one of the tough guys around here. Good luck to you anyway. --KF 23:03 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please use "Show preview" before saving a page. This way, if there is a problem the page will not be saved. You will be able to fix it without spamming Recent Changes and the page's history. Your constant saves to Watchmen are getting annoying; if you use "Show preview" there will be no issue. -- goatasaur

Sorry. I thought I'd got round that by going 'Back' rather than 'Edit', using the browser not the page... Hmm.. oh well. I couldn't any conclusive pages that told me how to resize pictures, so I had to guess a bit, but in future, I'll try and use 'Preview', thanks.

Sighthounds/Leashes[edit]

Advice and opinion does not equal fact. If you'd like to add facts to the page, please feel free, include references. Mikieminnow (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :o) Greyhound Adoption Agency requirements are factual. Speed, agility, unsound recall, lack of road sense and prey drive are factual. Copious references throughout from multiple adoption agencies' websites - the best sources for facts on Greyhounds-as-pets. I will add footnotes from print sources when I can gain access to them. ntnon (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert your contributions, but please be aware that these edits might be better placed on Greyhound_Adoption rather than on Greyhound. Not all Greyhounds are adopted and those that are raised as pups - as well as many who are adopted - are raised with excellent recall and road sense. Mikieminnow (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Clockwork Storybook Logo.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Clockwork Storybook Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source[edit]

1. My conversations with the CAC founders do not count as sources for an article. Do not add material without proper sources. 2. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for how articles need to be written. For example, don't capitalize the entire section heading. Doczilla (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A remark like "depending on the source" doesn't fit without citing contradictory sources right then and there. Even with sources cited, though, it wouldn't fit because the remark indicates that one may be right. Both are correct. In some years, it goes by one name. In some years, it goes by the other. When Peter is in charge, it's Comics plural. When Randy is in charge, it's Comic singular. You can't say that in the article, though, because you have no appropriate source to cite for it. Doczilla (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But aside from that, any other pressing issues..? ntnon (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well worded: "The Comic(s) Arts Conference" Doczilla (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Couldn't help but notice it got lost amid your edits, though...! ntnon (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concerns are that you're adding too much material that shifts the focus away from the conference and onto a specific co-founder. He has his own article. This article is about the conference, not him. However, much of what you're adding to the article reads like a call for papers ad. The link to Power of Comics also looks like spam in its present form. I'm going to fix that, though. If anybody who stumbles upon that article thinks it reads like promotional material, they might get the article deleted altogether, and that would waste all our efforts. It still has way too large a section that looks like a call for papers, but I'll give you a chance to trim that some more yourself since you inserted those things in there. Doczilla (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it another run through, now. I'm trying to take your intermediate edits and create a synthesis. I disagree that there's too much emphasis on any particular person, excepting that most of the quotes/sources are by one individual, which may create that opinion. Naturally, though, information about CAC should be at "CAC", rather than on an individual's pages. I don't think it reads like a promo, but I can almost see why you think it might, so I'll try and deal with that. ntnon (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you keep asking about the edits and keep having new problems, explaining every edit becomes necessary to try to get you to reduce the additions. If they come across as pointed, it's because I am typing with a broken arm and a less wordy answer can come across as curt. Doczilla (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on your explanations, it just can be difficult to check what it was that each comment refers to...! Sorry for any reciprocal shortness, etc. No personal injury here, but the computer keeps freezing and losing my text. ntnon (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't continue this kind of editing right now. It hurts. For this, I can't use the VP and AWB programs which help me do a lot of editing without a lot of typing. More problems keep appearing that I can physically keep up with addressing. For example, an article about a scholarly conference shouldn't have so many passive sentences. Doczilla (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Here There Everywhere by Chris Roberson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Here There Everywhere by Chris Roberson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Star Trek (Gold Key Comics) Vol. 3 (Checker).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Star Trek (Gold Key Comics) Vol. 3 (Checker).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Here There Everywhere by Chris Roberson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Here There Everywhere by Chris Roberson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for the hard work. I've recently across a number of entries that you've greatly expanded and improved. Keep up the good work. (Emperor (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks back. I appreciate you having tidied a couple of things up for me - I'm in the middle of utterly revising the "LXG" lawsuit at the moment, but I noticed that you'd swooped in to fix it up already, so: much appreciated. ntnon (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I jumped in before realising you were probably mid-way through but I only did a quick tidy. I'll check through what you've done in a bit but you seem to have it all in hand. Good stuff.

I also edit some of the other pages to link through but I'll doublecheck to make sure everything is OK there too. (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I spotted that - I went checking to see if there were now non-links, but you'd beaten me to the punch. I've added some more to Mr Moore's "disputes" now, too. ntnon (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he does like his disputes - can't blame him though, I do hope he never watched the LXG film as it caused me physical pain. (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comics Talk[edit]

Thanks for the input:

We do have a Comics vocabulary and if you look in Category:Comics terminology and Category:Comic book terminology you can see a lot that need merging like Two-ply (and both categories need merging too!!).
Future Comics/Marry Me - Well they are only my opinions - but I've had most of these tagged for months and no one has produced anything to suggest they are worth keeping (as a standalone entry). Of course, if anyone has any sources they are welcome to add them but there has to come a point where you draw a line under such things.

You are welcome to leave your own comments there - although the best option is to add some sources that prove notability ;) (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the work on Future Comics - that has made it a much more solid entry. I wonder what you think about starting entries for the titles as the trades come out? I'd imagine people will be looking for information on them (I know I keep coming back here to look things up - and when I don't find them I end up adding in what I find, it always suckers you back ;) ) and new reviews will be emerging.

Also note Marry Me (comic) is up for deletion so if you have any sources and/or opinions then now might be the time to add them. (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

FT & 2000AD[edit]

Well that shows how observant I am!! I hadn't linked "you" with "comics you" and... never mind. ;) Yes if there is anything I can fish out then let me know. (Emperor (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And I even wrote nice things (well, thing) about you on my user page..! ;o) ntnon (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you did!! Clearly my career as a stalker is never going to get going with such a poor attention to things like that ;) (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Actually reading that through I'm struggling to find clues that your aren't me (Hell I'm even a big Not the Nine O' Clock News fan!! I am excusing myself from not spotting the link with your user name - if you'd used mixed case I might have got it) - any difference I could come up with would be minor (you've even got the Weird West covered) but if forced I'd have to suggest either hard sci-fi/space operas or horror films.

We must never meet!!! (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

...on which note(!), I just spotted that you're doing 2000AD stuff, so I was wondering if you have a copy of Judge Dredd: The Mega-History...? Mine is in a different country, but I was thinking a while back about Kevin O'Neill, and thought I recalled reading that he started out on Girl's comics, rather than Buster, etc. (as it says here)... not that it's particularly important either way, but still. It would no doubt be a handy reference tome in general anyway. ntnon (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. I have the A-Z of Judge Dredd and David Bishop's Thrill Power Overload. Although I haven't really started cataloguing through the history sections and the older sci-fi and fantasy (and other areas could be patchy) but you can have a nose through a reasonable selection of my books at Anobii here - I have a Shelfari account but tend to export from the former so it'll be more up-to-date. (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also if you are interested I have a few 2000 AD things in my sandbox: User:Emperor/Sandbox, you are welcome to edit away if you like (I will have to get the Black Atlantic one done in particular). (Emperor (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A couple of other things[edit]

I thought I may as well give you some more reading - a couple of thoughts I had that sank like a stone:

Year in comics cats - thinking about it I think something like "2008 in comics" followed by "2008 comics started" and "2008 comics ended" would give us flexibility and help fill in the years in comics entries, which I think are a valuable, if underused, area.

Trade paperback formatting, this could be useful and address some of my concerns (and I really want to improve Hellblazer) but is there anything else we need to add?

That's it for now. (Emperor (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

OK following on from [1] I made Category: 2008 in comics and Category: 2007 in comics, based on the TV version. (Emperor (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes Secret Invasion and Initiative are both titles and events (they are listed as "storylines" and have large numbers of spin-offs/tie-ins. There probably aren't enough events to warrant a separate category but we'll see, if we put them in the main categories we can see how the land lies.

I don't see the need for putting series that end in the same year in the top category.

I'll keep an eye on things and probably start the 2005 and 2006 ones later. (Emperor (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Naturally. I might hold out on the two new categories until we've got more feedback as, if there are concerns being raised, then I'll not to go wasting my time (and other people's) until everyone is sure this is the right approach. (Emperor (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Any more thoughts on tpb formatting? It seems like the last iteration is getting close to satisfying everyone - there is a bit of an update about possibly making it simpler, which might move things on until we reach a point where we all happy and can roll this out. (Emperor (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Antony Johnston[edit]

Given your interest in Alan Moore I thought I'd throw in a suggestion for a new article: Antony Johnston, he has done a lot of comic work [2] (see also the what links here) as well as the adaptations of Moore's work. I keep meaning to get around to it but other things keep intruding and while it was on my mind I thought I'd throw it over to you. No worries if you aren't interested but it struck me as being up your alley. (Emperor (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Right then. I'll start it with what I have and then knock the ball back into your court.

And yes the tpb tables are coming along nicely - I am confident they will be a big help. At least then I'll be able to address Hellblazer which has been niggling at me for a while. (Emperor (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Over to you: Antony Johnston. He does have a lot of links to interviews [3] - too any to add there (although there may be interesting material that could be incorporated) and I'll save them for the individual articles on the specific comics. (Emperor (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Teen Titans (comics)[edit]

We genuinely don't need it and it will only make the situation more confusing than it already is - see my comments on the talk page [4]. (Emperor (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Welllllllllllll where to start ;)

If there is a problem then there are other (simpler) solutions (like move "Teen Titans" to "Teen Titans (comics)" and make the main page a disambiguation) - splitting off the different titles is difficult and you can't create a team article by mixing the media together - there is a reason they are kept separate and I can't think of another example where this has been done (as it is a bad idea - imagine trying to make a coherent Hulk entry from the comics, TV series, films, cartoons, etc. You might be able to do it but it'd be some strange lumbering Frankenstein's monster out to confuse more than enlighten). The animated series are often consistent within their own universe but can often diverge a long way from the comics, hence the DCAU distinction (and how you can have comics within their continuity).

If you were going to do that you'd have to put it up to a split vote and I for one would object to it if they are on the grounds of trying to create some hybrid team article. As it stands I'd object on the more usual split grounds that the title has got large and unwieldy too (you'd need to go through a round of thorough trimming first as this usually arises because the entry is plot-heavy, splitting off something that is largely plot into a new article only encourages more plot to be added and it would only make the matter worse).

All that is assuming there is a problem and looking through the discussion consensus would suggest there isn't (you can always find someone to argue some alternate point of view - it doesn't mean the majority have to do anything about it).

So this is two steps down the path to the wrong solution to a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. ;)

I'm happy to discuss fixes to the Teen Titans entry if there is a problem , but I suspect that is a debate for the future, (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

ITC project[edit]

Hello Ntnon! I was just having a look at your user page (you'd inadvertently linked it into the ITC Distributions list) and I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the ITC wikiproject... it's desperately short of members and could do with some enthusiastic editors! Howie ☎ 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit[edit]

I see you've worked on Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit. It looks like much of the article makes extensive use of poor sources, like forums, blogs, and the IMBDB. Since the litigants are living people whatever is said about them needs to comply with the WP:BLP policy. Offhand, It's hard to see how that can be done without drastic editing. Do you want to take a try or shall I? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You're right that some of the use of blogs and forums for citing comments is acceptable. Nonetheless the whole article has a non-encyclopedic tone to it. However it's so intricately written and the topic is so complex that I can't see any easy repairs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up on recent edits [5], the user [Rich Johnston]] highlights seems to be a confirmed sock of a banned user. I'll see what I can do. (Emperor (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for that note. :o) Don't go to much trouble though, it's pretty clear what went on, but the reasoning is still perhaps unclear. It is always possible (if, I would suggest, unlikely) that Mr Murphy simply misspoke at Newsarama, and is now "accurately" revising a quoting of what he said, in light of thinking that maybe he ought not have said it in the first place..!

All a bit convoluted, and, (to me) makes interesting side-effect comments on the old adage that what is said on the internet is there for ever... It's all a little Nineteen-Eighty Four. ntnon (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well my mighty web fu has failed to get older versions of those posts so we'll have to work around what we've got (as other people's quoting of the posts won't work). (Emperor (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I tried that..! Since the only really important point that was deleted was the settling of the case, I'm not sure whether it might be a better idea to just let the revised edition stand. It leave a little bit of a bitter taste, but it's hardly something to get worked up over. Someone (we can reasonably assume) settled, (or else the original case was dropped, which seems unlikely), since Mr Moore has noted that his deposition was a waste of time. So... yes. It'll do, for now. ntnon (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of my area of expertise, but won't some parts of the court records be publicly available? Might be something worth raising with whatever group oversees legal articles here about the best way to find this information - it should be possible to find something on the start and end of the cases (even if some aspects are kept private). (Emperor (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I thought so, yes. I know, for instance, that the Gaiman/McFarlane judgement was available online for quite a while (although the last time I looked it had vanished...), but I suspect that this is a wholly different beast, since it probably never made it to court. Out of my area, too, but my very very vague understanding is that it was settled before being dragged through the court - the implication being that Mr Moore gave pre-emptive testimony to be used "as and when," but then going UNused.

Even if I'm misunderstanding (and I likely am!), it would seem likely that one would need to know who filed what, with whom and when ("t'riffic, really t'riffic") and moreover where. Probably only a select handful of people could answer that - one of them perhaps unlikely to comment; one presumably either disgruntled or compensated and most of the rest relatively nameless lawyers. I doubt there's any way to find out much of that sort - unless someone were able to find a very helpful and surprisingly un-busy person at, say, Entertainment Weekly, who could dig through their files and give some hints.

I know there might still be sourcing-issues, but since it appears that one individual has been through and removed anything contentious already, I wouldn't have thought there're any issues with defaming living people in the page as it stands, so I'd be mildly happy to leave it "as is," unless something groundbreaking can be dug up. ntnon (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: question[edit]

While policy allows for reverting edits by sock puppets, regardless of the quality, in this case, looking at what was removed and what sourced it, I'd say that a reliable source for the material would be required. It's a distinct possibility that Murphy removed the material that sourced the statements, which he is wont to do. In any case, yes, a source would be necessary, per WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I really didn't look too deeply into what he was taking out this time. I've dealt with him, through various evolutions, mostly on the Charles Manson page, a topic in which he's notoriously submerged himself over the years. I've read through his blog on that subject a bit and it honestly gives me a headache. In the years after the Kennedy assassination, there were conspiracy theorists, and more recently, there are the Manson conspiracy theorists. Curiously, the two cross in this case, at least at times. What I do know from looking over things is that, being in a business like films, he is more than contentiously interested in controlling how he's presented to the public. From that, good luck in finding sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Adventure Anthology 1 by Chris Roberson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Adventure Anthology 1 by Chris Roberson.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bat-Villains[edit]

I suspect we may disagree on whom should be in the Major Villains list, but we can deal with that at a later date. ;o) Since I don't want to wind up in an edit conflict with you, I'm working on this page offline at the moment, but have one correction and two suggestions:

King Snake (as per King Snake) appeared in Robin 2 not Robin 4.
The headings should be "Costumed Villains/enemies", "Non-costumed Villains/enemies" and "<Other>"(and in that order), with Joker/Cat/Bane on down under the first, Mobsters & Assassins under the second, and then the rest.
I think Joker and Catwoman should still be tabulated (and if you were getting to that, apologies!)

I'll leave it there until you're done, and then (no doubt) politely disagree with some of it! :o) ntnon (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ntnon/Batman

This is basically how I think it ought to be laid out. Costume/No costume; MAJOR, Gallery, also-ran. (N.B. I like that "Gallery" label, too. :o)) ntnon (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much a work-in-progress. (It's still not great, but remarkably better than it was, imnsho : )

I'd like to see more prose, and less tables for some of this. In particular, Dr Death, and the other "early foes" should have a section before Joker and Catwoman.

Joker and The Cat appeared in Batman #1, and honestly deserve their own sections. Rather than just be a synopsis of the characters, each should describe the character as a foe or at least in their interaction with Batman. They were precedent setters when it comes to Batman's villains.

And, technically, does the Joker wear a costume? Does Hugo Strange? (And though the professor has at times, does that make him a "costumed villain"?) Same goes for quite a number of other so-called supervillains (and yes, I'm trying to avoid that word on the page). Fame or notoriety would seem to be the better benchmark. (And we have to avoid using the words "major" and "minor", obviously.)

It's clear that some are more famous than others (and more likely to be searched for by a reader), and so to help the reader of the list we should split the sections (as we have).

And honestly, if we had to pick the absolutely most famous, most renowned of the foes, it would be those two. Penguin and Riddler are a distant 2 and 3 in comparison. With Ra's, Two-Face, and Scarecrow being the next. (Though these days, if you ask the 'toon watchers, they'll probably tell you of Harley Quinn, and Poison Ivy : )

As for inclusion in the first section, these should be the most renowned/famous/notorius. If you picked a comics reader from the 40s, they'd know the characters listed here from that era. If you picked someone from the 80s, they'd know most of these characters. Same goes for the other decades. The difficulty is to try to not include "recent" information. (WP:AADD#Fame in x and WP:CRYSTAL come to mind.)

I'll be happy to discuss/debate inclusion, or whatever if you'd like. Though I'll say up front that I set the "bar" to be fame relative to Mr: Freeze/Mad Hatter/Ventriloquist. Things like: Has the character appeared in several other media (The 60s TV series, and the motion pictures, in particular)? Have they an "action figure"? Have they in the past been commonly recurring characters? etc.

I'd like to see the section broader also, so that we can justify an extreme pruning of the villains section of the navbox : )

I welcome your thoughts : ) - jc37 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Your work over the last little while has definitely improved things considerably, no question. Not sure I agree about a move to more prose though - surely this is an "in-between" page, and the vast majority of prose should be on the individuals' pages..?

Likewise, for chronology's sake, yes, Dr Death, Joe Chill and The Monk might warrant a pre-Joker section, but honestly, I don't think that's needed. Before the Joker there really weren't recurrent Villains, so he should be the starting point. Joe Chill should be singled out for comment because, well, he created the Batman. But - he is. He now heads the "non-costume/mob" section, so I think that will do. Maybe there should be a small piece of prose right at the start of the page briefly saying something like:

“

Joe Chill became the first real "Batman Villain" when he shot the Waynes and started Bruce down his path of vigilanteism. Joker kicked off the recurrent villains, with Catwoman hot on his tail, and Penguin following soon thereafter. Zucco caused the Graysons to fall to their death, inadvertantly setting in motion the appearance of Robin, the Boy Wonder. DA Harvey Dent was attacked by Moroni, flipped and became Two-Face who would prove important to the evolution of Robin. Killer Moth was the first Villain to be encountered by early Batgirl, (and then the Joker shot Barbara, creating Oracle), while the third Robin had early run-ins with Killer Snake. During the Knightfall saga, Bane set free the inmates of Arkham Asylum <NOTE - is Arkham even linked to here? Should be. As should Blackgate.>, and hounded Batman into exhaustion before breaking him.

”

..i.e. covering some of the major plot beats in Bat-villain history, mentioning major villains, etc. That's what I'd prefer to see - and as a lead-in, rather than a subsection.

Maybe the Joker and Catwoman should have their own sections (I notice, by the by, that Catwoman is in the "BAT FAMILY" section of the Bat-box and not the Villains. Should be both), but I would still advocate them being in-table as well. Text & table for them both, so that the look is standard. That would work best aesthetically, I'd suggest.

Being picky - yes the Joker does wear a costume. ;o) A standard uniform is costume enough, and he is very standard. Dr Strange... maybe. But while I see you're trying to avoid "Supervillain" (which I would maybe take mild issue with - after all, it's a standard label "in comic," and this is primarily a list of comics people, so the labels that are used "in comic" would be reasonable to use in an encyclopedic sense. Jeff Rovin's Encyclopedias are "Supervillains" and "Superheroes"... But, to avoid "Supervillain," "Costumed" and "non-costumed" seem safer. :o)

Fame and notoriety would be great - if there's a quantifiable way of adjudging that! That's what I was pushing towards on the talk page - EVERYBODY has heard of the Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin. Non-comics people have heard of those three. Riddler rounds out the known-from-TV quartet, Ivy is arguably well-known because she's "the other female," (and in the cartoon) rather than personal fame or importance, but she's still up there with Two-Face and the Scarecrow. Mr Freeze and Ra's (and maybe Harley) round out the major "live action" TV/film-known people, which I would say are the key criteria for wide fame, while the cartoon is going to be more niche.

How on earth you'd try to rate Longevity Vs. Total Appearances Vs. Appearances-in-major-storylines Vs. story-worth Vs. Crucial moments, etc... well! However, I'd say that the top 8 or 9 would stay broadly as is. Bane picks up major points for ONE action, although he wandered around No Man's Land and a couple of other storylines.

I know people frown on "Major" and "Minor," but really.... what is "lesser renown" other than "minor"?! ;o) (And that's not an attack, just a mild frustration at semantic niceties - it becomes a ballet of unnecessary proportions to write the same thing in non-buzz-words - where 'main' is sometimes more acceptable than 'major', which is... odd! The Joker is the "MAIN" Bat-Villain, however, and I don't think there's any way anyone can dispute that. And we're obviously in agreement there.

Sections, obviously. :o) And I largely like yours, but I'd still think three sections are better than the current two, as explained.

Couldn't agree more that it's important to take a long view, rather than stick in the recent people for no real reason. Hence, longevity being a key factor in the characters moving up or down the list.

"If you picked a comics reader from the 40s, they'd know the characters listed here from that era. If you picked someone from the 80s, they'd know most of these characters."

Absolutely right. Hence, relegate Harley! :oP

I'll say up front that I set the "bar" to be fame relative to Mr: Freeze/Mad Hatter/Ventriloquist.

I think we're almost-entirely in agreement on criteria and benchmark, and just debating slightly where along the scale some individuals sit. Havin an action figures are increasingly irrelevant - G'Nort! - but having many action figures is a helpful inclusion to the debate. Likewise, alternate versions - there are Elseworld versions of only a handful of Bat-Villains (..annoyingly including Harley Quinn..), which points to fame for them. But since they're basically just the top 7-9, that pales somewhat.

Did you look at what I proposed for the Bat-box? (At the top here.) I pruned out the chaff, moved up Robin (took out JPV-as-Batman and put in Azrael), made Vehicles it's own line properly, and relegated the "Alternate Versions". Thoughts on that? :o) ntnon (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Before the Joker there really weren't recurrent Villains..." - So we should let the reader know that.

The key here is that, while you and I may know that, the page (or at least where it stood before I started refactoring) really was just a list of names. There is no way the average person who knows little to nothing about the characters would be able to sift through and discover that Two-Face (for example) is one of the most important/notorious villains. The page should give the characters "weight" to each other (and to Batman et al) in relation to the Bat universe chronology, and also give a sense of that chronology. A list of names is not much more than a navbox with a synopsis. This page should be more than that.

And we can do it through sections of prose, and section header leadins as well.

One thing to keep in mind is that this is Wikipedia. And no matter what we may do, this will become "mercilessly edited". So I think it's better to build a solid framework for the page which can grow (chronology, prose sections, notability weight, etc.) than just have a couple lists of names which ends up being a POV mess (as it was).

I moved the discussion concerning the template issues (such as character inclusion) to its talk page to hopefully reduce confusion of others, and am continuing that discussion there. - jc37 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. The page as-was was ghastly. Although you're point about sifting for Two-Face to me immediately re-stresses the need to have three sections: Major/Main/"Best"/Longest/Most-used 7-9, the "next" dozen and the also-rans. I like the table layout, though, for ease of information-listing and readability. But, I wouldn't be opposed to many mini-tables interspersed with prose.

I could not agree more that they need to be weighted, which is why I've been trying to thrash out a ranking system and list (as have you, by the looks of things). I support the separation of mob/assassins and "Villains" (although people like Black Mask) sit uneasily between the two, and with regards your query on the Joker and Strange, Wesker is another particular oddity, although Scarface naturally swings it, as are, say, Maxie Zeus and Zsasz. They're still nominally "supervillains"/costumed villains, though. ;o)

I foresee serious difficulties in trying to mix-and-match between an ostensive Ranked list and a Chronological one, since although most of the top tier are also the oldest, that diverges swiftly. But if I'm confusing what you imply, then I apologise!

My mostly-sarcastic, half-bitter, half-philosophic comment on that last point - "this is Wikipedia" - reads roughly as follows: "This is Wikipedia, so whatever we expend a vast amount of effort doing can be undone in a day, month, year or decade by anyone with a computer in seconds..." I hate to think that we might come up with something brilliantly put together only to have someone decide that a strict alphabetised table (with Amgydala being far more inportant than the Penguin) is what ought to be here... But pessimism is passe, so lets try and hammer the "POV mess" into an "unPOV masterpiece". :o) ntnon (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this page will help show some examples of what I mean: Wikipedia:Embedded list. Note that none of those are the "right" example for the whole page, just that some are good for some things, and some are good for others.

The "early days" section badly needs a "lead-in" introduction/overview of some kind - even if it's merely a few sentences. And I'd like to see the Joker and Catwoman sections look more like prose, and less like "list entries". (A task for the future, I suppose.)

I went ahead and used "supervillain" as the header. It seemed the most NPOV term. Interestingly enough, the section before the header references the term (Holiday etal), as does the section right after the header (Early days), so it seems to follow the "flow" of the list as it now stands.

Any suggestions for something better than "lesser known foes"? (Not different, better : ) - jc37 09:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia:Embedded list, then yes, an "Indented List with content" would work. I would like to intermingle tables and text, so that the debut information is easily noticeable, but I realise that might look overly daunting/complex on the code pages, even though I think it would be preferable (for the major characters) to any other layout.

I agree that there should be an "early days" lead-in prose section, maybe talking about how it was a bizarre mix of nondescript "normal" people, then the horror/supernatural villainy of the "first" two, and then... The Joker. But I don't quite like that the debut issue details now don't stand out, as is.

I think "Supervillain" is best (although it adds weight to the page really needing to be "Villains" rather than "Enemies", I'd think - is there a reason for that, do you know..?), most accurate and generally most used. I like the continuity-flow, as you say, but despite that still half-think that (despite Chill), the "Mob" should be below the "Gallery" - continuity likes it as is, but surely the most traffic will come from looking for the SUPERVILLAINS, so they should be more prominent...? A lead-in that references the "Mob" with a "(see below)"-type link would probably be better.

Likewise, I don't think Ra's should be that prominent. There's no way the League of Assassins is comparable to Joker & Catwoman - they're not really even on a par with Penguin, Riddler, et al. But... maybe. :o)

My current more accurate/"better" suggestions are revolving around "minor," "poor" and "not particularly good," so I'll have to give it some thought! :o) (I'm also half-working on an unnecessarily-complex mathematical formula for working out a proper Ranking System.. (maybe) ntnon (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman[edit]

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoC vs. LEG[edit]

Per user:Wildhartlivie, I've blocked User:TuppenceABag as a sock of banned user. Per [WP:BAN]], that user's edits may be reverted regardless of their merits. Since you're more familiar with the article, I'll leave it to you to decide what to revert. I'd urge care, as some parts may not be worth retaining. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice[edit]

Well, isn't that special? I'm not entirely thrilled to be a target of his. But it confirms that it was him. I didn't get him banned for removing things, I reported that a banned user was using a sock puppet account after being banned. Nice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find offensive about it is the not veiled solicitation of personal information in order to harass and defame me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My unsolicited two cents: Talking about him is getting him off. Best thing is not respond on here in anyway. Blank his edits. Don't communicate on any pages in Wikipedia about "feelings" that you might have about him. Blank-Ignore-Move on. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, sound advice. Excepting that I have no "feelings" for him, (and thought that that was clear), and that he's now appearing to solicit attacks towards me. ntnon (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5/17 DYK[edit]

On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whitney Ellsworth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma variations[edit]

No worries. It confused the Hell out of me as I sure it wasn't the right article. Having "(comics)" and "(comic)" was unworkable and confusing (there were a handful of other articles linking to the wrong Enigma too) and hopefully that should help clarify things (why set indexes are such a handy thing - especially given companies fondness for using the same names for characters and titles). (Emperor (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And, of course, I should give a big thanks for the major expansion of the Vertigo article - if only all publisher's articles were like that!! (Emperor (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say revert it - the argument is a bit like saying you can't mention Marvel in Stan Lee's article. Keep that section tight and focused on his contribution and it should be fine. Obviously avoid anything controversial that can't be properly sourced but otherwise the need for sources should be done through asking for sources not taking it all out. If there is still hoo-ha then get a second opinion from the Comics Project. (Emperor (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Alan Moore interview[edit]

I saw this and rather than just adding it on to a few articles I thought I'd pass it on to you as a quick skim shows it has plenty of really good material that could be strip-mined for a number of articles (and it is only the first part too!!) and there was a lot you'd find useful. I'll be reading it when I have more time and extracting things that strike me but it is a whopper!! (Emperor (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent. I fear a 2010 comic might get people concerned about crystal balling but even in the worst case scenario it can stashed away and rolled out again - it is a good start. (Emperor (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Part 2 - for when you get back. Funny little Warren Ellis bit too. (Emperor (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A bit of a follow-up which might have some material in that could interest you. (19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

More Moore - I also found this from Dave Gibbons. (Emperor (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also this on the recent Q&A might be useful - I haven't seen anything I can use but I thought I'd throw it in. (Emperor (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Another Dave Gibbons interview here - best question ever at the end, although still no answer. (Emperor (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Diana Schutz[edit]

Hello, Ntnon. Please forgive my utter lack of familiarity re manipulating the net -- and Wikipedia especially. I'm a novice, and this was the only way I could figure out how to contact you (and I'm not even sure this will work). I received your note on what I guess is called my user talk page. Thank you for taking the time and effort to largely write up the entry on me, but it's so long. As Wikipedia notes, I'm a low-importance article. Do you really think the biblio has to be there? Also, I hate that photo! (Yeah, I'm old, but I'm female -- and there are better shots of me!) The interview quotes are pretty dated, and I'm less scathing in my opinions of other editors these days. Would you mind killing everything there but for the first sentence? And I don't know how to upload a new photo. If you receive this message and care to respond, please email me at dianas@darkhorse.com as I haven't the time or skill to learn how to work the WIki innards like this. In return I'd be willing to help with some of your work here (I know a lot about the comics biz in the '80s, for instance, as I was living it). Diana Schutz (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Diana Schutz[reply]

Thanks for stopping by -I thought I'd jump in.

To upload a picture the best bet might be to do it here as it is then free to use across all the bits of Wikipedia. Just let Ntnon know and they can update it. We often have to make do with pictures snapped at conferences which probably do no one any favours so I try and encourage folks to add one of their own (and that is the most straightforward way).

Unfortunately we can't exactly delete the bulk an entire article (unless it is inaccurate or violate the policies on biographies of living people), but we can be sensitive to the wishes of the person and take on board any concerns they have an see if things can be tweaked accordingly. I think we could certainly drop "Quotes" section and if you have other, more up-to-date sources then throw them in and we can look into adjusting things.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also despite what I said above Diana might be right about the credits being slightly overly detailed. I suppose the obvious place is the credits for the editor of collected volumes as the critical role is the editor of the initial comics - I'm not sure I'd add them to another editor's bibliography. (Emperor (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Great - I've bumped it up to a B.

I am a believer that you can't have a "selected bibliography" as that is clearly a judgement call and opinion, so I don't have problems with the editorial credits but, while I'm sure is a tricky job, probably is a step too far on the credit front (you can let the databases being completist). Personally I'd rather not go down the two column approach but if the list seems to be outweighing the article then split it off - we've done that for publishers titles and I've been doing it for a number of creators (most recently Jack Kirby) and this would be no exception so feel free to be bold rather than add the columns. (Emperor (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just a note to say I've added a couple of links that might be useful (Diana Schutz#External links) and been through and given it a quick tweak. I've upgraded the class to a C and it looks to mainly be the awards that need referencing (and I'll have a crack at doing that myself). Before bumping it up to a B I'll do a more thorough run through and see if it needs anything else.

Batgirl[edit]

Thanks for the help and the notes left at the Comics Project. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I understand. It just seems poor form to have the LEAD of the entire character summed up in one sentence. I'd rather just add a full character description following the publication history. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new section in the article "Character Attributes." The goal is to describe to similarities and/or differences between each of the Batgirl characters. Would you mind adding information from the sources you provided on the ComicsProject page? I feel uncomfortable adding information from a book I haven't read with my own eyes. I looked them up on google book search but they don't provide previews. Any help would be appreciated. Thnkayou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse Legend imprint[edit]

Hello, I'm a new user and now feel a little silly piping in shortly after Diana Schutz about a Dark Horse topic, but I've been rereading Legend period comics lately and (since many of the characters' appearances were in each others' titles and disparate promotional works and anthologies) I've been using Wikipedia and other sources to piece together a chronology of a)their stories; and b)their publication.
I wasn't familiar with the editing process (in fact, I've created this registration mainly to notify somebody about this), but the Legend link from Art Adams' topic page has some confusing omissions: Paul Chadwick and Geoff Darrow. Their comic books are included in the list below (although "Big Guy & Rusty" could have been included out of deference to Miller), but only five artists are listed above. It would make more sense if someone working on the page included the artists but forgot one their numerous projects rather than the other way around.
Could someone have deleted them? What would be the point, if their comics titles are still listed? What I'm more curious about is why theimprint just sort of fizzled out, despite the fact that the artists not only continued to do work through Dark Horse without the Legend logo, but they continued to use the same characters in many cases. A link to an interview in Comics Journal or elsewhere could cover that and avoid redundancies, if such an explanation was ever made public. Anyway, a good point of citation for the list of original creators would simply be the editorial page appearing in October 1993 Dark Horse comic books. Most of the Legend artists also dominated the majority of a promotional comic that Dark Horse published for the San Diego Comic-con just two months before that editorial. The short, exclusive black-and-white stories would later appear, in color, in compilations of their respective characters under the Legend imprint. (In the case of Hellboy, at least, the Legend logo that appeared on the first printing of his paperback "Seed Of Destruction" has been dropped from later printings. Someone else would have to fact-check which printing is which.)
Finally, there is mention of other artists joining later. The only ones I've ever heard of were Jim Silke (of Rascals In Paradise) and Walt Simonson, who was meant to be a founder but had already committed himself to work on Malibu's fledgling Bravura imprint by the time Legend started to move from concept to planning stages. Bravura imploded before Simonson could finish his "Starslammers" series and the final issue was published as a Legend title. The sequel ran as a serial in Dark Horse Presents.
I could contribute more (or less) detail to an article since I've got the original artifacts kicking around somewhere, but the last programming language I studied was Fortran77 and the help pages, however polite, aren't a whole lot of help if I have to stop and look up the defintions of every third word whose definitions are all written in the same terminology. I can handle these talk pages; this just simulates the experience of e-mail. If I can be more help than nuisance, my own user name should, in theory, follow this entry. Moose N. Squirrel (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Davis[edit]

Cheers for expanding Simon Davis (comics) - it had niggled me for a while that no one had started an article on him and getting second prize in the BP competition needled me into getting t started but it was still a little bare bones and it looks a lot better now. The Red rag Gallery page was a great find - very useful and with a lot of piccies too. Now if only I could sneak into his work area and sneak that odd muddy greeny/blue colour from his palette I'd be the happiest boy in town.

There is a bit more on the BLAIR 1 run in TPO but it'd probably be better off in the relevant article. I am sure I have read somewhere that his run on Sinister Dexter was the definitive one but I may be extrapolating from the rest of the David Bishop quote I gave. Perhaps Dan Abnett has something on his blog I can use... I'm sure there is a way to add some bits about the reception to his art and keep it balanced. I'll do some more digging.

A quick aside - not sure if this interests you but it is an interview with Eddie Campbell. I'll drop it into his article later. (Emperor (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well the entry is looooong overdue and I'm happy it got off to such a good start so quickly (I did think about dropping a note over but assume you've got the new creations on your watchlist and you'll pick up on anything that interests you ;)

I'm sure I had a cunning fix to the safe mode business as it is usually not a sign the computer is about to collapse. I can't think of anything clever off the top of my head but try running a virus check (AVG is free and throw in a spybot checker like Spybot Search & Destroy) and if that doesn't work restore the computer to an earlier version (Start >> All Programs >> Accessories >> Systems Tools >> System Restore and follow the instructions). I've found 90% of software problems are sorted out that way and most people become big fans of them. Although, that said, you might have tried that, and more, already - still better than "turn it off and on again" ;) Good luck and see you... whenever. (Emperor (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think cross fingers is probably the best one can do in those circumstances (although I should say - don't fear the Restore, it is a life saver). Anyway if you fancy a mission: Mark Alessi. One day left and counting ;) (Emperor (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It had been PRODed without notifying the Comics project and it ran out today. However, someone else removed the PROD after I dumped some links in (showing there were other sources). Still needs expanding as there is a lot to say - although as it deals with bankruptcy and non-payment it could be tricky territory to navigate. (Emperor (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well so much for my ideas about restore helping!! I can't think how painful it must be typing with a Wii so I'll see you when that is all sorted out. (Emperor (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes all my problems seem to stem from Windows trying to automatically update itself. I really am going to have to dump this shonky OS.

And that sounds like a good solution - it is far less... personal. (Emperor (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Revisions[edit]

They both look fine. I would adjust the layout on Laird so you have "Notes" (for the footnotes) and then "References" (for... well I think you get the point).

You can do the same with BMB - scooping up the three database links from somewhere like Sean Phillips#References (that is what I do -a quick copy and paste and you are away). As BMB has done computer games he'll also be listed in IMBD. But that is just the bog standard linkage I throw in when I have time, everything else seems fine. (Emperor (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

2000AD in DE[edit]

I don't think they are going to reprint every issue (at least I missed it if they said it) - that'd be a very bad idea as some of the stuff was pony when it was new and some won't have aged well, while others probably wouldn't make sense to a non-UK audience.

What I expect they'll do is allow Wagner the chance to produce an "Ultimate Dredd" (after I thought this I checked around and some are already using Ultimate Dredd, so if independent people are thinking it so must they) allowing him to build up the character without other people's additions and years of convoluted backstory and learning on the job.

They'd be wise to run an American print of the Case Files to bring everyone up to speed on the original (so Wagner isn't starting from square one) and then see how it goes.

They'll probably want to work some of the big properties in a similar way (Strontium Dog, Rogue Trooper), which could allow Rebellion to leverage media developments on them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they have an eye to grabbing things like stories by Grant Morrison (although possibly not Zenith) and Garth Ennis as they'll sell by the bucketload, as would Mark Millar's (even if the general fan opinion is/was that most of those stories were horrible). Just look at what DC have done with all of Alan Moore's Image output - even the dodgy stuff (I can't quite bring myself to buy Wild Worlds).

So that is my bet Big Name properties and stuff they can throw together that'll sell well no matter what the variable quality. (Emperor (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the link - I can't see it myself and I suspect it is poor reporting (and possibly a misunderstanding of what 2000 AD is all about). The more indepth reports with quotes don't suggest that and for all the reason above (and some) it would be an unwise move - can you imagine the slog through the mid-late nineties in trade after trade that no one wants?? I suspect it was more along the lines of reprinting every Judge Dredd story which could result in the mix up - it'd really only mean they'd publish the case Files, which would be the most sensible move.

I'm pretty sure DC just did what Titan Books do in the UK - slap another ISBN on the book and ship it out. Which means they'd have just been publishing things as Rebellion put them out, resulting in odd things like releasing rather obscure titles in the middle of runs. It also struck me as something for a smaller publisher who'd put a lot more into marketing. It also makes a lot more sense now as the Case Files and Agency Files mean people can get stuck right in from the start - it is a pretty nice deal (especially if it results in extra publicity that gets turned into a Strontium Dog or Rogue Trooper film or game - Rebellion could do really nicely from this, especially if they make the game too).

The Zenith business? Oh boy. If DC can't twist arms then I suspect it is doomed despite the legend that Titan have a warehouse with crates of the trades in there ready to roll the next day!!! I feel The Great Zenith Heist has great potential as some kind of meta-fictional take on this!! Now there is an idea.

The Ultimate Dredd idea works well because they can then do a cheap reprint in the Megazine - sweetening the deal for Wagner and helping keep the whole venture rolling forward.

It may be they also have other plans - reprinting Extreme Editions might be a cunning way of doing a cheap sub-trade collection of stories. I'd also not rule out some kind of tankobon collection of the weekly (although I am unsure how that'd work out in practice but they might be able to flesh it out with a few Future Shocks so the main stories start and finish properly - you don't want to run 4 issues worth of one story only to have the final one next week. A bit of juggling could pull it off). We'll have to wait and see - considering all the British talent working in the States there is a lot of name recognition you could get. Dan Abnett has just gone exclusive with Marvel and could shift quite a few units and Ian Edginton is always working on something for the big boys (it was still a surprise when I stumbled across the fact that he had a good run on Blade back in the day). Even the new generation of creators are starting to break the market - Simon Spurrier is picking up some interesting work and Frazer Irving has already had high profile work (his trade collection could do well, Storming Heaven was hampered by editorial decisions, Andy Diggle if I remember correctly) but the art is stunning. So it could be very interesting, or it could fizzle out. We'll see. (Emperor (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I can't see any nostalgia accumulating around some of he mid-nineties work - even those involved seem embarrassed by it - I'd hope. I came a hair away from stopping reading it round about them but then it started building back up again (just in time). Crisis on Infinite Earth killed off my interest in American comics a few years earlier (that and girls and booze).

I suspect they could build on the first RT game - Gordon Rennie won an award for it and is now almost totally focused on writing for video games so he would be a dead cert for a sequel or something else on a 2000AD property. Strontium Dog is obvious - Hell I played in first time round on the ZX Spectrum - it was horrible though.

I think I once asked the folks at Titan Books about it - if I got any specific answer it was probably that the whole issue was awfully complicated. The whole thing makes my head hurt, perhaps a raid would help. That said I have the originals but still... Spread the wealth and all.

I didn't know that about DE - that shows a lot of promise. And yes I suspect (hope) attaching Ennis as a consultant is no more than a PR exercise in the main - he knows, and we know that the best results will be cutting Wagner loose (although it is always fun to see what he comes up with when allowed to play in the toy box too so I hope he gets a mini-series or two out of it).

So finger's crossed - there are a lot of great stories that deserve a wider audience and success will keep the comic alive for the foreseeable future because sales must be around the breaking even mark and it is largely the intellectual property that makes them punch above their weight on the business front. (Emperor (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'd have thought Wagner was on board or he'd have been jolly surprised by hearing this in the news and if your title rather hinges on not "surprising" major talent I'm sure he knows ;)

I had a look through Thrill Power Overload and there is some good stuff in there on the ideas behind Zenith and about as comprehensive a "no comment" as you'd expect from Morrison, so I'll set about expanding it next week some time (not around at the weekend).

The stories do stand up well - the main problem is (as I'm sure I read in an Alan Grant interview) that a lot of the wild and out there material they wrote just trying to be as silly/extreme/futuristic as possible has come to pass!! It also helps that some of the early artists (like Carlos Ezquerra) are still going strong and their art is as good now as it was then (and obviously Brian Bolland's work still stands up). So it helps to be ahead of your time - it gives everyone else a chance to catch up ;) (Emperor (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Header ratings[edit]

I tend to add one of three classes to the header:

Stub - obviously for stubs
Start - if it is more than a stub but still needs references
C - the new one, if it is a more in-depth start class but with reasonable footnotes/references

That is just my general rule of thumb for adding a quick rating, as B and above require you to go through a more intensive process (there is a checklist for getting it to B inbuilt). I'll also throw in a "low" importance rating unless I know enough about the topic to bump it up.

No rating is set in stone so if you think it deserves different importance or classes (and classes can go down as well as up) then anyone can edit them at any time, as it is a dynamic process (I suspect they are more likely to once something has been added) - although higher ratings will need increasing justification (the header should make that easy too). The important thing, as far as I'm concerned, is to attach it to a workgroup and flagging anything which needs doing. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To be honest "importance" is subjective and I think it can change on someone's whim (it is always worth checking through them just to make sure there isn't something silly going on but it can often depend on how strongly someone feels about the topic). The important thing is the class as there are guidelines (and as I say a 6-part B class checklist) which you link to and it best to get more input the higher up it goes.

It does sound like it deserves a higher importance so feel free to set it to the same as something of equivalent importance. I was a bit cautious about the class as it was just newly started and it is always wise to let other editors cast a beady eye over it. The C grade is handy as it means the article is well on its way (as there is often quite a gap between Start and B) and it looks to pretty much tick the boxes for a B. Personally I'd not want to rate it as a B without getting stuck in and seeing if there is anything I can improve (or anything that needs improving) but it looks like it'd be a formality. I'll have a look over the weekend.

I can't really help on the higher levels - I mainly deal with throwing a provisional rating into new articles (which don't usually get such a good start as you give them ;) ) or I'm pitching in to drive the article to FA/GA status (which usually just means giving it a very strict proofread and tweaking it or flagging any problems you can't tweak). Best bet seems to be to drive it to a B and then get some extra eyes on it and see what they say. On topics with good sources this is pretty straightforward as long as you have the time to invest. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've checked through it and it seems OK - it ticks all the boxes for a B. It might even be over-cited in some places as things like this don't really need a quote (and with the first the source isn't that great as it only deals with the publication in a quick sentence or two in a much larger page):

'upon Crestwood Publications "leav[ing] the comic book business"'
'featured a cover picture of "then MGM starlet Joy Lansing," which'

The quote might even break up the flow when it isn't needed - you can always paraphrase for general statements and facts. Places quotes might be needed are in sentences like "Young Romance staked its claim to innovative storytelling and ground-breaking storylines from its first issue," where you'd probably want someone else's opinion that they are indeed innovative and ground-breaking.

A wider range of sources and a bit more input from other editors to help round it out and polish it up and you could probably start the push for GA. (Emperor (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Request for Mediation filed[edit]

Hi, n. I hope you read my comments at Talk:Vertigo (DC Comics) before going to the request posted at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vertigo (DC Comics). I do believe you're acting in good faith and with good intentions. Given the RfC commentary at the Vertigo talk page, I think Mediation can only help the article, and not hurt it. Couples go to marriage counseling, by way of example, because they want to work out issues amicably. I have a feeling we can air our issues and remain as amicable as we have been. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing terrible; in fact, it's quite a positive thing. Contribute to Wikipedia long enough (I've been here three years), and you'll see some ugly abeit often unintentionally humorous fights breaking out. The conscientious among us seek a disinterested referee — hey, there's how many thousands of us here, so not everybody's going to agree all the time. You and I are models of decorum in comparison to some things I've seen — and as I firmly believe and reiterate, we're both operating amicably and in good faith.

Go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to read up on the step-by-step process Wikipedians have devised, and if you want to request with me that a neutral, third-party, mediation volunteer help us reach a mutually acceptable resolution, then just go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vertigo (DC Comics) within seven days, and sign and fill out the form. You can find guidelines for that at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case. No worries. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Right now, we're simply requesting a mediator. We give them the basics, and if they think it's worth mediating, they'll let us know. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing "mediation" on my watchlist got my attention : )

I tend to really dislike the comment "tl/dr", But I'll have to admit mostly skimming the discussion so far.

Would either (or both) of you be willing to summarise here the crux of the issue(s)? - jc37 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, jc. Hope you're well. N., quite courteously, asked if I wanted to see his version of a summary before posting it here. I just want to say it's not necessary -- I'm sure he'll be blunt but fair. However, in the interest of keeping things concise, I'll suggest n. and I each write 100 words or less. I've basically summed up my side of it on the Mediation-request page, so I'll write up a 100-word-or-less version of that, with any additional details I might have, and post it ... where would you prefer? Here, or on the Vertigo talk page?

Sound OK to you, n.? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming that it's ok with ntnon, let's make this a subpage somewhere (easier to link to from whatever talk pages, yet doesn't flood those talk pages).

How about: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Requests_for_comment/Articles/Vertigo (DC Comics)? - jc37 03:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the title of that proposed page (which I'm all for), do you want to include the RfC comments other editors left? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for now. Let's just use this for a "new" (or at least summarised) start. Let's use the main page for the "evidence"/summary (as it were), and the talk page to ddiscuss. - jc37 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone do something there so I can reply to it with my subjective take on things..! I don't want to put my defense in first - it wouldn't be seemly. ntnon (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, RE: DC, I've answered on my talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprang[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. The Archives p.223 cite was there when I got there, so, yeah, obviously, if I or a previous editor got that footnote wrong, do have at it. (I changed the name of it from "Archives 3.5" to "Archives223" since I thought something in the original phrasing was creating a cite-error tag. Turned out to be something else, but I didn't want to risk anything by changing them all back.)

To answer your question, I do have a large collection of Alter Ego and of the equally informative Comic Book Artist, plus a selection of Amazing Heroes, Write Now, and various others. I hesitate to say, but I began collecting comics in the 1960s (and writing them in the 1990s, but that's another story....) I imagine I'm one of the older Wikipedians, which ... can be interesting.

I went back just now and looked at the Dick Sprang article's "History" page, and yep, there you are! Nice work there, I must say -- you upgraded it, IMHO, from a few mere grafs to a genuine article.

And this will seem oddly coincidental, but I was adding something to my user page after working on Sprang, and noticed someone had created an article that I'd had on my "To do (and by all means feel free to do first!)" list, Whitney Ellsworth. Curious, I went to see, and lo and behold, there you were! I only gave it a quick read (it's 1:15 a.m. here) and I must compliment you, N. — your article structure and phrasing, your extensive referencing and your referencing style are all really, really close to my own. Assuming that's a good thing (!), I'm truly glad to see someone as intelligent and diligent as yourself creating and improving these biographical articles.

(There are at least a dozen particularly good regulars in WikiProject Comics — Doczilla; Emperor; Pepso/Pepso2; Hiding; ThuranX; BOZ; jc37; lately Asgardian, with whom I had an Arbitration that fell my way rather than his but whom I also now respect very much for his high encyclopedic standards and keen-eyed streamlining to the gist of things; and others I'm too sleepy to name off the bat.)

Let's please hold off on the "Marvel Age" thing until we work out Vertigo, and, hopefully, time-constrained as we are, collaborate as we've planned on a section about Jack Kirby's efforts to receive his artwork and credit from Marvel. I've pulled some AE issues out of storage, plus the generally OK Ronin Ro book Tales to Astonish, the trade-paper collected Kirby interviews from The Comics Journal, and Will Eisner's Shop Talk collection of interviews. Seriously, N., our head-butting at Vertigo aside, I think we have (as I've been saying) the same visions/goals/intentions, and could do, I am sure, some kick-ass collaborations. With hope for the future, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of our Kirby Kollaboration...[edit]

Just saw this on Mark Evenier's POV Online column (July 13, 2008). We probably would have run into it elsewhere, but this saves us the time to look: "One of the folks who asks a question of Bugliosi in the Q-and-A section is Steve Rohde, an attorney who's been a major champion of the First Amendment. He's a courageous man who has done much good for Freedom of Speech in this country...and he was the main lawyer who represented Jack Kirby in his famous dispute with Marvel Comics over the ownership of his original artwork." One more name to Google and maybe come up with interesting stuff, when we get to this. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Damn this real life! When I grow up I want to make a living writing for Wikipedia! --Tenebrae (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Young Romance, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vertigo (DC Comics).

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your post to WP:Obscure public information[edit]

It seemed to be discussion, so I moved it to the talk page. I hope that's not a problem. Algebraist 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Award[edit]

A table might be clean and neat. It's easy enough to copy over the coding for one from, say, the simple table at Timely Comics.

I guess the main decision is whether to do it by year (Shazam Award, Alley Award) or by category (Eisner Award, Harvey Award). That would probably depend on the type and number of awards. If the names of the awards changed frequently, for example, a list by year might be the way to go.

Haven't forgotten about Kirby Kollaboration. Still looking forward to working on that with you on that once our favorite (joking) topic gets hashed out! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always recommend trying to avoid using tables unless there is a good reason (see WP:WTUT - they come with accessibility/usability issues) and it strikes me this works just as well as lists. Yes it needs cleaning-up but that is mainly with the removal of the block caps - I have been working on it (and tried to get the most recent ones up to spec and linking to the right entries, etc.) but there is an awful lot of work to do so all hands are appreciated ;)

And sources? I would have thought the awards site is itself the source for the awards, although other details can probably picked up from elsewhere (as I've added for recent ceremonies). (Emperor (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I would think a table would be neater and easier to standardise/add-to, but... yes, the WP:WTUT does advise otherwise. The headings are as big an issue, for me. The years need to be a step in - so "Award winners" as a heading, 1977 onwards as sub-headings. That might help.

Unless I'm at the wrong website (eagleawards.co.uk) or missing an obvious link (possible), then the awards site doesn't have any of the past winners, does it...? There's a now-dead link on the Eagle Awards page that can be dragged up via the Wayback Machine, but it doesn't give (m)any more winners, and DOES misapply the years, which is of major concern to me. The 1977 Awards were the first, not 1976; the 1977 Awards were merely for 1976's comics. ntnon (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Comics[edit]

Hi. To answer your question: The points in the New Fun and Showcase captions are noted within the article. However, the Action Comics claim was not, and additionally the article Golden Age of Comics notes that historians differ on the first Golden Age comic. Ditto GL, with the caption actually at odds with article; if there's no agreement on the end of the Silver Age, it'd be hard to pinpoint the first Bronze Age title. Finally the Watchman claim also was not supported, and the relevant section is a wealth of uncited claims and POV; additionally, the article Modern Age of Comics has a "multiple issues" tag. Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful work[edit]

...on Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson. Great tracking down of a 20-some year old print source! Kudos! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a non-accepted, failed policy[edit]

I had originally just planned to point out my new entry on Dick Briefer, since I thought you'd appreciate it. Then I noticed the Mike Ploog revert.

And I am very, very disappointed in your citing Wikipedia:Citing IMDb in your edit summary when it says with a big red X at the top, "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community."

I don't know how old you are — very young, no more than in your 20s, I'd imagine — or what kind of professional training you have in research — and from all our conversations I'm thinking little if any, not counting self-taught — but I truly believe that like many people whose research background consists primarily of using the Internet, your credulousness, lack of skepticism, and erring on the side of laxness rather than stringency is more than troubling now that it's coupled with this beyond-the-pale attempt at citing a discredited page — with an anchor link, thinking no one would scroll up.

Writing for an encyclopedia requires even higher research standards than deadline journalism, which has high standards to begin with. In our many, many conversations, where I have spoken of my respect for your intellect, I have given so much of my time and professional expertise to practically give a tutorial on journalistic ethics. I can see now I've been wasting my breath, metaphorically speaking, in discussing ethics. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot cherrypick parts of a failed proposal to try to justify one's edits. The entire thing has failed. It exists for the archival record and to avoid duplicative debate.

IMDb is a wiki and and a "questionable source" with "a poor reputation for fact-checking." Which is exactly why the "Citing IMDb" proposal failed. WP:FILMS includes it as a further-reading link in a template, as it does the capsule-review Web site AMG. That does not automatically confer reliable-source status on either.

We do not cite other Wikipedia articles to try to prove a point. Many, many, many Wikipedia articles are not done up to standard.

You know, countless of my peers have been killed covering Afghanistan and Iraq, and many in China are regularly imprisoned. I'm not covering a war, but all of us do journalism for the same reason: as much as humanly possible, to get accurate, objective, contextual facts to the public, because that is good for society and for civilization. Yes, there are bad journalists and your Fleet Street mentality. But there are untold thousands more who know that even covering new-streetlight debate in Small Town, USA, is important for the people there. So, yes, seeing things done here at less than those standards, it's disturbing.

(Incidentally, your consistent "it's/its" misspellings make me realize you must be younger than I thought. Which makes me feel foolish to no end for having debated you for so long.)

Some editors I knew used to have an old saying: "Would you bet your life on that fact?" It wasn't meant literally — we're human, we make mistakes, especially on deadline; that's what the Corrections box is for. It was meant to remind us how important it is that we be sure we're not believing hearsay, or rumor, or misinterpretation, or lie, or biased information with an agenda that needs reporting.

And encyclopedias have to be held to even higher standards.

Because while people may generally trust that what they read in newspapers is true, people take what they read in encyclopedias as fact.

That's poetical, but it gets the point across.

I'd rather not debate with you anymore. If I see something poorly or questionably sourced, or badly written, or tangential and fancrufty, I'll edit it, like every other responsible editor here. And we'll both honor consensus; that's one of the cores of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aug. 1[edit]

Well ... thanks.

I just now saw your July 16 posting with condolences about my mother's cancer. Don't know how I'd missed it. (Or, well, actually, it was probably because my mind was elsewhere.) So, thank you for that as well.

Still, let's hold off more debate for awhile unless it's some edit that can't wait. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, n. I wanted to thank you for you kind thoughts regarding my family situation, and to let you know that mother finally passed away a couple of weeks ago. She had been unconscious for about three weeks before this, and died peacefully and at home. And judging from the heartbroken people, including even former employees from years before, who attended her memorial and her mass, she left a legacy of love. We should all be remembered so fondly and well.

Thank you again for your emotionally generous thoughts and words throughout her illness. It is much appreciated. I'm slowly getting back into Wiki'ing; today is my first day back. We'll work on that Kirby thing yet. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vinyl Underground[edit]

Just thought I'd throw this one over - I seemed to have missed this when it was created (despite being on my watchlist) but saw it get PRODed so I've expanded it and removed the PROD but it needs more work. I haven't read it (although it sounds up my alley) and now I see it has been cancelled. I'll dig out the sales figures as they were rather poor (I've seen 6,000 mentioned which can't be breaking even). (Emperor (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Great. I think I have found most of the reviews in my search for material and can combine that with the sales to knock up a reception section. The odd thing is that the interview I include is the only one I could find (I found a lot more for Simon Gane and his Paris, I expanded Andi Watson a while ago and it might make sense to start Paris, as I have the information to hand) - it is a pity it never really got going but it also seems to have had very little promotion and has gone under the radar of a lot of people. I'd have thought a bit more PR and pitching it at the Hellblazer fans (and perhaps getting a bit of press in the UK) would have really helped. Ah well.

If it was always going to be 12 issues then the trade is odd - you'd expect a 6/6 split, but as it stands 2 are going to remain uncollected. Very odd. (Emperor (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good start - that is more background than I was able to find with a quick skim through Google. I haven't done anything on the reception section yet - feel free to do it is you want. And no the numbers are never great but I suspect they do better in the trades (which may just make it economic to let a comic selling 6,000 copies to keep going for a bit) but it could have been a lot healthier, you'd imagine. From what I've read it is different enough from Hellblazer that it could pick up an audience of people who like that and other general readers who might want something different. That said I'd struggle to think of much promotion being done on most Vertigo titles but I'd have thought it would only involve getting the creators to do a few hone interviews to help build a bit of a buzz. We'll see how sales go when Grant Morrison returns for another round of creator-owned projects next year.

I was thinking the same about the trade, it'd make a lot of sense not that sense has ever had much influence on anything!! (Emperor (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps evidence of this. In the June sales figures [6] issue #8 is estimated to have sold 5,442 but the trade shifted 2,464 copies. The latter being a respectable figure and an impressive "conversion rate" (if the bigger sellers could manage that they'd be raking it in). (Emperor (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Terror Titans[edit]

I know you took an interest in the Teen Titans article and wanted to run this one past you. Terror Titans got a big thumbs down recently (understandably as they only appeared in five issues [7]). Pretty bad timing as it has been announced they are getting their own mini-series and the interviews have already started [8]. I would have started an article but having been so recently deleted it does make me a bit wary. So thoughts? Start now or wait?

It would also tie in (and help bulk out) the rather skimpy The Dark Side Club. (Emperor (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes I can fish it out (it was poor). I'll sort it out tomorrow. I'll also look those other things over. (Emperor (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I might as well strike while the iron is hot as I'll only get distracted and end up doing something else.

And to answer your other question - I suspect the proportions of the different types of editing is the same as it ever was. That is: 90% of it is vandalism or the reverting of it and tweaking wording. I must admit I'd rather getting stuck in and sorting out an article than arguing about wording and I have noticed (since being made an admin) that an awful lot of articles do get deleted when they are keepers. However, as I can see the previous versions I can't really blame the people who put them up for speedy deletion as there is often little attempt to demonstrate notability (or even what he Hell it is actually about). So I have done less starting new articles and quite a bit of restarting deleted ones, just with more flesh on the bones (and if you spot anything that needs saving like that then let me know - it usually doesn't take much to get them back on track). (Emperor (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I went and started it: Terror Titans. I thought I might as well, although looking at the deleted talk page, I'd imagine there will be objections but it seems a legitimate call. (Emperor (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for that (I threw into the discussion the one from CBR - same content just popped up higher in a Google). Not ideal (as there is an awfully long page to go through - I seem to recall some confusion when a solicitations link was thrown in as they'd listed 2 issues and the person who added the link was referring to the second) but better than nothing. Not sure why DC don't keep the details for individual issues but perhaps they want to shift focus onto the trades after a while. Not too important as, by the time they fade the specific information isn't so important, but it does mean we get dead links (made me stop using them when I found out). (Emperor (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Abrams ComicArts[edit]

I've had this link knocking around for a bit and thought it was up your alley [9]. I've added a quick note in at Harry N. Abrams, Inc. but it might be something we'd want to return to in the future and I'll keep an eye out for more news on this front. (Emperor (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vertigo Encyclopedia[edit]

I was just looking for advice on where to stick something - never a good question to ask anyone, but the structure of the Vertigo page means I'm not 100% sure where it should go. I just added Vertigo (DC Comics)#Vertigo Crime, which was fairly simple but I was going to add something on the Vertigo Encyclopedia [10] and was stumped on where was the best place for it. Possibly in a further reading section? Sounds like an impressive effort although I'm unsure if it is a little too broad a topic to have the kind of depth we might need to provide lots of useful references (but it might have some handy nuggets that could be used). (Emperor (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it helps. I've stuck other similar books into a further reading (and I am not sure how things like Thrill Power Overload count - it is much more in-depth than a company-wide encyclopedia and contains a lot of interviews).

And we'll have to wait and see I suppose but if it is talking about multi-page entries for some titles, when they have been the subject of full books themselves, makes me wonder how much depth they can give each title. As I say I'll wait and see - one day I might get a bundle on interlibrary loan and see how they all fare against each other. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good point - I have the Judge Dredd A-Z and it might be useful somewhere but I have largely consigned it to further reading (as, usually, anything it contains can be better sourced directly to a specific comic).

Recent works I've noted that look to provide a more in-depth look are:

Dark Horse Comics: The First Twenty Years (by Mike Richardson, Frank Miller and others, 384 pages, Dark Horse, March 2008, ISBN 1593076088)
Image Comics: The Road To Independence (by George Khoury, 280 pages, TwoMorrows Publishing, June 2007, ISBN 1-893905-71-3)
Hellboy: The Companion (by Steve Weiner, Victoria Blake and Jason Hall, 200 pages, May 2008, ISBN 978-1-59307-655-9)

They have varying levels of independence but should be useful for sourcing and I'd be interested to see how they compare. (Emperor (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes it is clearly much easier to do a book on a tightly focused topic and yes any chance of getting the full story for some companies is now lost to the grave. That said there are big gaps in more recent comics history - I tried to find some solid sources for the Dez Skinn article but really struggled (I'm sure there are some good ones out there but they could be tucked away in old fanzines or something) which is a problem as he covers Marvel UK and Warrior, which were fertile breeding grounds for British talent at the time (talent that then went on to help revolutionise American comics - so in the end they are important parts of comics history, not just of our little island). In the end I suspect Thrill Power Overload will prove the exception rather than the rule which is a pity as I've found it really useful - I've recently filled in Nick Landau's role at 2000 AD, which otherwise might have been overlooked. (Emperor (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed, it was Marvel UK and 2000 AD that really got me into comics (my local newsagent used to sell unsold Marvel UK comics at a reduced price so I scooped up a lot - I'd have to check but I think it was the Star Wars reprints that hooked me in. I had previously bought multiple versions of 2000 AD #1, but only for the Space Spinner and my folks threw the comics away as it was a little too violent for me at the time!!) so I have been interest in digging into things. TPO has certainly underlined the drama behind the scenes at 2000 AD (Pat Mills is a God-send as he gives great quotes). I am/will be talking to a few people about this and might "shake down" a few contacts I have to see if there is anything we can use (it may be someone somewhere has a fanzine they can scan in or something - there are certainly some comics archaeologists bringing great old material to light). What messing around on Wikipedia has shown is where the information is patchy: It should be possible to nail anything 2000 AD-related down (with TPO, Megazine interviews and others like those on 2000AD Review) it just takes a little time. Beyond that though things get very rocky as well as the Marvel UK/Warrior issues but with other earlier comics it gets really rocky - thanks to the publishers not even crediting work even using the actual comics is problematic. I'm not an expert on the area but this causes problems for the British girl's comics and I have offered help to Jenni Scott, who has taken in interest in improving this area, but there does seem to a limit to the information available. So (before I completely lose my chain of thought) yes I suspect Dez Skinn is too busy/Marmite (I thought there would be calls on the 2000AD message board for him to be lynched after the Eagle fiasco a few years back) but there must be things out there and I now have that "research itch" and will find a way to scratch it.

A complete sidenote but I have just spotted that I have the Letter of the Week in this week's 2000AD - first time I sent them a letter too (although it isn't the first time I've sent a crank letter - it is just newspapers and magazines have been less welcoming), although I did fail to provide them with an address so getting my prize might be tricky. At least it is another tick in the list of "Things to do before I die"!! (Emperor (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ahhhhh well I don't have the Mega History so can't really comment on that. I have been overwhelmed by the amount of material in TPO so was keeping it focused on the editors so that I could get straight in my mind the important points for the main article (although skipping Pat Mills as there is sooooooo much there on him and that will take a concerted effort) and that way it can spin off into other articles as I go.

I do know a big Dr Who fan (they've got a bit of the Tardis) but I'm not sure how far he is into general Who fandom but you are right there might be a tonne of material in fanzines that rarely sees the light of day. It might be worth dropping by the Dr Who Project and seeing what they know. I'm tempted to just email him and ask directly (I'll ask around and see if anyone has a good contact address or thinks it is a good idea - I am talking to John Freeman about sourcing Marvel UK material and have been meaning to drop Mark Roberts a note for a while now - might as well do it now while the iron is at least warm).

On Alan Moore, the Forbidden Planet blog as looking at the Uncollecteds (or those things that have been collected but never reprinted - like Marvelman and Zenith) and they also had a link to this new column at Sequart looking at Alan Moore's early work - looks like being a fascinating series (also it reminds me the Grant Morrison: The Early Years book is being reprinted so I'll have to get around to picking that up at some point).

As I say I know very little of the British girls comics but I was intrigued by the things they mentioned in Comics Britannia that people like Pat Mills, who were very influential on British girls comics, used a lot of principles they developed in the later/darker girl's comics to add more depth to the boys comics they later went on to develop. There is certainly a story there that needs telling (especially as we are losing veteran creators like Phil Gascoine, so it will soon by now or never) - I should really give Jenni a nudge about running with this as she is the best person for the job.

And no it isn't rude to ask, especially as it is under my crank letter writing nom de plume , however, it seems to have gone down like a lead balloon amongst the fans (they review the letters page too!!). So it might be unwise of me to confess any further involvement in this, that way it can be quietly swept under the carpet. Unfortunately, I have shown my hand here so I'll say (looks around to see if anyone is listening) it was in the latest issue (now the previous issue) - not worth seeking out as I was just being silly (badly, apparently), but it amused me. (Emperor (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting interview with the author of the encyclopaedia [11]. I also asked Fordmadoxfraud about this and he thought it was a little thin given the breadth of coverage. (Emperor (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

2000 AD creators[edit]

Looks like the category will be deleted (I was surprised it wasn't last time) and I had been noddling away on User:Emperor/Sandbox/List of 2000 AD creators and was wondering if you'd be interested in chipping in so I can get it finished. Looking down it I'd want to take the focus off the list and putting it into 3 columns might do the trick. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good points but I suspect they aren't going to fly (I came to this realisation quite a while ago hence my starting the article) but we'll see. You are right that even with the biggest names it was their work at 2000 AD that got them the attention needed to make the jump to the US).

I am unsure if we can divide up artists and writers as there are a few that straddle the divide - Adrian Bamforth has written a number of Future Shocks, and for 2 years Henry Flint wrote "Tharg's Alien Invasions" for the yearbook and John Higgins (comics) does writing and art. It could work if we had 2 double columns and if anyone did crossover just have them in both.

Oh and don't worry about stepping on toes - I have (metaphorical) steel toe caps ;) My basic thinking is that it breaks down quite nicely with the early wave (like Grant, Wagner and Mills - all of whom have written for the title consistently over the years), those that were in the generation who took part in the British Invasion (comics) and the more recent creators (as well as the exceptions). Each has a different entry and exit (if some did exit!!): The first wave came up through the war and girls comics of the early seventies and largely stayed on, the next came up through people like Marvel UK (and took a side swerve through Warrior (comics)) before hitting it big and departing these shores (metaphorically) for the American titles and the most recent wave have come up through the British small press comics and are only now getting some heat in America (with the artists being snapped up first: Henry Flint, PJ Holden, etc. with some of the writers getting a foot in the door Simon Spurrier and other artists getting cover work like Boo Cook and Clint Langley).

With that in mind, if that seems a reasonable proposal, it could be worth throwing in some sections to break up the blocks and then I can look through TPO for important bits of information (key will be Pat Mills but Alan Grant entered via editorial using nom de plumes like Alvin Gaunt) so looking at where they came from, what they did there and what they moved on to.

I think the Batman creators is an interesting, although different, parallel - clearly 2000 AD (comics) will focus on the title and the stories so it is focused on the actual publication whereas this tells the story of the shifting group of people who wrought it (the title covers when the important titles start/finish and big events, this covers more of the arc about how it came to be - given 1600+ issues and an awful lot of stories it is impossible to do both in the one article and possibly not desirable).

Hope that makes sense!! (Emperor (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

While I'm open to the idea of mini-lists I'm not sure if it'll be really needed as you can cover the important players in the main prose section and then have the list at the end where you can be more comprehensive. Mini-lists could lead to people going "yes but he..." but I do quite like the idea and will keep it in mind as it might work to break it down completely and not have the big list but have the main players listed in each period with the prose acting as a lead in (which as I type it has a lot of appeal). What I'll do for now is break it down into sections and do a provisional list of the main players so that I can outline the basic information and then convert the list into prose once the information is together. (Emperor (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Actually seeing that broken down it is already shaping up OK - obviously the text is clunky as I just threw it in but expanding it a bit should work OK. I'll get noodling. You wouldn't have that book on Grant Morrison's early works? (Emperor (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also feel free to pepper it with {{fact}} (I'm going to) as it'll make it easier to spot what needs sourcing and get the material. (Emperor (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Congratulations on the mind-reading (I, usually, know what I mean but it sometimes doesn't translate well ;) ) and bugger on it not being available. (Emperor (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Arthur Ranson[edit]

Well I was going to be a smartie pants and do a little sleight of hand and conjure up a cached version of his page but, for reasons which desert me, I never edited that page and no one else added the link. However, my web fu is strong and the link was easy enough to guess so I have done it despite the odds being against me. soooooooooo:

FIRST CREDIT IN 2000AD

Judge Anderson
Triad 10 episodes (Progs 635 to 644) 50 pages
Script: Alan Grant, Artist: Arthur Ranson

Featuring: Orlok the Assassin

and:

FIRST CREDIT IN THE MEGAZINE

Judge Anderson
Reasons to Be Cheerful 2 episodes (Megs 2.10 to 2.11) 12 pages

Script: Alan Grant, Artist: Arthur Ranson (1) and Siku (2)

So 635 was cover dated 15th July, 1989 and Megazine 2.10 (how I hate the old numbering system) was cover dated 5th September, 1992.

Source

Which is pretty definitive. as you can see Hewlett didn't appear in that issue (so it wasn't just badly worded and I can't explain that comment - you can always email David and check). Looking at 614 you can see the Future Shock in that issue was drawn by Kev Walker and that Jamie Hewlett appeared in two stories (including 1 Dredd) - impressive start, pity we never heard any more from him ;)

I am led to believe that the database will be back at some point in the future - fingers crossed. (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

However, there are errors in the database (I spotted a few the other day with the early ABC Warriors where there was a different artist each week) so I got out 614 and the credits seem OK. I suppose it is possible that the Future Shock is wrongly credited but it is doubtful (I would need to do side-by-side comparisons to be 100% on that but it probably isn't worth it). However, there are some odd credits - the lettering on the Future Shock is for a "Johnny A" which doesn't ring a bell and the Judge Dredd has some weird art credits - the box says R-MC², Hewlett and Whitaker. The first is almost certainly McCarthy but Whitaker is a mystery. Comicbookdb gives him the credit for this and the rest of that storyline and colouring in Warheads: Black Dawn and pulling that shows the colouring credit is to "Whitaker-Chrome" whatever that means. I might run it past John Freeman but I'd assume it is no one who made a big impact later as they usually simplify the credits in the database and/or own up in interviews or TPO. So unless he appeared as a pseudonymous letterer or the Walker work was wrongly credited and hasn't been fixed in the database (unlikely) I think it is fair to say that, with the information we have to hand, Ranson appeared in 635. (Emperor (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good call on TPO - I've moved it. Any chance we can source why Ranson didn't go with BM4 - personal reasons are cited but someone on the 2000 AD forum stated that he didn't like the story and if so they probably didn't make a big deal of it. (Emperor (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No worries - I only edited the page to remove the double whitespace and then threw in some links and italics and it all seems to be there (oh and removed the two decades with apostrophe's: 1970's and 1960's).

Good edit - I'd suggest you can simplify the TPO link by putting the full reference in the reference section and just using "Bishop (2007) page X" in the footnotes. (Emperor (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is also the makings of a Mazeworld article there too.

Also I dug out the Grant interview from the Megazine where he deals with Mazeworld but it is pretty much the same so Bishop either did a big old interview or did a few and dropped the TPO material in. I'll double check to make sure there isn't something in there that isn't in the book. (Emperor (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For some reason I had it in the back of my mind that Ranson wasn't feeling his best so had to turn the assignment down, but I can't find anything online that says it, so I might have imagined it. It could be something as simple as him thinking it wasn't really a Harry Exton story and so he didn't feel engaged with it. He may return triumphantly for future stories. As they probably have an eye on the film there may be stories that need telling before it hits or story points they need to touch on and they needed to keep things moving. He is, after all, no spring chicken and his work is detailed so it might have bought him time to get up to speed on future stories. Who knows?

I think his most recent work is this cover for 2000 AD from a year and a half ago [12] and since the Millennium it has largely just been those runs on X-Men (I'd be intrigued to check them out but am not sure I'm quite up for skimming the X-franchise). In comics.

PS: Some nice Sapphire and Steel scans here. (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I suppose if that site could find such an interview they'd post it, so it is a pity there only seems to be a short one. It could be worth dropping them a line but I suspect if they knew of something they'd mention it.

While I can speak to the legality of the site (although as they aren't reproducing whole comics they might be able to claim fair use) but I can't see a problem with using a scan from their site as long as you can justify its fair use here - which you can do as it'd be used as an example of his style during the Look-in period and could also be used on Sapphire & Steel and Look-in (the former needing a section on the stories and the latter needing a few sections and illustrations.

I had a quick check of my box of miscellaneous British comics but I don't think I have any, although there might be some lurking (I have had a few surprises since starting to index my collection - although not all of it good!!) so I think that is going to be your best bet for a scan of the art. (Emperor (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

While it is a pity no one seems to have to done a big sit down interview with him before he died (there are seemingly big gaps in the history of British comics and with some of the old guard shuffling off this mortal coil they are unlikely to be so easily filled) but there is one positive aspect to his dying - it means you can claim fair use on photographs of the individual. Obviously a free to use one is preferred but once they die you can expand the sources that you can use (there might be exceptions like Ditko where it might be difficult to get a photograph). (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just thought I'd flag this: http://www.arthurranson.com/ (where he links back to his entry). He has also added his photo so we are close to a B on the article, it just needs a few more sources and a quick copy edit to spot any wrinkles there might be. (Emperor (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

Ah ha!! Well done on finding where the system grinds to a halt. We now have an aliases infobox for pages that deal with a lot of characters of the same name but this....? It might normally be solved with a split but there isn't enough material and there appears to be no connection between the two. I'd say drop one in for the Marvel one in the appropriate section and a note on the talk page about it. Might also be worth throwing it into the Comics Project talk page and letting folks thrash that one out. I'm not sure there is a simple fix there I'm afraid. (Emperor (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed - if in doubt pass it along and a solution can be thrashed out. It is partly why I started the thread there, as cases like that are going to be rare, but they are going to crop up. (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No problem - anything that pops up my watchlist I check out for an infobox. It does show how long I've been flagging the need for these and in the end all it has resulted in is a backlog that needs clearing (I should have done this years ago!!). (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lately[edit]

I'll be glad to take a look and offer what suggestions I can, sometime tonight. I've been wanting to see Goldwater in for some time now; I'm happy to see someone create that.

Thank you for asking after me. My mother grows graver with the cancer, and my wife has just lost her more than decade-long job at a prestigious magazine, following a mega-merger. It's true, I haven't had much energy for Wikipedia lately. I did some catch-up, mostly inspired by my having purchased the extraordinary new Blake Bell biography of Steve Ditko. I'm at work now; I'll try to get back in here tonight. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a art-book biography, near as I can describe it. The research is very impressive, and Bell's several pages of endnotes go into the newsgathering and source material in admirable detail.

Thanks again for your kind thoughts during this time. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Goldwater[edit]

I think it looks really good, really solid. The only edits I would suggest are mostly technical/formatting in nature — primarily, I would paraphrase cited points except for cases of ambiguity or possible controversy, in which case I would (sparingly) use verbatim quotes from article-writers. I would also use the "Early life and career" subhead as the first subset of "Biography". But the writing style and tone are very good — neutral, but a narrative, with interesting, telling details. I'd adjust the odd phrase here and there for flow and clarity, but as I said, that's just technical polish.

"John L. Goldwater" seems to be the most common way he's referred to in press and such, like "Edward G. Robinson", so I would agree with you on that title formulation.

I somehow managed to drag a very basic Harry Sahle article out of myself yesterday. I need to add some print sources before posting it as a new article on the Noticeboard.

Now off to help somehow who asked for some informal mediation on Thanos.... Hang in there. Stay well. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sahle[edit]

Many thanks for the added info/corrections. Jump in today if you can/want and tidy up, since I'm at work and can't get to it till later. I was rushing the Sahle piece, since I was doing it as take-my-mind-off-things therapy when I really didn't have the time to write up a new article, and clearly it shows. I really do appreciate your help on the clean-up and confirmations.

On a lighter note, I know you didn't mean to call using the Social Security Death Index a "trick"!

Stay well. Talk to you soon. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good edits on Harry Sahle. Nice catches. One fairly subtle grammatical note about what's called a "misplaced modifier": The sentence written this way

"In 1940, he co-created the Timely character the Black Widow with writer George Kapitan, comics' first costumed, superpowered female protagonist."

is calling George Kapitan "comics' first costumed, superpowered female protagonist." Strunk & White talk about this somewhere. But as I said, that's just a grammatical thing. The new and corrected information itself is all very good.

One other very important thing: We can't include forum postings, per WP:SPS. --Tenebrae (talk)

OK, did some looking, and I see George Hagenauer is the original-art columnist for CBG. I didn't realize that, and so I imagine a general-audience reader wouldn't either. I'll reincorporate your material with an expanded ID, a la this at Silver Age of Comics: "...historian Craig Shutt, author of the Comics Buyer's Guide column "Ask Mister Silver Age", writes in his book Baby Boomer Comics...."

I can't say I'm sold on suggesting there is or isn't a correlation between the Candy cancellation and Quality Comics' demise, but I can live with it if everyone else can. Overall, nice research on your part! Harry Sahle is getting an entry that his work deserves. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found some additional information from Max Allan Collins and from GCD re: Mike Lancer that together suggested a more authoritative footnote. However, I've added Hagenauer to the EL, with a note about a contradictory issue number.

Minor grammatical thing -- removed parentheses around a clause that spoke to a directly modifying point rather than a parenthetical point. As a rule of thumb, parentheses are a last resort. But again, minor grammatical thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're thinking so along the same lines it's scary: Before you even posted, I was already doing some copy and line edits to polish Jack Liebowitz! I also put a note on Fruitmonkey's talk page, complimenting him on his solid work.

Still no news on the family front — status quo, but that would change any minute. I'm just waiting on the call, basically. Thanks again for your kind thoughts. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please return to WikProject Media franchises[edit]

Dear Ntnon...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA @ 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are very active in WikiProject Media franchises, why don't you add yourself to the active participants list. You have been a great help to focus the project. I am hoping to see more people like you show up to the project. LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 08:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mills & O'Neill[edit]

Excellent find - really great stuff!! I love Kevin O'Neill's work so it is always great to find out that there may be more of it coming soon. I bought Marshal Law trade when it came out and it has been so heavily re-read that it looks like I've made a decent stab at eating it (it was the late eighties/early nineties so anything is possible). Tonnes of good stuff, and The Bojeffries Saga? That has come rather out of the blue (or I missed previous mentions) and I'd love to hear more (no pun intended). I suppose if they have printed a million new Watchmen volumes and it is top of the sales charts (20,000 sold through Diamond alone in just July) then he is free from financial concerns and can focus on projects he really wants to do, I'd never have guessed about returning to that one, but why not? The article needs work and God knows what infobox to use (queried here). I'll start to look into this more.

It is interesting what they say about Mills and superheroes there as I'm sure I've read elsewhere that he actually dislikes superheroes (as does Garth Ennis) which allows him to really explore this area. I might see what I can extract for Marshal Law (comics) as it needs some work - I wonder if we can just move that issue #4 cover up to the infobox? I do wonder if the infobox needs changing to be a character infobox as the current one isn't really covering the topic. I'll ponder on this - I'm off at a family wedding at the weekend so won't be able to do much until next week anyway.

Looking at Kevin O'Neill (comics), it should be possible to source quite a bit of that and expand on it (it doesn't mention that he was the art editor) and I'll also look at that, as it'll go hand in hand with Marshall Law. (Emperor (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well I might have always missed it in skimming through interviews/article but I think a big deal might have been made of it, so I am leaning towards new news. I did a Google but found nothing on it (although it might be lost in the noise - good noise, which I'll save to add into the article, just not what I was looking for).

I am surprised he has renounced book royalties but he is clearly a man of principle/means.

I'll have a crack at the Bojeffries Saga later - I'm pretty sure I have the relevant Warriors to hand as I've just been indexing things and know I went through Warrior the other week (it comes to mind as the issue with the Big Ben cover wasn't with the others) - I don't have the A1 (comics) but seem to have the Warriors [13]. I'll take a run at it with what I have. I'll also take a run at O'Neill as I've already gone over the early parts of 2000 AD history in TPO and added them to some articles - I should have grabbed out the O'Neill stuff and will do so while it is fresh in my mind. Unless I get distracted by something else and don't do it.

Yes, Ellis too - ironic really that they then produce some of the best work in the field. Well perhaps not "best" but "different" although hardly... nuanced and there is room for both approaches (and, of course, their vision somehow often comes back to more normal fare if they don't have creator control, which might be the ultimate irony). There is a serious study in there somewhere.

Good luck with the signing - if you do manage to get a few words with him. If you get anything good or more than a quick "yes" and "no" be sure to share it!! Actually if anything good crops up I'm sure we can get it online to share with other folks so... fingers crossed (you know the questions that need asking!!). (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Emerging from the noise:

Parkhouse in 2004 says he doubts there will be more [14]
Gary Spencer Millidge (no date) " I hear that he may also be writing more Bojeffries stories for Steve Parkhouse, and he's planning a comic book grimoire." [15] A grimoire?

Which I think is about all the information currently available. (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Right I've added what I can on the background to The Bojeffries Saga which is mainly just the stuff I dragged up looking around. Clearly it needs more plot and a picture but it is a start. Note: You can get the Terror Tomes preview images from the Newsarama site by changing the "www" in the url to "classic" for posterity I am downloading them. Re-reading what O'Neill says that sounds pretty definite, although it would need to come from the horses mouth to fully nail it (Emperor (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sooooooooooo....... any luck getting a quick word with Alan Moore? (Emperor (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That is a shame. I believe the time dilation is called "getting older" although I am slightly suspicious it is also connected to the Internet as I am a lot more productive without it (which suggests I should really be around here less).

Yep family do went fine - everyone was very well behaved (or very naughty when I wasn't around, I suppose!!). In fact I haven't been to any weddings that got out of hand which is a pity (and I have been to a lot of Scouse weddings by now - so they must have an unfair reputation). (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Here is another Alan Moore interview - not much extra information although I am pleased to see there is a DVD of Mindscape coming out.

Ah yes it has been out for a bit - I've clearly taken my eye off that ball!! I'll put it on my list to Santa, he is another bearded man who doesn't get out much but gives out lovely gifts when he does!! Nice cover too. (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Bojeffries[edit]

Good stuff - thanks for that. I'll have a read through the Warrior ones I have here and see if anything presents itself.

The image you link to is actually the proposed cover of Terror Tomes #1. As I mentioned above you can fiddle the image URL to get the images (actually I'll do this for the lot and drop the links into the talk page as it might be of some use to someone. So the version from Newsarama (which is similar to that but with all the lettering) is here. I am not sure about using unpublished (but solicited) images - J Greb is seeking clarification here.

One thing I've not seen anything on - what happened to Atomeka? They clearly had that comic finished and ready to roll with other material in for future issues but then... nothing. Considering the talent you'd think they could have teamed up with someone who could have covered printing and distribution. Seems very odd that it just seemed to evaporate. (Emperor (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good points. If they were able to print a Complete Bojeffries volume then I'd have to assume the stories were creator-owned but then there is the whole Marvelman business - Moore was clearly able to move it to another publisher but only Solomon could decide the ownership issue (makes me wonder if Marvelman and Zenith will sit gathering dust until they eventually become public domain when we are all dead and gone). (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Talking of Ross Richie... (Emperor (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7[edit]

I agree - I have flagged some others I think need including as well as ones I am concerned about. There is a BIG problem with Gaiman/McFarlane/Spawn and I don't think we can let that be set in stone like that. I'll run it past the discussion but I think, as they need to be on the disc, I'll have to invoke WP:BLP and remove that material to the talk page until someone can source them.

Frank Hampson is certainly one I feel should be there but the article isn't great and lacks references (and a picture - given the fact he is no longer with us the bar is lower on getting a picture so it should be doable). That is a pretty good list and chimes with my concerns raised on the talk page - it is a crude algorithm that doesn't really take into account what is actually significant: I mean could we really end up with half a dozen Batman villains and no Eagle (comic book)? So I'd say post those suggestions there and we'll try and thrash it out.

I also agree that some are pretty (piss?) poor. I have suggested splitting off publication lists to their own article but if you did that on Dark Horse Comics you'd end up with stub. It might be that the titles are stifling the article and we need to do this (like excising a parasitic twin) but that is only going to have long-term benefits and short-term it isn't going to look pretty (not a big deal if this 0.7 wasn't looming). I think it would benefit Image Comics, and my previous suggestion of splitting off the Hellboy spin-offs to "Hellboy franchise" would really help that article too - so I might get the ball rolling there.

I suppose we also have to accept that some articles that are significant aren't going to be that great and that we are just going to have to do our best with what we have. It does make me wonder if we should make a list of say 100 articles that should be as good as we can make it.

On a slight sidenote I was just looking at Hellblazer and it is pretty poor, when it should be one of our best articles. I suspect using the trade template and a decent publication history we could remove all of those long lists of creators (which you don't see in other long-running titles - the important information should be in the main body of the text. (Emperor (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes I think we would be better putting forward a tight list of articles for now but I think there is merit in working up say a list of 300 (seemed an apt number) of the most significant articles (you know - the ones you'd save from a burning building or smuggle on board the last space rocket leaving the doomed Earth) and make sure they, at the very least, don't embarrass us in public. That way next time round we will have a decent set of articles to offer because if this is 0.7 it means there is a bigger fancier release further down the line and we should try and get things presentable for now but make sure we are ready for the future. Also I don't think we are going to see any articles "gutted" but I will be doing some splitting and removing of material that I would have done in the natural course of things (and keeping an eye out for anyone getting the shears out just in case). I must admit I was just going to drop the splits in but I might speak to LA first as she'll be able to pitch in and help get the Hellboy franchise article up to speed (although the majority of the material is already there - one of the reasons it will be a useful proof-of-concept, and I have also worked on all the major articles).

Hellblazer and Dark Horse have got stuck in a rut as they seem to have naturally evolved to the point they are at and incremental change is only going to deepen the rut. They need root and branch changes (we can haggle over the correct use of individual words later!!) and Hellblazer in particular has been niggling me for so long I will have to do something about it. I'm going to do it in three stages: Template the trades, write a publication history and since those two will cover the significant creator's inputs and I can take out those vast lists. That should free up the article for some further expansion. What I've been doing is getting resources together here and if you see anything relevant (or find something you can't currently use) then drop it in there. I'll sandbox the trades so they are ready to go (and it'll take a bit to do I suspect) and then start the ball rolling, if you think of anything useful then let me know. What I especially on the look-out for is a source for the statement flagged over on Jamie Delano which is that he was Moore's pick to take Constantine on to his own series. Plausible as Delano did that DR and Quinch story but I've yet to find a source, although there may be one.

Dark Horse is a trickier one as there is no quick fix - I think we'll have to let it go as it is (which is thin but functional) and then try and fix the problems later. I'd suggest that splitting off the publications to their own page and then slowly expanding the article is the way to go but it will take a bit to get it looking decent. (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good stuff - the only addition I can think of is Hellblazer. I have also got the ball rolling on The 300 and looking at your list (and the rejigging BOZ has done to the 0.7 list) it seems we should be able to come up with 300 that are pretty solid and representative. They will need some work though!! (Emperor (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You've probably seen this but it seemed relevant:

Steve Bissette: added "on a related topic, be sure to check out the chapters on Marvelman/Miracleman and Medieval Spawn & Angela in the upcoming "PRINCE OF STORIES: THE MANY WORLDS OF NEIL GAIMAN" (November from St. Martin's Press) for the most comprehensive and current coverage I could muster on both situations."

LitG obviously (ISBN 0312387652) I wonder if we can get them to send you a copy!!! Also don't check out the Alan Moore yaoi - proof if we needed it that it is a funny old world!! (Emperor (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It did occur to me after I posted it, that saying not to would just make you have to - so saying <large>don't</large> would surely only make you want to even more. As would removing it after I posted it. Better than my second idea: to send the link to John Reppion. I might need a lie down. (Emperor (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hellblazer[edit]

I did some digging and added some more links User:Emperor/News_trawl#Hellblazer, although most are actually in the Delano article so nothing new. What he says there is that (also coming from Northampton) Alan Moore got him his break in comics by helping him through the door at Marvel UK, he does seem to have followed in his footsteps from Night Raven to Captain Britain, to DR & Quinch to Hellblazer but he doesn't say it was down to Moore. in two interviews he says similar things - he was pitching Vertigo an idea and so when they were looking for a British writer to do something with the popular Constantine character he was on their mind, they asked him to pitch some ideas, he did and they accepted the offer. I am not sure how much of an influence Moore had on Delano getting the Constantine gig which (barring other sources emerging) means the person who wrote it might not have known or was getting it mixed up with the earlier influence from Moore (that said I was always suspicious about the way the whole article was parachuted in by an anon IP - although from the interviews it doesn't seem like Delano is the type to be that bothered so I suspect it is a fan). There is some good material in those interviews and I'll extract bits and bobs.

Tricky call on the title/character business - I'd go with the character for now as it doesn't seem as bad as the title. (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ian Akin[edit]

Nice job tracking down his DOB and other details! What I would love to know is how Akin & Garvey hooked up, and how they divided duties. Like did Akin ink figures and Garvey backgrounds? I remember wondering this way back when when they broke into the mainstream... Also, do we know for sure that Akin & Garvey are American? For some reason, I had a sense they were British... Anyway, again, great expansions! — Stoshmaster (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

Thanks for that - it helped resolve things quickly.

The only comics-related one left is: George Khoury (author). Just saying... (Emperor (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nice work!! Thanks for that. I wonder why the Muck Monsters book never made it to the shelves - I know I'd be interested (Hell I might be in it, after living semi-wild in the Highlands for a few weeks in the mid-late nineties!!). (Emperor (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: 1936 in comics; 1935 in comics; Thanos; 1997 in comics; Reed Crandall; Fantagraphics Books; Image Comics; List of DC Comics publications; Gene Ha; Justice Society Returns; Topps Comics; 1938 in comics; Michael Avon Oeming; Mystery in Space; Limited series; Murphy Anderson; Warren Ellis; Matt Wagner; Lev Gleason Publications

Cleanup: Batman (comic book); Spamalot; Religiosity
Merge: Jules Feiffer; Squadron Supreme; Nighthawk (Marvel Comics)
Add Sources: Jerry Robinson; Bruno Premiani; Eclipse Comics
Wikify: Wonder Twins; Sandro Angiolini; Gunsmoke
Expand: Yvonne Craig; Toro (comics); Animal Man

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen[edit]

Could you transfer the material and sources you added to Watchmen to the temp page mentioned in the Featured Article Review? It would make things much easier, since the ultimate plan to to rework the article in that temp and then copy and paste the material into the main article when it's finished. Also, would those Comics Journal articles have information on sales or the publication delays I've heard about, or this news I keep hearing that the story is supposed to to change ownership from DC to Moore and Gibbons when it's no longer in print? Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically going off of what Erik was initially intending to do with his user page; that is, a ground-up rewrite. It could definitely need it, and not to sound full or myself or anything, but I feel one of my strengths as an editor is my sense of good structure. There's also essential missing details I brought up to you like commercial success, the rights issues, and any delays that may have occurred during publication (I brought that up to you because on comics blogs when the topic of late comics is brought up, there's usually people who say Watchmen was delayed, so I wanted to verify if this was true or not). Anyway, copy the material you incorportated into Watchmen where appropriate into the user page, and we can clean it up from there. My general plan is to copy sections one at a time back into the main article once the majority of the rewriting is complete.

I'm not sure 4coloheroes would classify as a reliable source. However, if you have sales chart information (that is, where the issues ranked each month in relation to other issues) from a reliable source, that would work just as well, if not better. Also, browsing through the Comics Journal archives for further sources, I noticed one of the issues listed reviews for both Watchmen and Dark Knight, which is probably the same one you're talking about. If you can get that review that would be fantastic. While we do have mainstream media commentary for the article, incorporating contemporary comics press critical commentary is essential.

The supplemental bits of Watchmen are the tricky thing, aren't they? It defintely is necessary to give them their own section in the article in order to avoid overloading the plot summary; the plot of Watchmen is equal to the other elements like symbolism and structure, anyways, not superior to them. All the prose about the supplementary section should probably go under that header titled "Structure". However, a list would be cumbersome. As we also have to work in Tales of the Black Freighter, the best course of action would probably to summarize what Moore and Gibbons did in regards to structure effectively, then incorporate sourced commentary about what they did. They are all prose pieces for one. Thinking further, you can simply say issues 1 through three are chapters from Hollis Mason's book. Then you'd include a quote from someone commenting on what the purpose of these chapters are. And so on.

Meanwhile I've checked out a book of academic essays about superheroes from my library which devotes an essay to analyzing Watchmen. I'm going to get as much as I can out of this, but I'd like to get the hard facts and basics like the conception of the series and its publication taken care of before switching gears to critical analysis. For now I'm taking a bit of a break from Wikipedia for the next few days to clear my head about other things. I should be back around Monday. However, if you have any questions in the meantime feel free to e-mail me. Thanks for all your help. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. I'm going to do a lot of summarizing to cut the prose down to less than 100kb. Personally, I don't see the need for a merchandise section; lots of graphic novels have accompanying t-shirts, statues and the lot. Also, some of the new web references aren't acceptable under Wiki guidelines. I will try to find a way to mark them so we can possibly replace them with better sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the iffy web references were there before you started editing the page. Double check against the list of bad web references at the bottom of this page. 01:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done adding material so I can start trimming; you can take a few days if you want. I must note that with some sections (particularly the background section) I will probably revert back to the version previously on the temp page, because I had already pruned most of the unnecessary detail and bad refs out from the original article. The Comics Journal sources were what mainly needed transferring from the main article to the temp page. Anyway, keep working and let me know when you need me to step in. I'll be busy with other articles in the meantime. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. I can wait a few days. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veidt's ability to catch a bullet isn't portrayed as a superpower. It's portrayed as this really awesome physical feat he can do due to his training. Think Batman, hence the phrasing "obvious superpowers". I really doubt that article on comic book registration acts should even exist; aside from that, I see no reason to direct the reader to another page to read about something in Watchmen when they should get what they need in the main Watchmen article. Finally, the fake alien invasion needs to be mentioned for simple context. In one paragraph the synopsis says Veidt has a plan, then in the next paragraph it's been enacted. The reader would quite rightly ask, "Wait, what was the plan?" It's one of those simple things that's obvious to people familiar with the story, but it's very necessary for people who aren't familiar to understand it. Given it can be explained quite succinctly ("Veidt's plan involves faking an alien invasion in order to get the US and USSR to stop fighting"), there's no reason to exclude it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started trimming and rewriting because I was bored. Check out the revamped "Background" section, which is more or less finished now, and is now lean and to-the-point. If there's any important bits of info from your Comics Journal articles you think need to be added to that section that weren't there before, put them in, but keep in mind I cut most of the quotes because I was able to express the same point in a more concise manner without them. Also, details of which Charlton character is the basis for which Watchmen character is dealt with in the characters section, so it doesn't need to be included there. I'll be moving on to the "Reception" section next. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the symbolism/themes material that I excised will return in a different form once I start going through the academic essays I have on hand and that Erik will send to me. My approach to the Themes section is to insert material from the reliable sources as we find it, rather than trying to make it fit the lackluster original version of the article. If you can find a major reputable source that discusses the Mayfair game (like the Comics Journal, Alter Ego, or even a decent article in Wizard) that would be acceptable, but there's no reason to set aside space in the article about if no one outside of a fansite discusses it, because than that means it's not a notable aspect worth documenting. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is the Bhob Stewart Comics Journal quote in the Quotes section part of a review, or an article? Because if it's part of a review I want to work it into the critical reception, but if it's part of an article, it can possibly be cut. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mind if I begin rewriting the article in the tmep page in earnest? I ask because there's going to be a lot of shifting of material around the page as well as hours-long uninterrupted blocks of editing, and it would really suck for both of us to run into edit conflicts. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create a section at the end of the page titled Miscellaneous and put any info you find there. I'll work it into the article as i go along. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put whatever you think is of use in the Miscellaneous section; it's there to serve as a holding place to items until I figure out where to put them in the article. Don't try to group the material by theme or relevancy or whatever; just place them there in a form that gives as much of the original context as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally I should be done by Monday. I'm currently ahead of schedule, but completely overhauling the Themes and Structure sections might take a bit of time. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds' book is pretty much a long essay, but it's an academic essay backed with academic sourcing, which is one of the best types of sources you can have for a novel. The book is fine quality-wise, and it's cited by other academic essays. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Composition and Themes sections, I'm basically dismantling them and rebuilding them in a more orderly fashion. Even after I removed all the unreliable sources, there's still plenty to work with (plus all the material you, me, and Hiding have been unearthing), but the structure from the original article is lackluster. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I need the full publishing info for the Klock book so i can cite it in the references. Also, is the Artists on Art chapter you're citing written by Gibbons? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can you tell me about the Gateways magazine? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering about basic stuff like what is its focus, what is its journalistic quality, etc. Also, I need the source info for Comics, Comix, and Graphic Novels. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed on something: does the Comics Journal actually indicate Joe Orlando drew that pirate artwork at the end of issue five? It was unclear from what you gave me. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sort of sales information would be appreciated, if those issues contain it. Aside from that, post material that might not be already covered in the temp version of the article. After reading all these sources the past few weeks I've found that many of them repeat the same info, just in different ways. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use that Comics Journal cover because it's not discussed in the article, and is not direclty related to the subject. I want to use an image of one of the story pages to show the symbols and nine-panel grid system, but haven't decided on one yet. But the Comcs Journal cover does not belong. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same points illustrated by the Comics Journal cover can be illustrated with images from Watchmen, and more effectively at that. We want to be careful with what fair use images we use, and it's far more relevant to stick to images directly associated with the story. Including an image from a magazine issue where the series is the cover story is pushing it; it would be like including a cover image from Entertainment Weekly for an article on a Harry Potter movie. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should have the Harvey Award wins listed somewhere in it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the FAR has closed and the article has been kept as a Featured Article. Thanks for all your help. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo interview[edit]

In connection with the release of the encyclopaedia [16].

While on Vertigo I am collecting together resources to start the Greatest Hits article on my news trawl. CBR are running an introduction to the characters so when the last two are published I'll start the article - if you've spotted anything useful then drop it on in and I'll scoop it up. Reviews have been a bit varied but I'll probably pick up the trade eventually, unless issue #2 turns a corner and it becomes a must read, I suppose.

While nosing around the Forbidden Planet blog I found an overview/review of Paul Gravett's next one [17] - sounds right up my alley. I just wonder if Santa is going to be able to get everything I want down the chimney!! (Emperor (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Started: Greatest Hits (comics). (Emperor (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note[edit]

Just a note to ask if you are aware that the person involved in the Talk:Alan Moore is highly more than likely to be a new sock of User:ColScott, who posted this about us in May? I'm looking at the history right now and will submit it when I'm sure. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welllllll... I wish you luck. I have sincere doubts that any effort will have long time or permanent effect. He was given a reprieve before, which was unsuccessful. The real issue isn't with what he says he wants to accomplish, but with what has gone on before, from legal threats, to cyberstalking, to conflict of interest issues (like a new article he just created for which he is the producer) to manipulation. I'm from the old school of "once a decision has been reached and consequences determined, then it must be maintained in the interest of consistency and fairness." It's also happened since May. I believe it was in July and about an editor who is an administrator, checkuser, oversight and arbitrator. It seemed to me that incident happened "just 'cuz." Regards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck as well. I'm all for giving people second chances, but somewhere around the thirtysecond chance I lose patience. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why do these people hate? do they not see the beauty in a flower or the wonder of a stream? are their lies so empty? The article for Torso as I attempted to write it was pathetic- it has since been rewritten by seven other wonderful editors. This is the glory of the mighty wiki. What conflict do I have? Make my writing better- I am no genius. I also make no legal threats- I don't like lawyers. And cyberstalking sounds like someone has spent too much time watching Battlestar Galactica. Anyway, thanks for ignoring these attacks on my character and remember, everyone is beautiful in their own way, under God's Heaven, Wikipeda will find a way.Allknowingallseeing (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bair[edit]

Could you cast an eye over Michael Bair? No rush it was just that, as discussed in the AfD, I expanded it to demonstrate his notability and did it all in one go (based on the things I'd found to support my keep suggestion) so I was rather loosing interest (the will to live?) towards the end and feel it could do with a quick once-over just to make sure it reads OK. As I say, no rush - it isn't going anywhere but I thought I'd flag it as in need of a read through at some point. Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comic story infobox[edit]

Some further discussion here. Thought I'd drop you a note as you pitched in some ideas in the earlier discussion. (Emperor (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is now an example here: User:J Greb/Sidebar. Discussion here: User talk:J Greb#Series/Metaseries infobox. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The Big Book of[edit]

Not sure if you are interested but I got the ball rolling on The Big Book of. (Emperor (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Cool. As per the note on the talk page, there is a lot of content to cover!! I can't find many links to interviews but the date probably means there aren't many expect the retrospective mentions.

Any thoughts on the right infobox? I was thinking about the graphic novels one but perhaps comic titles would sum it up best? It is the angle I'm currently stumped on. (Emperor (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"hybrid company-title-series-graphic novel-anthology-type thing" well I'll look but I'm not holding my breath (then again we have an Amory Wars character infobox so...) ;). I'll jam in comic title and see how it goes (I find going with my gut works most of the time, apart from whenever it doesn't). It is easy swapping them around once the thing is in. (Emperor (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree - in fact I left you a note on that point above because of the ideas you threw in here ;) (Emperor (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Its all over-rated!! They are all good ideas and worth saying again just in case ;) (Emperor (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Resources[edit]

You are always welcome to ask but (as far as I can tell) I don't have either. There have been some interesting surprises when I've gone digging but I'd doubt there are any left along those lines (although I will go and kick a few boxes but I'm not holding my breath). Sorry. (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Cool. I keep stumbling across Alan Moore interviews but there is nothing new in them so I haven't bothered throwing them over. However, this may interest you: podcast interview with Dave Gibbons. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yett but it could be useful. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What it does remind me is that it has been mentioned a few times about getting a reousrces page together like the one the music project have and people can add in what books and useful goodies they have in a nice table that other folks can consult if they need a hand. (Emperor (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm a terrible packrat and while looking for something else I discovered my collection of... old Forbidden Planet bags (yes I know, but in my defence there is some lovely Bolland work on the plastic and paper ones) and there were some other random bags in there, one of which contained a copy of Fantasy Advertiser #89 (Feb 1985)!! Weird coincidence. Nothing I can see that is overly useful (European comics, Alex Toth and Teen Titans are the main pieces). So while it rather flies in the face of what I previously said it is almost definitely the only one I have (as it was in one of the boxes I haven't been through in a while as I didn't think it contained much of relevance). There were other bits and bobs (like In Due Course #1 which seemed to be a short, free Manchester-based fanzine they gave away free with comics), so it is possible there is some random ephemera tucked away

I also found my copy of Dice Man #1 which is in much better nick than I thought it was (hiding in a box for ages has clearly done it wonders, it could have been bought yesterday) - O'Neill/Talbot/Lloyd in one comic!! Them were the days. I'd forgotten how much work had gone into it, 20ish pages of art and a lot of panels crammed into the page. (Emperor (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure I was making any Teen Titan admissions, although I probably do have them ;).

Is Dice Man any good? Difficult to say. I had (have) quite a lot of the Fighting Fantasy books (and some of the TSR ones which weren't as good) and remember devouring the first one when it came out - couldn't put it down!! I suspect part of the problem with doing it like it is done in Dice Man is that you "only" have 20 pages jammed with panels (must be the equivalent of a few months work from the artists) and so some of the options do catch your eye as you flick back and forth so it might spoil the story. Also some times the snippet of story is told over a few sequential panels which can disrupt the flow. That said it is all top of the range stuff - the Dredd one is written by Wagner and adapted by Mills (who wrote the Slaine and Nemesis ones) with top range artists (20 pages of Kevin O'Neill knocking it off the stadium is always good - collected in The Complete Nemesis the Warlock vol. 2) all printed on glossy paper (when I think 2000 AD was being put out on that bog paper) so the linework stays crisp. So while I am unsure if it works as a game it works as an interesting comic project - intriguingly it could work well online if they split the panels up and linked between them. I also think as an occasional one-off it could be a fun addition to end of year specials (I dug out and flicked through the old annuals and while the quality was variable, and the early ones had an awful lot of reprints, but they did fix the format up a bit - we can bet the Prog 2009 will feature a number of one-offs as well as the launching of a number of different new series. Usually it is pretty solid and high quality but lacking slightly in fun). Aaaaaaaaaaand I'm still not sure if that has answered the question - I'd definitely pick up a copy if you run across a reasonably priced one and blow the dust off a D6 and get rolling. (Emperor (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As we are on a British Invasion (comics) vibe [18]. (Emperor (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Resources list[edit]

OK I have started a (long-overdue) discussion on getting a list of resources together: WT:CMC#Resources list. (Emperor (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

We now have one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References#Books. Fill your boots. (Emperor (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

2000 AD database[edit]

Seems that while they are working on it the database is living here, if you need to look anything up. Seems to be fairly up to date. (Emperor (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Section length, Book titles, et al.[edit]

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Mills & Alan Moore[edit]

Interesting question - which should give you a clue that I don't know. Have you checked Thrill Power Overload? I can't think of any obvious connection as he was long past being editor of the title. (Emperor (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I did have a look at TPO and there is nothing immediately obvious - he was "discovered" by Alan Grant who spotted his potential and worked with him until his scripts were manageable. The Gibbons link comes from the Future Shocks and Moore specifically cites the Chronocops one as being where he realised Gibbons would draw whatever mad things he'd write on the page. From what Gibbons says it was Richard Burton (comics) who sent him the scripts (as at the stage he was working in the US comics and only doing one-offs. Although Steve MacManus was editor, Burt was the Assistant Editor [19] and he had been friends with Gibbons since their days in comic fandom. If you look at Dave Gibbons's bibliography he'd finished the Rogue Trooper stories in early 1982 and only stuck around through mid-1982 to 1983 drawing Alan Moore's one-offs. So the link came from Burton and doesn't seem to have come from anyone else obviously hooking them up (Moore was writing most of the one offs at the time, 20 in one year in that period) so he was linked up with various artists and the reason Gibbons was given some scripts to work on was his friendship with Burton. (Emperor (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Looking over the Watchmen article I could add a couple of sentences at the start of paragraph two drawing on TPO (as Watchmen is mentioned by name so the link is explicit). Along the lines of:

Moore and Gibbons had worked together before on a number of one-off Future Shocks. Although Gibbons had effectively started working full-time at DC, Richard Burton, the Assistant Editor of 2000 AD at the time and an old friend of Gibbons' from comic fandom, would still send him one-off scripts all of which were written by Moore. They both flag the last of these stories, "Chronocops" as being key to their later work. Gibbons recalls "it was an early taste of the self-referential, very involved things, Alan would get me working on in Watchmen" (TPO, page 96) and in the introduction to the Titan Books collection of the stories Moore said the story "marked the first time I realised Dave Gibbons was prepared to draw whatever absurd amount of detail I could ask for, however ludicrous an impractical. This in fact served me well in later life".(TPO, page 95)

The last sentence quoted might not be needed but it does draw out the background and what brought them together but also the lessons they both learned from each other that they would both use again for Watchmen. (Emperor (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That is pretty much it after that in TPO, the only other bit of moderate interest is where Gibson talks about his work on Halo Jones where he says he ignored large chunks of Moore's scripts (as it was his job to tell the story visually) whereas he got the impression Gibbons followed them pretty much word-for-word. (Emperor (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes I did also do some other digging but found nothing on the Mills/Moore link. One thing that does occur to me is the one link I can think of is the single ABC Warrior story. I had always thought to check the story behind that, as Mills is very protective of his IP and it always struck me as odd that Moore sneaked a story in. I would have thought any editor that suggested it would have his buns toasted over an open fire.

I'll add that in and see how it goes. If you do think some good stuff has gone then chase it up and see what happens.

I can read a bit of Italian although I wouldn't risk translating things perfectly. (Emperor (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oops. I can't think my Italian us up to ploughing through a whole volume (I've largely used it for scientific papers where I can locate what I want and then buckling down with making sense of it - my Dad's a languages teacher and my cousin translates medical texts so I can always fire off a request for help over something the dictionaries can't help with ;) So a little laborious - I'm better with French). I am surprised such a volume isn't available in English though. (Emperor (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not that flippant - if there was a page that struck you as being especially relevant you could scan it in and I could take a crack at. Finding the relevant page in the first place is tricky (although with a good index...).

Why not contact Titan Books? They have always been quick getting back to me and very helpful (I am even on some fancy mailing list and get offered prizes to give away in competition ;) ). But yes contacting the original publisher might be the best bet - there's be demand for it all for the cost of getting it translated. Got any details on this volume? I'm just being nosey but I was wondering what it contains. (Emperor (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lots of Italian eh? I think I left myself wide open for that one!! ;) It all sounds interesting, more importantly it sounds like quite a lot of the content was originally in English and they had to go to the trouble of translating it into Italian, which makes an English version much more doable. Well worth shaking a few trees and seeing what falls out.

On the Mills/Moore link: I had a look for a mention of the Alan Moore ABC Warriors story in TPO and drew a blank - your best bet as a next step is consulting the Hive Mind. (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I stumbled across this (via LiTG naturally) which is the blog of the editor of the volum and they have published some bits and bobs from the volume (and other relevant material too). (Emperor (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Alan Moore loves the Watchmen film (in 1987). (Emperor (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Comics Journal issue 116.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:The Comics Journal issue 116.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 03:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks[edit]

Generally red links are covered by WP:REDLINK (i.e. include them if there is the possibility the article might possibily be created) but WP:MOSDAB is a lot stricter and generally says you can't have red links there which is a pity. That said I add them to disambiguation pages and they often don't get removed, worse are multiple links per item and should be trimmed back. That said the page is a WP:SETINDEX which allows more flexibility in formatting and red links are fine - the editor had just misunderstood what the page was so applied MOSDAB more strictly than should have been done. (Emperor (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

DC Comics Encyclopedia[edit]

Is this any use to you? It strikes me as odd there isn't an article on it as I'm sure we can provide background and reviews and the like. (Emperor (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An interesting conundrum. ;) My thinking was that we'd be looking more at the process of creation and the reception to it (coverage, how useful people link it is, etc.). If there are other reviews, interviews and overviews it is intrinsically notable. I don't actually have it but Fordmadoxfraud has been adding references to it and he might have some good ideas about this. I'll also keep an eye open for similar goodies on the Vertigo one (I suspect it will be less notable so it might be worth giving the DC one a run). (Emperor (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Now there is an idea - we can establish redirects from DC Comics Encyclopedia and the like pointing to the relevant sections and then if they expand sufficiently we can split them off to the relevant article without having to change the links. (Emperor (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There's probably some notable press about both floating around out there. I don't think it'd be too difficult to create articles on either. Wikipedia's coverage of books can be pretty spotty and random sometimes. Most new books by even semi-major publishers will have received more than enough press to warrant a Wikipedia article (that's what publicists are for). I'll poke around and see what I can see. I vaguely remember there being a short piece in Publishers Weekly not too long ago. Ford MF (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Alan Moore[edit]

Does this seem reasonable? I'd assume the lack of feedback meant no one really cares that much but I want to avoid doing it and then finding the problem. (Emperor (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:QI Complete Series 1 DVD.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:QI Complete Series 1 DVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archie[edit]

Thanks for the note. It is fairly mysterious - they clearly have some kind of "plan" as the edits are consistent but they refuse to explain what it is and you'd have to assume it is some kind of opinion/agenda they have about what should and shouldn't count. Hell they may even be right but they'd need to demonstrate it somewhere along the line and just editing away is only going to get you banned. (Emperor (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Kirby[edit]

How goes in, N.? As promised, finally, I'm drafting a section on the Marvel/Kirby art controversy. Here's my initial draft (with a couple items to be filled-in yet) of the background and the early stages. Given both the labyrinthine intricacies of copyright law and the justifiable passion of this David & Goliath situation, I've attempted to keep things as plain and simple as possible for the first issue, and as blandly neutral as possible for the second. Comments welcome.

I can tell you right off that we need to diversity the sourcing; I'm using three books that were immediately handy, but we need contemporaneous magazine and other press accounts as well or in place of what's here.

Here 'tis...

Marvel art-return controversy[edit]

From comic books' inception, publishers typically retained artists' original artwork, either storing it or destroying it,^[1] though occasionally returning particular pages to artists making specific requests.^{[citation needed]} In a nod to changing times, DC Comics, as early as 1973,^[2] and the newly formed Atlas/Seaboard Comics, in 1974, began routinely returning new original artwork. When the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, effective January 1, 1978, codified "that freelancers could now claim copyrights on anything created before that year" unless they signed a work-for-hire agreement,^[3] DC in 1978 began offering contracts affirming freelancers the right to the return and ownership of artwork. Marvel Comics began returning new original art in 1976, requiring artists to sign an approximately four-line rights-release, replaced by a one-page form in 1979.^[2]

Kirby's Marvel artwork, beginning with his mid-1970s return to the company, was, like that of other artists, routinely returned.^[1] However, Marvel did not offer Kirby a freelancer contract until August 1984,^[4] when Kirby received a four-page agreement exclusive to him.^[5] This document offered "a gift" of only the "physical custody" of 88 pages of original art^[5] out of more than 8,000 Kirby had produced between 1960 and 1970.^[2] While the one-page form offered to other freelancers confirmed their ownership of their artwork,^[2] Kirby's form provided "nothing more than the right to store the art on behalf of Marvel. Though it would be in his possession, there was nothing that Kirby would be allowed to do with it",^[2] as the form specified that the artwork could not be sold or otherwise commercially exploited; could not be publicly displayed without Marvel's written permission; and must be accessible to Marvel to copy.^[5] Further, it forbid Kirby to claim any other of his thousands of unreturned pages in Marvel's possession.^[5]

Kirby attempted to negotiate with Marvel editor-in-chief Jim Shooter, who responded with a January 25, 1985, letter reiterating Marvel's demand that Kirby sign the complete agreement as written.^[4] The issue became public that summer in the magazine The Comics Journal #___ (month 1985), which launched a nearly year-long editorial crusade advocating the full-ownership return of Kirby's art. Together with discussion at comic-book fan convention panels; a pro-Kirby petition signed by approximately 150 industry professionals and published in The Comics Journal #105 (Feb. 1986); and, in that same issue, a November 19, 1985, open letter to Marvel from DC publisher Jenette Kahn and editors Dick Giordano and Paul Levitz castigating Marvel, "Shooter and Marvel found themselves in the middle of the worst public relations disaster in the company's history".^[4]

Marvel increased the number of pages it offered to return, first to 800, then 1700, and the four-page agreement became three agreements, with modifications.^[6] On June 16, 1987, Kirby signed the final document giving up any copyright claims in exchange for return of his artwork.^[6] Marvel refused to pay the $800 insurance cost of shipping "what the company says remained of Kirby's drawings — about one-sixth of his work", which arrived the last week of June and consisted of "300 [pre-superhero] monster pages, 300 Westerns, two dozen covers, some Fantastic Four, no X-Men, and just a handful of Hulk and Sgt. Fury pages".^[6]

Footnotes[edit]

^ ^a ^b Evanier, Kirby: King of Comics, p. 203
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e George, Milo, ed. The Comics Journal Library, Volume One: Jack Kirby (Fantagraphics Books, Seattle, Washington, 2002) ISBN 1-56097-466-4, p. 91 , reprinting Dean, Michael, "Kirby and Goliath: The Fight for Jack Kirby's Marvel Artwork" from The Comics Journal #___ (date)
^ Ro, p. 201
^ ^a ^b ^c Dean in George, Comics Journal Library, p. 92
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Published in its entirety in George, Comics Journal Library, p. 94: "The Four-Page Agreement"
^ ^a ^b ^c Bode, Janet, "A Comic Book Artist KO'd: Jack Kirby's Six-Year Slugfest with Marvel", The Village Voice. December 8, 1987

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see already we need a brief paragraph explaining the breadth of Kirby's character and concept contributions, and the impending sale of Marvel to New World Pictures that (I believe can be cited) created nervousness over possible copyright claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also shortening a couple of run-on sentences. But this isn't bad for a first pass. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, N. Good to talk with you again. I'm as well as can be expected after my mother's death. Staying busy has helped.

I have a copy of this draft, but feel free to place it wherever you think best for layout, etc. purposes.

Glad to hear you have the original issues — that's always preferable. We can probably, in addition, list the TCJ Kirby book in the References section or some such, so that anyone without access to the footnoted 1980s TCJ issues will have an alternate source for the reference material.

Not so sure it warrants its own article; most of the factual material is straightforward and relatively simple, and adding commentary saying, "Look how awful Marvel was" might be both gilding the lily and redundant. I think if we just state the plain facts, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Anyway, take it to the next step and I'll meet you there! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thought I'd check in since it's been about a month. What do you think? Any edits we should make, or footnotes we should adjust? I was thinking maybe I'd trim and polish it in a week or two, place it in the article, and ask a couple of other veteran editors to look at it. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and Happy Holidays. Been away for a while; saw your note on my talk page. Thanks! I'll take a look at the latest draft hopefully later today. Hope you and yours are well! -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light of Thy Countenance[edit]

Just thought you might be interested[20] (Emperor (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just thought you might be interested [21]. I've scattered the ISBNs around a bit. (Emperor (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Eric Bradbury[edit]

I have been trying to track down better details for his death and I was wondering if you have Comics International? I believe the may 2005 issue #185, has a tribute to him, which could provide much needed background. (Emperor (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No worries - I thought it was worth a punt and it was a near miss.

It does demonstrate the need for a resources page. I should get a wiggle on and start it. (Emperor (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I await the collision of you and your resources ;) In the meantime I'm sure we can find one other person with Comics International, but also I'm not in any hurry - I'm just throwing out hooks now before I move on to something else. I've left a note on the talk page too. One way or another we'll track it down. (Emperor (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Murder Most Horrid[edit]

Where did you get the information that Paul Smith created this series? I can't find any references for that - but then again, I can't find any mention of anyone else "creating" it either (apart from one document that credits Dawn French, but that could be lazy writing). I'd be interested to know, as I'm cleaning up the IMDb credits for that show, and he doesn't seem to get an on-screen "created by" credit, apart from the 4 episodes he wrote. Cheers — sjorford ++ 17:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EC Comics - MD Issue 1.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:EC Comics - MD Issue 1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 06:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bendis/Powers[edit]

Looking through the list:

Adding "horror comics" to The Walking Dead is overkill as zombies in comics is a child of it.
I have all of them on my watchlist and did raise an eyebrow over the edits to Bendis and Powers. I did consider reverting them but erred on the side of caution thinking that I might be missing something and that another editor would spot the edits and revert them if there was a problem (OK silly idea but I was rushing through). As you've also raised concern over it - I'd say revert it. Major edits without even an edit summary are always unwise and it might be we need to discuss whatever it is prompted the need for removing all that material.

And Happy Xmas and a Spiffing New Year - I've got quite a bit on and might be a bit scarce around here over the holidays, so might as well throw it in now ;) (Emperor (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your mission if you chose to accept it...[edit]

I wonder if you'd be interested in helping improve Jean-Marc Lofficier. I've had a word with him and we've refocused the article so the biography reads like a biography but he has helpfully provided the biography and I'm sure the COI pixies would just love to tag it so I was going to rewrite it and ping ponging the article back and forth (like Michael Bair and Antony Johnston) worked well, resulting in some respectably solid articles, if I must say so myself ;) I'll start drawing together resources and fiddling with it. I'm also planning a rewrite of another article but need to get back up to speed with that as I've been busy. (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good stuff!! I'm shaking off some festive lurgey but will see what else I can dig up.

On the two person infobox there are 2 possibilities:

Keep it focused on Jean-Marc and categorise the redirect at Randy Lofficier
We do something like Tom and Mary Bierbaum

I'm inclined to go with the former for the moment and see how it goes. (Emperor (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, dude[edit]

Good to see you pitching in on Alex Raymond! Hope you're having a good start to the New Year. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:MonkeyBrain Books.gif)[edit]

You've uploaded File:MonkeyBrain Books.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello, User:Ntnon. I have noticed from your user page that you are a fan of or have an interest in The Smurfs series. There is currently a discussion concerning the merging of all individual articles on Smurf video games into one bigger article. I do not believe that any of the editors involved in the discussion (myself included) know much about the games and I was hoping you could provide us with the benefit of your opinion as an editor knowledgeable about the subject. If you are not interested in helping or if you believe yourself incapable at this time then please disregard this message. The discussion is currently under way here. Thanks for your time. -Thibbs (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to amend List of Batman Villains article[edit]

Several months ago you made some sensible suggestions regarding the Batman villains article and I'd like to implement them with your help if possible. Thanks A gx7 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to HWV 448 on the List of Handel's compositions page[edit]

Hi. Regarding your edit on the List of Handel's compositions page, please see the note I've raised on the talk page. Thanks. HWV258 22:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I copied your comment to the talk page of the article; that's normally the place to discuss Signpost articles. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dez Skinn publishing[edit]

Thought you might be interested in this: [22] and [23]. As well as being a giant book on Marvel's UK comics (which needed!!!) it is also the first venture from Dez Skinn "The book will apparently be published in hardback and as 'A Quality Guide' - the first in a new imprint of books from Dez Skinn's long-running publishing company" which sounds like it could be an interesting line of books. Also in the second link he asks if anyone can help out with the images - I'm checking what I can provide (nothing so far) but you are probably a better bet for such things, although whether you have access to it is another matter ;) Hope you're keeping well. (Emperor (talk))

Yes it appears the book has been in the pipeline for a very long time but it should be pretty comprehensive. I am unsure who the target audience might be beyond a few people here and over at It Came From Darkmoor (and a lot of libraries) but I salute their industry.

Looking down that list I might have some of those in my bits and bobs box now I think about it - I did give away a stack of White Dwarves and probably binned some of the more obscure Marvel UK reprints (like the funbooks) but there is still quite a lot of things I haven't looked at in a while. I might circulate the list a bit.

Also, I don't think I mentioned this: WP:CMC/BOOKS. (Emperor (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Alex Raymond[edit]

I've asked for some fresh sets of eyes on this and then we'll try for GA status. As you've done the lion's share of the work I thought I'd let you know in case there is anything else you want to add and just so you know. (Emperor (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yep the article is solid, I'd have nominated it but Hiding is waiting for the next issue of TCJ, which has a feature on Alex Raymond, and then I'll get the ball rolling. I can't see there being any problems and it could easily go all the way to GA with a bit of a polish and a full plundering of the sources (I was thinking of making a list and we can tick/cross them off and running it through A and then FA once we'd run out of references). (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've now proposed this for GA - should be a formality as it looks like a pretty slid pass. (Emperor (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And it was - it passed without needing any further work to satisfy the reviewer. Great work!! I've left a note on the talk page but I think it'll mainly be copy editing to polish things and working through the last of the references. For now the important thing is it has been raised rapidly from not much more than a stub to GA, which better reflects his importance. (Emperor (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo[edit]

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

Unduly busy atm?[edit]

If not, I have a request (a task) for you if you'd be willing to help : ) - jc37 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy-ness

Fairly busy yes, but ask away anyway. :o) I could probably find time if need be...! Things have been utterly, utterly frantic and packed; now my time is just 'full'. So it's improved. <small(I think...) ntnon (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel like I shouldn't ask...

Anyway, if you happen to have a free moment in between being "full", check out Template talk:Batman

(If you check the timestamps (if you care, that is : ) - I asked for your help before the current attempt at drama...)

Anyway, as for the request, I was merely going to ask if you'd be willing to collate the various sources listed on the talk page and in the archives, in regards to "villains as placed on a list".

I think you're probably the best person to do this (especially considering the vast amount of work you put into the sources, for one thing : )

I think it would be helpful at this point to list them in the /doc page.

That said, if you're too busy atm, it can wait.

Regardless, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it some thought and time here, in some detail and whatnot. I presume you don't want the template/doc quite so cluttered, though, so if you point me more focused-ly into the general direction of what you had in mind, I can veer that way...! ;o)
I didn't want to just list sources, but try to (RE!)-summarise what they say, and thus ~~how right I am in whom I suggest should be included and not~~ what they point towards...! O:o) ntnon (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start : )

Incidentally, I'm guessing you realise the problems with IGN as a reference? - jc37 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena is back and trying to restart WikiProject Media franchises[edit]

Dear Ntnon...You were at one time helping WikiProject Media franchises figure out where it was going to go and what it would cover. About five months ago, I left suddenly and without explination; and in my absense the WikiProject came to a complete standstill. I am now wondering if the project is sustainable and worthwhile to try to revive and continue with the work started there. If you would be interested in coming back to the table to discuss it, that would be great. We were just getting to a point where things were coming together when I had to leave to cool off from a particularly heated discussion that was upsetting me. I had hoped that the project would have moved forward without me, but it did not; but I am hioping to bring it back.

Please stop by if you are still interested. I look forward to seeing you there and seeing if we can pick up where we left off. LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen[edit]

Could you see if you could help out in the discussion regarding Rorschach's Journal? See Talk:Watchmen#Should Rorschach's journal be mentioned in the Plot Summary of The Watchmen?. Hiding T 11:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Joe Orlando by Guy Fraumeni.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Joe Orlando by Guy Fraumeni.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Com.x[edit]

You wouldn't happen to have anything useful on the company that I can use? They are back publishing again and publishing Razorjack and Cla$$war in the next couple of months and this is already generating quite some interest [24] and there should be enough by the time they launch to start articles on both (although I might have to ask Santa for those, as somehow my wishlist is growing longer by the day ;) ) but something on the company would be a little thin at the moment so I thought I'd ask. Their blog is tracking the news about them so I should be able to pick up more information from there too. (Emperor (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Good one.

I also had some luck looking the Newsarama archives [25] and [26] (also more from Neil Googe [27]), which has provided some background to its creation and problems. I also have found enough to make Cla$$war a no-brainer (although not much on Razorjack - perhaps the new collection will spark more interest) and enough on Bazooka Jules and Puncture (comics), to have a stab at them. I have a few bits and bobs on others (a review each for codename:babytool an N-jin bit nothing on Sky Between Branches but starting the article could draw others pieces together. I'm a bit busy today but will scatter some bits around existing articles and look into starting it tomorrow. (Emperor (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Right I've started the article. It is more of an outline as I haven't mined all the links for information but it is a start. I'm after their logo (a bullet shape with the logo in it, which you cna see here) but can't seem to track a version down of reasonable size so I might hangfire on that.

I have plenty on Cla$$war so will start that soon(ish) and then if I find any good material there I can recycle it to the relevant entries.

I'll also dump what I've found on the other titles on the talk page so if anyone finds anything else they can add it in and we'll see how things come together. Annoyingly Comicon have moved their software and the old links no longer match up but I'm plugging away on that as they seem to have some more. (Emperor (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

OK I started Cla$$war, I'll upload an image later (I have a few to do so might as well do a batch) and give it a bit of a polish (as my brain started to give up towards the end). I'll probably leave the others until they get a bit more heat closer to their release. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Joe Orlando by Guy Fraumeni.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joe Orlando by Guy Fraumeni.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Young Love Issue 1 (Crestwood-Prize).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Young Love Issue 1 (Crestwood-Prize).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment at User talk:MBisanz. It looks like when you uploaded the image, the summary and license info went into the edit summary box and not the "main text" box, so it never created text for the page. I've salvaged what I can and am about to fix the no-source tag. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thank you for writing a clear description of the problem. I have MBisanz's user and talk pages on my watchlist because they've been vandalism targets, so I saw your edit and was intrigued by what was going on, so I had to take a look. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Not actually "back," but...[edit]

Thanks for the notes - they are shaping up nicely already. I've decided to have a couple of projects on the go, Com.x and Cla$$war should be pretty much boxed off soon and I'll return to a couple of rewrites I was working on. When I get a good start on them I'll throw you the links as I always appreciate a second set of eyes :)

Also a couple of other things:

I assume you saw this but in case you didn't: Big Numbers #3
The latest LitG has some interesting material that we might be able to sue including a Ditko essay and discussion by Steve Bissette on the current Marvelman status quo (or is the information actually in Prince of Stories: The Many Worlds of Neil Gaiman? Do you have the book?).

Interesting stuff. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes I suspect my free time will evaporate but doing a slow rewrite of some articles will keep my oar in (I largely have my resources assembled and know what I need if I don't have it - I've been indexing my comics and found some odd gaps as well as comics I don't remember having so it may balance out ;) ).

I agree with you assessment of the likelihood of the reprints (I've decided to use magical means to speed up the reprinting of Zenith - I have it all, I think, but the world needs to read it ;) ) although I do wonder about the Flex Mentallo collection as the family of Charles Atlas might put the brakes on. Everything else comes down to the simple fact that there is a fat load of cash to be made from the reprints so people would be foolish not to compromise a little bit (a share of fat loads of cash is better than nothing) and there isn't too much by Morrison/Moore that remains uncollected - on the 2000 AD forum I was just discussing the possibility of collecting the Grant Morrison Starblazers (I'd like to see a few collections of Alcatena's Starblazers, as I love his work, but most of the stories will be pretty ropey, a Morrison collection will get some of his work out there for people to see) and you can bet someone has plans to re-release the New Adventures of Hitler and St. Swithin's Day. I do wonder if a Big Dave volume might be waiting on the resolution of the Zenith dispute (which must be an incentive to sort it out). So greed will save us in the end, as long as it doesn't scupper things, I suppose.

A couple of side notes:

I added an interesting article to Bernie Mireault
I'll be trying to track down some more academic sources [28], I've got a little list of things I'd be interested in (the use of examples in The Invisibles for example) and will be putting out a general call for people to put their papers online for all to enjoy, but if there is anything you want let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Anyway don't be a stranger now, y'hear ;) (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ah yes now you mention it the last I knew of the Flex situation was that they could reprint but DC didn't want to share their cut with the family. Or something.

I'd assume DC Thomson has the Starblazer rights and so there is potential for a Commando-style reprint. I'm not sure if Grant Morrison would mind (I can't imagine him caring that much ;) ) but I think the chance of seeing his art and writing would shift some units and his art isn't that shabby. They are also reprinting his Dr Whos which are a bit... variable. Gideon Stargrave would have to be creator-owned but it might just enrage Michael Morrock a little more ;)

Yes there is a tonne of interesting material that'd be worth reprinting (New Statesmen, Third World War, etc.) - I do wonder if/when this 2000 AD deal with Dynamite gets signed (oddly the latest word seems to be dynamite announced it but 2000 AD don't seem to be too much in the loop) they could pick up other material from famous creators.

I haven't seen the Prion volumes but it seems an odd mix of variable material.

I'd assume the Ennis/Morrison/Millar Dredds will all get swept up in the Case Files eventually.

No I don't have anything from Sequart Research & Literacy Organization (I see they have had server problems - someone removed a dead link to them the other day I am just trying to remember what it was). I do aim to pick up Timothy Callahan's book at some point.

There is some talk on the Comics Scholar mailing list about compiling a scholarly articles database and it'd be interesting to have a slightly broader one with everything of interest, but ultimately I'd hope we could have everything useful listed on the relevant articles here.

There are two articles on the Invisibles in the IJoCA that I'd be interested in - I am researching the use of General Semantics/the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in fiction in general and these looked to be relevant (as The Invisibles is one of the big examples of this) and, obviously, getting ones hands on the papers would help with the article in general. I have the author's contact details and will be dropping them a line but thought it might be worth dropping a note to someone like A. David Lewis about this being OK in general as I wanted to put out a call for people to put their research online. I have a handful of the Alan Moore papers that are in journals that have easy electronic access but there is a tonne more in publication that have more limited availablity.

ITC did a lot of odd TV - I have the Champions boxset. I suppose the timing helps, comics creators growing up on Silver Age comics would also be watching them on TV and the lot gets all mixed together.

I suspect the Prisoner, as well as Kirby's 2001, are hitting the same licensing issues - they no longer hold the licenses and would, presumably, have to renegotiate and that all cuts into the profit margin. Still there would be enough to go around and people are doing OK out of posthumous Kirby material based on sketches and these have much more potential for making good money.

I'm sure we could draw up a list of a dozen or more comics that'd do well from being reprinted but I suspect there are probably hurdles that have made them go for the easier options. It looks like they are reaching the bottom of the barrel and the trickier options are actually going to be the better ones (after all how many Alan Moore's Wild Worlds did they shift?). (Emperor (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't really fully understand how Prion did the Best of 2000 AD - it seems a very different volume from the Rick Random one (or I'd assume the War/Battle Picture Library ones) as it is well focused. The 2000 AD one seems... arbitrary. I was wondering if there is something odd about the Fleetway rights and it was possible to reprint 2000 AD material without going through Rebellion (after all why wouldn't they do it and maximise the profits) but it got promoted by Tharg so I assume it must have been done with them. Just seems odd. It is the kind of thing that is probably worth raising on the 2000 AD forum as the Hivemind might know or one of the 2000 AD staff might chip in. Is there a list of which issues got included?

I'm looking at it from the angle of Ontological Terrorism and whether it might be possible to define some general principles of Ontological Warfare. Although we'll have to wait and see I suspect the linguistics are used as set dressing and are not, themselves, mediums of change - although the links between NLP and General Semantics might suggest otherwise. I am still digging and nosing into different areas to see what drops out and where it leads me.

You are right that there are a lot of interesting linguistic aspects to comics - probably worth an article or paper in itself.

What always amuses me is how many Jasons there are in my generation, almost all thanks to Jason King!! It is amazing how many of those TV series featured Peter Wyngarde (and a Flash Gordon link too!!).

Sometimes the logic of what is and isn't connected defies logic - the 2000 AD system makes sense (and is largely catching up with Pat Mills' initial idea of producing collected "albums" like the European comics). You feel some more of effort and a bit of a risk could lead to more interesting volumes, but then again Superman and Batman always sell well so perhaps there is currently no incentive to try something different. (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ahhhh I should have spotted that. The reaction is as suitably lukewarm as I remember it and that is the core target audience (although they might buy it as an introduction for a child or cousin's Xmas present, expect for the fact that it isn't really the best of ;) ).

Prion was a non-fiction publisher that was bought by Carlton Publishing Group and became their entertainment imprint, so I am struggling to see the DC connection. Still mysterious. However, the acknowledgement of DC might suggest that is the direction the reprint rights came from but then again you'd think there would be something in the deal to stop DC (or someone) from pissing on Rebellion's shoes (probably metaphorically).

Yes indeed - I can't think of many actors who have pulled off quite that stint of appearances. He clearly must have been on a streak back then. His Wikipedia entry is odd - they can't seem to settle on his real name and the J.G. Ballard link is interesting but doesn't really fit. Not that I can help but still... (Emperor (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oh and I don't have Anarchy for the Masses but will pick up a secondhand copy some time. I have searched through it on Google Books and not found anything too specific. At least one of the papers post-dates it so if there is something I've missed I can pick it up there. (Emperor (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As we were talking about Grant Morrison's art here is some from Captain Clyde and Starblazer - kind of Starlin-like or Star-Lord era John Byrne. If I could have drawn like that in 1979 (or now ;) ) I'd have been happy.

Also on the Starblaser reprints - Prion do the 2000AD and War/Battle Picture Library ones but Carlton does the Commando ones. I don't know how that works out (I'd assume the Commando ones started pre-Prion or that, as it is still running, it is a core title not a nostalgic one) but it does show one or the other would be the home for the reprints and it might be a goer as there is that RPG based on Starblazer in the works (based on the multi-issue stories which would mean they could do a number of reprints: famous 2000 AD creators and the series). Steve Holland from Bear Alley would be the expert to speak to on this as he has edited the others. (Emperor (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Marvelman[edit]

Looks like this might be resolving itself. Moore has made pretty definitive statements here and I think a lot of the creators are now getting behind the idea of Mick Anglo getting the proceeds from any reprints. There is a summary of progress so far here (although based on those interviews). So fingers crossed. I have never seen the Warrior material recoloured, as shown in that last link and I think I'd rather it were in B&W if that is what it will look like. So of all those that could be reprinted this is moving to the top of the list. Next... Zenith. (Emperor (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So one step further down the path. Fingers crossed. (Emperor (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Mort Weisinger[edit]

Nice expansion of the Weisinger article! Fascinating character, him... -- stoshmaster (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Williamson[edit]

Hey Ntnon, I noticed your work on the Alex Raymond article, so this to invite you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Al_Williamson/archive1

Cheers,

--Scott Free (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:John Severin Self Portrait.jpg)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Severin Self Portrait.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:John Severin in Studio.jpg)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Severin in Studio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Two Fisted Tales 38.jpg)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Two Fisted Tales 38.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion[edit]

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Ntnon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Chloë Annett - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Paul Levitz by Dave Manak.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Levitz by Dave Manak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, so what? If you have not already, please read our non-free content criteria. Wikipedia has deliberately strict rules about the use of non-free content, and edit warring while ignoring them will not be looked upon kindly. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've written a lot of text, but you haven't really demonstrated anything. Ok, so that time in his career is important. Go ahead, talk about it in the article- I'm not challenging that. Why, precisely, do we need an image? Why does that time need to be illustrated? In what way does this charicature add to reader understanding? You're kind of missing the point. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's nothing in your explanation MIlburn's page that justifies this image use. It doesn't "show Levitz at the turning point between his fan and professional career", as it is merely a caricature of him made at that point in time. The fact that it was made at the same time as that turning point does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, it shows that turning point. Nor does that fact that it appeared in AWODC. The fact that it is a fanzine-created and fanzine-published caricature of a BLP subject that was himself prominent fan, fanzine publisher, contributor and subsequent professional doesn't justify fair use. A photograph showing him in the fanzine or DC offices would do this. Hell, even a caricature that had some background or setting in the fanzine office might do this. But a caricature of the "floating head", or "lollipop" variety does not. Simply put, a prominent point in his life is not illustrated by any ol' image simply because it was created at the same time.

It also does not meet the image use policy, as that policy requires non-free images to be no larger than 300 pixels in height or width, whereas that image is 591 x 692px. Sorry, Ntnon. Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"True, to a point, but the image is one of several from AWoDC illustrating the people-behind-the-fanzine - so it does show that turning point, since it is a caricature produced to illustrate the man recently put to work at DC." But there is nothing in that illustration that shows any of that to the reader. No one looking at that image will see, "Oh, it's of a guy at a turning point who's recent been put in charge of..." It just shows a caricature. Nothing more.

"I understand that a photograph would be better - and I'm seeking one - and I agree that a contextualised caricature might be better, but I fail to see why is automatically better. Would it be more acceptable as an illustration of his career turning point if I left the text in describing him? To contextualise the image?" A photograph is a more realistic representation of something with less room for subjectivity. A caricature, by its very nature is not, and text will not change the fact that the caricature does not describe what you insist it does. You may have personal knowledge of that background behind that image, but that doesn't mean that this is self-explanatorily illustrated by that image to someone looking at it. Using your reasoning, I should upload one of the caricatures I made of Sam Viviano when I studied under him in art school, because it illustrates that important point in his life when he was teaching at the School of Visual Arts, which is mentioned in his article, but lacks an image. But in truth, this would not be justified, and would come across as me trying to shoehorning an image into an article.

"That can be easily fixed - but is there any point, though..?!" That was the point. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You could (somewhat torturously) make essentially the same argument for any image..." The fact that such rationalizing would be tortuous is indeed why it should not be afforded much credence. The idea that you could make the same argument about a photograph of a visibly younger Levitz sitting at a desk in an office setting as you could for a floating head caricature is specious. The mere fact that all images might need a caption ignores the fact that a photo like the hypothetical one I described, at least suggests its nature without a caption, whereas that caricature does not. The fact remains that that caricature does not clearly convey any of the information you insist it does to someone who doesn't already have that knowledge, and that the mere truth behind its origin does not, in and of itself, make it the best choice for the illustrative function in question. Whether you are Manak, or have personal glorification as a motive, is not required for anyone to see that you seem to be hell-bent on shoehorning it in there. If you cannot see this, and have to resort to the hair-splitting, Astroturf Logic and stone deaf dismissal of the reasoning that I and JMilburn have been attempting to employ to get you to understand why that image is not imbued with the value you insist it does, then there is little point in continuing this. If you want, we can have a consensus discussion on that article's Talk Page, so that others can read your arguments and offer their reactions. Nightscream (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Ayre[edit]

So let me get this straight.......you've been insisting that a floating head caricature without any background conveys all sorts of things about its production, only if it's included in an article with an explanatory caption, but now you're arguing that no one will know that AA is a TV program, even though it says so in the section to which that title is a heading???

Seriously, though, the title is italicized, which indicates this to readers, as does the capitalization of the title (as only the first word and proper nouns can be capitalized in section headings). The reader can then read all about it in that section. It seems odd to argue that that title will imply Ayre claimed abduction, since even a reader reacting that way when seeing the heading will then be intrigued enough to read the section, which clarifies it.

Regarding the quotes, point taken. Looking over the section, though, it had way too many quotes, where simple paraphrases would suffice. As for his nationality, Canadian English accepts both spellings. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm stating plainly that it is confusing on a casual view of the page....Unlike, say, the context provided by accompanying text next to and under a caricature, or the context provided when you read the section." I'm stating plainly that the caricature does not provide that info on a casual viewing, unlike say, the context provided by clicking on that Table of contents link and when you read the section.

You can't have it both ways. Either you speak in terms of an arbitrary amount of information isolated from the accompanying info, or you speak with the assumption that the reader will read all the accompanying info. Just as you refuse to acknowledge no information is given by that caricature in and of itself--insisting that it will be given by its inclusion in the article (when the question of whether to include it is crux of the discussion), so too can I insist that the meaning of that section title is given by the reader being intrigued by it, clicking on it, and reading that section. Who exactly, after all, is going to see that phrase in the Table of Contents, and then run off to tell his friends about it, rather than do what we know everyone does when seeing it: clicking on it, and then reading that section? Why does a "casual view", along with the assumption of no further reading, count for that section title, but not the caricature?

My argument with the caricature (as was that of JMilburn, and most anyone else you'd ask) was that Wikipedia requires images to have some explanatory value in and of themselves, in order for them to be appropriate for inclusion in an article, and not the value that is afforded to them by inclusion. (You cannot argue that explanatory value is given after inclusion; it must be inherent to the photo. The photo seen in this section does not have good explanatory power that it's a helicopter. The fact that the caption identifies it as such is not a valid argument.) That caricature does not have one, since, contrary to your insistence, is not "obviously either an image from a fanzine, AWoDC or both". It is only "obvious" to you because you already know this a priori. But anyone not already familiar with that fact will not be able to supply that info if you print it out by itself and show it to them.

I find it interesting that you're now adopting the opposite position for a different situation with similar problems. But if you really insist on re-adding "TV" to that section heading, feel free to do so. I don't feel that strongly about it; I just found your contradiction interesting.

Regarding the quotes, a direct quote seems advisable over a paraphrase for only one of those passages, vis a vis the concerns you mentioned. Using them with all of them is just plain bad writing. So long as the paraphrase retains the quote's meaning, no concern is warranted.

"a programme called Real Vampires: Exposed!, which offered a tabloid-like investigation of 'vampires'," Which of these is prone to bias, confusion or understanding? The fact that it's a program? The program's title? The fact that it's an examination of vampires? The only word in there that could be a problem is "tabloid", in which case you could quote that, or omit it altogether.

Debate over the hoax nature of the programme "occurred on Internet chat rooms and bulletin boards," Were you afraid that someone would argue that these venues were not, in fact, chat rooms and bulletin boards?

Tommy McPherson being linked to Kristian Ayre, who was discovered to be "an actor... who had his own website." Ayre's status as an actor is in question? Or just his having a website?

and others that the programme itself was "evidence of some wider conspiracy." So if I write in the article that some thought it was evidence of a wider conspiracy, without quotes, on what basis would someone complain? That is what the source says, isn't it?

Quotes should be kept to a minimum. The rest should be paraphrased, and if someone objects to a particular paraphrased passage it can be discussed when that happens. (Hell, one guy just had a dispute with me over this on the Jeff Dunham article.) Otherwise, you're looking at minefield of quotes that in terms of writing, is just poor form. Nightscream (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seqart[edit]

I'm hesitant, simply because I think Darius is a self-promoter of dubious at best quality in his scholarship. There are tons of good sources on Vertigo material - is the information really not sourceable to something better than seqart? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alex Raymond (King Features).jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alex Raymond (King Features).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Authority Revolution Issue 1.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Authority Revolution Issue 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Bob Rozakis by Dave Manak.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Rozakis by Dave Manak.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bob Rozakis by Dave Manak.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Rozakis by Dave Manak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The QI Annual 2007.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:The QI Annual 2007.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The QI Annual 2007.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The QI Annual 2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Authority Issue 1.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Authority Issue 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Authority Issue 13.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Authority Issue 13.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Authority Issue 26.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Authority Issue 26.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dick Tracy - The Collins Casefiles Vol. 1.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dick Tracy - The Collins Casefiles Vol. 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Little Nemo in Slumberland Vol. 1 (Checker).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Little Nemo in Slumberland Vol. 1 (Checker).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Flash Gordon Vol. 7 (Checker).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Flash Gordon Vol. 7 (Checker).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Steve Canyon Vol. 1 (1947).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Steve Canyon Vol. 1 (1947).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Winsor McCay Early Works VIII.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Winsor McCay Early Works VIII.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Supreme Story of the Year.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Supreme Story of the Year.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alien Legion Force Nomad.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Alien Legion Force Nomad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Star Trek (Gold Key Comics) Vol. 3 (Checker).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek (Gold Key Comics) Vol. 3 (Checker).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Flash Gordon Vol. 1 (Checker).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Flash Gordon Vol. 1 (Checker).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Checker's Flash Gordon Vol. 1 Early Cover.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Checker's Flash Gordon Vol. 1 Early Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mojo Press Logo.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Mojo Press Logo.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wizardry by Michael Moorcock.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wizardry by Michael Moorcock.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Man from the Diogenes Club Cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Man from the Diogenes Club Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Heroes & Monsters by Jess Nevins.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heroes & Monsters by Jess Nevins.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of James Bond parodies and spin-offs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Hawtrey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:QI Complete Series 1 DVD.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:QI Complete Series 1 DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Allan Poe in television and film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dracula (1931 film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ntnon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ntnon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Adventure Anthology 1 by Chris Roberson.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adventure Anthology 1 by Chris Roberson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Here There Everywhere by Chris Roberson.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Here There Everywhere by Chris Roberson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Argosy Issue 2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Argosy Issue 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Superhero by Peter Coogan Cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Superhero by Peter Coogan Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Geek Confidential Cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Geek Confidential Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Weird Business by Lansdale, Klaw.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Weird Business by Lansdale, Klaw.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ntnon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Myths for the Modern Age cover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Myths for the Modern Age cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Live Without a Net by Lou Anders.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Live Without a Net by Lou Anders.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ntnon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miracleman Issue 15.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Miracleman Issue 15.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Terry Kyan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terry Kyan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Kyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Greyshirt[edit]

The article Greyshirt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this passes WP:NFICTION/GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comicraft for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comicraft, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comicraft until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Book of General Ignorance (US Cover).jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Book of General Ignorance (US Cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Checker Book Publishing Group for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Checker Book Publishing Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checker Book Publishing Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mooonswimmer 18:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of D-No Entertainment for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article D-No Entertainment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D-No Entertainment until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place[edit]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Checker Book Publishing Group[edit]

Hello, Ntnon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Checker Book Publishing Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[ev203-1] Evanier, Kirby: King of Comics, p. 203

[dean91-2] George, Milo, ed. The Comics Journal Library, Volume One: Jack Kirby (Fantagraphics Books, Seattle, Washington, 2002) ISBN 1-56097-466-4, p. 91 , reprinting Dean, Michael, "Kirby and Goliath: The Fight for Jack Kirby's Marvel Artwork" from The Comics Journal #___ (date)

[3] Ro, p. 201

[dean92-4] Dean in George, Comics Journal Library, p. 92

[fourpage-5] Published in its entirety in George, Comics Journal Library, p. 94: "The Four-Page Agreement"

[vv-6] Bode, Janet, "A Comic Book Artist KO'd: Jack Kirby's Six-Year Slugfest with Marvel", The Village Voice. December 8, 1987

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]