User talk:Hiding/Archive 2008

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hiding. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

→

Archive 2015

Thanks for uploading Image:Ally1884.png. 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) 06:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BeanoJan6-1940.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) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eaglev14-41.png. 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) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your latest responses mean. I hadn't meant to imply you were stupid or blind, and I hadn't meant to indicate that I believed there was a cabal, I just wanted to outline what I meant in that moment. I also pretty much pulled my def of AGF out of the nutshell so if we're arguing over that, well... As to the beans stuff, feel free to email me if you like. Otherwise, no matter. A lot of this stuff is becoming highly politic now. As to writing up guidance, I don't know if you need to. I just think you need to be a bit more careful judging consensus is all. What do you think now about the close of the trout slapping cat? Do you still think the consensus in the debate is as you closed it? That's really the nub of our disagreement. Everything else has exploded outwards from that point of contention. Hiding T 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

k, answering the question you asked, and a couple that may be implied.

• "What do you think now about the close of the trout slapping cat? Do you still think the consensus in the debate is as you closed it?" - Yes.
• Do I feel that I could have been more clear in the closure explanation? - Yes.
• Do I feel that I should have been more clear in the closure explanation? - Probably. I sincerely wonder if there were those who were intentionally being obtuse to understanding the closure in order to fuel their IWANTIT fires... If so, then a clearer explanation could have/should have lessened the effect of the intent of obfuscation. And if that wasn't the case, then I was probably remiss in not further explaining to those who I presumed did understand. Either way, I probably should have been clearer.

I hope this clarifies. - jc37 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best if we leave it there then. I have a completely different reading of the debate to you. The only another issue I wanted to clear up was the discussion over double standards. Had that debate involved any other Wikipedians making the same points, I would still have disputed the same close. It wasn't the participants that mattered, it was the close. All the best, Hiding T 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Presuming you mean "...debate than you" rather than "...debate to you")

As for the rest, I think there's a multi-faceted set of miscommunications and presumptions, which was built merely from the fact that I didn't more fully explain the closure, and (I believe) due to a difference of of "opinion" about Wikipedian categories in general, and in specific (among other things).

I've been thinking that this somewhat compares to Kbdank71 and myself (and others, actually). I consider him a friend here. He and I may disagree when it comes to Wikipedian categories, but (I believe) that has nothing to do with our friendship.

Same with you. Just because you and I may disagree on something, doesn't mean that I intend to "not talk to you again", closing the door on someone whom I've come to consider a friend. (You'll have to do more than that to push me away : )

This is our second big misunderstanding. I'd like to think we did better than last time. Let's hope we do even better in the future : )

Wishing you all the best as well, - jc37 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am he who dares to call himself "The Batmaniac". I have noticed you seem to be a fan of our resident Caped Crusader and I like the quote section you (I assume) set up regarding Bill Finger. Many kudos. I have always liked his writing and feel that too many well-meaning but misguided individuals have tried to pidgeon-hole him into some sort of "victim" of Bob Kane or some other such twaddle. From my posts, you may have already gathered where I stand on that issue. I find that he was neither a victim nor Kane a victimizer especially in accordance with Bill's position as a neophyte writer(who was given that all-important first opportunity by Kane). Kane felt, and I agree with him on this, is that Bill should have taken his career even further after he left Kane's studio, definitely out of the low-paying comic book field, which he eventually did. If he suffered under the hands of the DC Editorial Regime(and some of those guys were real (expletives)), that wasn't Kane's fault, indeed, Kane had to put up with them as well.

When I or anyone selects a quote, I agree there is an element of bias. Mine comes from the position of both fairness and from personal responsibility. From what I have seen of the comic book industry, some creators seem to feel that they operate under different rules than we fans face in our lives everyday, or rather, these individuals think they live in some world other than the so-called "real" world.(Example, the next time you apply for a job, carefully read the section that says anything you "create" belongs to the company, including any e-mails you might send with their computers.) Having said that, I look for quotes based on facts and neutrality, assuming that Wiki's goal is to provide useful information and not hyperbole. I hope it is your goal too.Bernard ferrell (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wasn't sure where you were on the radar screen and perhaps jumped the gun and assumed you were the one who was including Mr.Robinson's opinions on the Kane page. As I pointed out, Jerry has flip-flopped on some issues and I admit, I found it a little strange that he waited both until after Kane was gone and when he started promoting the Finger award. Industry professionals are human too so as you pointed out, all sources are potentially biased. My own strategy has always been to take the "Rashomon" approach, in that if there are three versions of one story, the truth is usually made up of elements of all three versions. I apologize for any unintended offense..The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.234 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

your link regarding earth-Two on teh Kal-L talk page doesn't go to any relevant discussion, please fix so thagt editors can find it. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. You linked when closing the discussion to a bigger discussion about earth two characters. IT doesn't work. Please fix, thanks. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. No, I'm dense. I'll go hound him. ThuranX (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Agamemnon (comics) has been recreated as Agamemnon (Pantheon). I'm ambivalent about the notability of the character, but if we keep the article, I feel we really ought to rename it as per WP:CMC conventions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see it stay of course since it has been developed quite a bit, but if merging is the best option for now then so be it. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've pegged you as knowledgeable and eloquent about local politics. Can I ask you to weigh in on the FICT talk page on a suggestion that AfDs must be 'notability reviews' and be closed entirely on the applicability of WP:FICT, disregarding any discussion or consensus? You'd be able to express the importance of collaboration much better than I.

Not that I want you to risk running yourself ragged and burning out. --Kizor 14:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I don't care about any previous edit conflicts you may have had about the line - they didn't enter into my actions, as I removed the citation for several unrelated reasons. Moore's work, while very good, is no more or less influential in establishing comics "as a vehicle for film adaptations" than any other properties, be they Batman, Superman, Men in Black, The Rocketeer, Neil Gaiman, or who/whatever. Movies have been made from comics before Moore's work, regardless of whether he wants his name on them or not, and will continue to be made afterwards. You also say that it is wrong to remove it for being POV if that POV is asserted in secondary sourcing - well, there was no secondary sourcing, and besides, it's a photo caption - there's no need for all kinds of extra material there, especially since the line and establish it as a vehicle for film adaptations on its own does read as POV and unsourced. Also, since there is no text in the article near the photo that even deals with film adaptations, there another reason for that line to not be there. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an annon with a a block history for vandalism has decided to "close" the AfD as "Keep"... I'm not sure where to go with this. - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) nevermind... my eyes are playing up on me... - J Greb (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Not exactly sure why you've "secreted" yourself, old friend; but, here's a wiki-bauble for the new year!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For exemplary thoughtfulness and kindness in all areas of wiki-work, Hiding deserves to be sat upon a throne for all to adore (which would, unfortunately, defeat the purpose of his name! Such is irony in the wiki-world!) Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you "banging a drum", and I thought I would ask what you think such a board would look like. - jc37 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, something along the lines of WP:COIN, WP:RSN, WP:BLPN or WP:FTN, if you'll forgive the shortcuts. A noticeboard for bringing articles on fictional topics to when there's a dispute, to attract wider attention. WP:RFC doesn't really work now, and mostly afd is taking the strain with articles being listed there with merge or redirect as the nomination reason. And there was that whole redirect issue arbitration case. It would simply be a place where, if all the interested editors participated, a consensus could be generated on how to proceed with disputed articles. Okay, it drives us further down becoming a talking shop and a bureaucracy,but the disputes are happening. Rather than have the dispute at WP:FICT every six months, why not try and solve the real issues. That's what I've been pondering for a couple of months now. Hiding T 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mk. Giving it some thought as well. - jc37 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor asked for me to explain this earlier, and this conversation has occurred on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Courier (comics). If you wish to further discuss it after reading that page, please let me know. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You had added text that ended up as: Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is not self-published. (my emphasis). I was pretty sure that you meant it without that "not", so I'm just making sure that that's what you're referring to in the edit summaries :-) --MASEM 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanky for helping to make the Buscema talk page a forum for civil and rational discussion that is focused on content and policy.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I already re-merged Bloodstorm, but I don't know how to report the IP address. Could you take care of it, or find an administrator to do it? Thanks!! -Freak104 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to nominate the article for featured status, but as you are the main contributor I wanted to ask if you would be able to help get the article through? I don't have the knowledge regarding the character that you do, nor access to all the sources used. Hiding T 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see Anarky achieve Featured Article status, and have been trying to build upon the article since it achieved Good Article status for just this reason. However, I have been unable to secure a peer review, which I understand to be an optional -- but important -- process prior to nominating the article for FA status. This was back in February of 2007, and I am growing quite weary of waiting. I have, in recent days, decided to contact other editors to specifically request that they peer review the article so that I may continue the process. Perhaps you would be able to do so. As this is not mandatory, you may begin the FA nomination process, but I cannot be certain it will be promoted successfully. Regardless, I will monitor the nomination process and assist you as best I can.--Cast (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have it when I use the Vandal Proof program, but I wouldn't mind having it for when I'm not using VP. Can't 100% trust VP. Thanks for thinking of me. Doczilla (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the wrist makes rollback even more helpful for me right now. THe wrist is why I've mainly stuck to vandal patrol using VP this past week. Thanks for the confidence in me. Doczilla (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly worth looking at. Sometimes it's surprising which editors turn out to have some blocks in their history. :) Doczilla (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one month I wish I'd previously accepted an offer to nominate me for adminship. Those tools would make current editing easier. (That's not a hint, by the way. I couldn't do enough typing at a stretch to answer RfA questions.) Doczilla (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hiding, I beg to differ :-)--Legionarius (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi(ding)! Happy New Year!

Since I'm the first to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Requests_for_comment/Users/2008 and WPC members might not yet be in the habit of regularly checking that page, I wanted to alert a few longstanding editors to a posting there that I think will be of interest. Thanks and best wishes for WPC in 2008, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a new page to me; thanks for cluing me onto it.

I'd thought that my edit summaries provided rationale for what I'd honestly believed was non-controv, but you're right, it can't hurt to expand on those rationales on the talk page.

And what a week it's been. I'm sitting in a hospital room trying to distract my mind while my mother dozes from her cancer treatment. Pancreatic, stage three. Many friends of mine have been or are going through similar things with their aging parents; it's avoidable if we ourselves do our folks the favor of not predeceasing them. It's hard, and it's fairly early yet; I don't want to imagine what she'll go through during the decline.

Guess something in me needed to get that out to someone who's been a veteran here even longer than I. Thanks for letting me. It actually does help. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, H. You're a good guy, and I've always been glad and relieved that you're here as, in my opinion, WPC's guiding voice. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per this notice, he has been warned numerous times (on his "archived" talk page): [2] [3] and prior to that as well. There is an active ANI case and he was the source of comments at WP:WQA earlier. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's your response: [4] [5] [6]. Appearantly, anyone who disagrees with him is somehow opposed to deaf people in general, per an e-mail I received yesterday and the comment he left in reply to your notice. His reply. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't try to better communicate my view to you before reverting your changes, an edit summary wasn't really adequate and I apologise. I agree that the way in which WP:DEADLINE is usually cited is not in keeping with the way the essay was originally - and is currently - written. However, I don't think that adding a sentence fragment in the introduction to the essay that essentially contradicts the rest of the essay is the answer. I think that a better solution would be either a complete rewrite, or an extra section explaining the counter arguement to the rest of the essay. Sorry for the trouble, I certainly did not intend to edit war. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]

You igroned my message in Cculber007's Talk when I told you to leave the message in Cculber007's Talk Archive so I erased your message and igroned your message. I am not read your message unless it is in Cculber007's Talk Archive and I do not take more threats from you about other issues. Good-bye, unwise wikipedian. I only listen to anyone who has earned my respect and cooperated with me as a teamwork by according to "work ethics". I do not support anyone discriminated me as a deaf person either. [[Cculber007 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I'd still say they're real articles about real topics about fiction, making them fiction topics or fiction-related topics. They're not fictional topics. I wouldn't get into any debate over it because I doubt most other people will care, but I wanted to put that thought out there. Doczilla (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am surreptitious on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Hiding. Thanks. --Hiding T 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That was just a mistake. Thanks for removing it and placing the {{oldafdfull}}, though. :)   jj137 ^♠ 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are poking about in them, editing and whatnot? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see. I also factored out the name in the An/I page - I am sure you didn't want it there, either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's all fine and dandy. In the future (though hindsight is nifty that way) you might want to leave a little note about how you refactored your name, so alarm bells don;t go off oversomeone tampering with an archive. Usually, the folk who do that are up to no good. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more helpful with the missing rationales. Keeping up with BetacommandBot gets tedious after a while. (Not that some of my other edits aren't tedious, but I'm sure you know what I mean.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi(ding). Don't know if you'd be so much interested in adding pics, but I started User:BOZ/Images yesterday, and at least one editor has commented that he's not sure how to add FUR to an image. Just inviting whatever input you have to add... BOZ (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - that's probably the best kind of help that anyone could offer.  :) I know a ton of images got deleted recently, so that would be great. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted a question for you at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by skill. User:Dorftrottel 19:29, January 18, 2008

Replied again. User:Dorftrottel 21:01, January 18, 2008

I added the images to the correct pages like you asked. Please add the FUR. Thanks! (btw, I'll be gone for a while, so hopefully you have all you need) -Freak104 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, could you do that?

thanks

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• " I have no idea what per myspace means. "

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. (It's one of the shortcuts.)

Note that this is a common comment at UCFD.

Also, just a suggestion, but another common "trick" is for a commenter to try to sideline a discussion by trying to start a meta discussion about the usefulness of Wikipedian categories in general. As I tend to try to be helpful, they have done it to me often. Just thought you might like to know where the potholes are : ) - jc37 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was a link in there somewhere, but I'm not going looking for it. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to warn me against, but if you've seen a bad close let me know. Hopefully someone will note the backlog message at some point and close the outstanding debates all the regular admins have commented in, otherwise we might have to cobble our heads together and come to as consensus on how to close. Whilst I have your ear, can you look at {{User Wolf}}. There's something wrongish with the categorising on it. It's categorised Category:Wikipedians interested in wolves inside itself, making a recursive loop and I can't work it out. You've more knowledge of userboxes if memory serves. Hiding T 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The side-effect of being a regular to XfD discussions is that after awhile you start to recognise trends, and various answers are idenitifable, even if they don't link them. "Delete per Myspace" is about as valid as any other "vote", I suppose, though it would have been nice if they would have explained why they felt that way, of course. (Reminds me of last year or so, when people would just say "NN" for their reason in an afd. If the closer had no idea that that meant "not notable"...)

As for my other note, I was referring to some discussions you were having, not to any closure. Maybe it will make more sense now?

And yes, that's been an issue with the categories for quite a while. User:Pomte clued me in on a way to deal with that. It's been added to Wikipedia:Userboxes#Syntax for including categories. I'll go ahead and (hopefully) fix the userbox. - jc37 10:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my User page to my question on WikiProjects - I do appreciate that it is difficult to give firm guidance when an abstract question is posed. You asked for some examples, so let me throw one at you. I recently completed the start of an article on Sheva's War, a beautiful fully-painted 5 issue graphic novel which was released by DC some 10 years ago and then re-released in trade paperback by Dark Horse Comics. This will be expanded in due course although I suspect it will not be increased substantially more in length. What is your view on the notability of this?

I have noticed that WikiProject Comics has articles of varying length on comic titles of differing notability, for example: Blood & Water, Sebastian O, Weirdworld, Night Raven to select just a handful of DC and Marvel titles. I compared the content of my Sheva's War article to these ones.

My intention had been to write-up the start of articles for some of the lesser know SF and mature themed titles that DC released in the 1990s but I was just nervous about doing this if they would later be found to lack notability. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the passing of Ledger, it looks like we may need to either semi or fully protect Joker (comics) and Joker's appearances in other media‎. Both are getting the death, in some way shape or form crammed in when it really isn't relevant to the topic. - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One wag even claimed that Nicholson had died on the same day. :P --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen Jack bite before, especially on D&D-related articles and AFDs, so I guess I wasn't too surprised when he came down on me.  :)

I have seen redirects retain their prior categories before, so that's what I was trying to do with a few comics and D&D article redirects. Retaining the categories allows editors searching through the category to see the subject and look at the history list if they desire; also, if someone is able to improve the article to make it worthwhile, it would be simple to restore using the article as it previously existed. Not sure what possessed me to put the stub templates back in though - you can't get more stubby than a redirect.  ;) If there's no reason to put cats in redirect that way though, I'll stop, but as I say above I think it would be helpful. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hiding,

Cool that you're helping out with the Buscema article - I'd like to ask that you take my name off the sandbox template however - my messages on the talk page are all I have to contribute to the footnote question - and also, I'd like to try to get away from a situation of two people with different viewpoints working on an article by taking a less active participation and letting other people contribute.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully I'll just delete the sandbox now the edits have been made. All the best, Hiding T 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Hiding. I just stumbled across a suspicious deletion of an image. [8] The reason why I am suspicious is twofold. Firstly, Tenebrae reported at Talk:Steve Canyon that he had added a fair use rationale for the image. Secondly, in the deletion summary, it seems to indicate that deletion was handled by a Python script called "massdelete.py", which makes me wonder if human eyes actually verified whether the image had a valid rationale or not. I don't know if anything can be done at this late date, but I figured I'd run it by you. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've restored the image. Tenebrae didn't remove the fair use template, so it was still categorised as being a candidate for deletion, but I have opened a discussion with the deleting admin regarding scripts. Hiding T 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, H. Sorry, I'd forgotten to notify you about the Buscema sandbox. I made the footnote changes Skyelarke and I both agreed to, and took the liberty of adding a link to Buscema's obituary in The New York Times, which seemed like a significant omission. Thanks for stepping up and stepping in!

On a personal note, my mother is out of the hospital, having been given a feeding tube, and awaits chemo/radiation. Fingers crossed. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also just noticed a non-controv missing word: "as" after "Institute" in this sentence: "He also took night lessons at Pratt Institute well as life-drawing classes at the Brooklyn Museum." Thanks again. Hope you're well.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. Hiding T 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Comics Star
		For your outstanding and conscientious efforts to improve the comics articles. Your efforts are appreciated in so many ways. (How do you not already have one of these among your awards?) Doczilla (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For getting WP:DEADLINE to a state where it represents the views of all the users who link to it as well as those who originally created it. Guest9999 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that for us. Doczilla (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The comics article America (Judge Dredd story) has just been assessed by User:MwNNrules as a stub. However I don't think a 1,200 word article should be a stub: at the very least it should be start-class. Could you take a look at it? (I'm asking you because you recently reclassified one of his stubs as a start-class article.) Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Richard75 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what issues the images I added are from. I have some very random images on my computer that I often don't remember why I have them. -Freak104 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's fine where it stands. "Bulbasaur" is the plural, I'm sure. Is it still confusing for you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Doczilla#Okay. : ) - jc37 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you created the {{Merge-multiple-to}} template a while ago. I've been having problems with it. :( I'd like to propose the merge of several of the {{Fushigi Yūgi}} character articles (specifically, I'd like to merge the three lower rows of characters into their groups indicated to the side), but I haven't been able to get it to work - it keeps on showing up as [[: redlink ]] has been proposed to merge with [[: X redlink ]] [[: Y redlink ]] and [[: Z redlink ]] to create not-yet-created-article redlink. Can you please investigate this? It could also possibly be that I'm not using the template 'right', too. Thanks. :) -Malkinann (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) I tested it out (but didn't save) in one of the articles, and it mostly works, except for the page I want to merge to - it showed up as "[[:Byakko

Seishi|Byakko Seishi]]." -Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] - the one above is one I did myself, and the one below is the one you made for me. I don't know why the target page is rendering differently. -Malkinann (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just copypasted what you gave me - can the template be made more robust? (allowing for accidental returns etc.) -Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I initially copied the example code, but when I tested it the second time, I used the example that you made up for my specific merge. -Malkinann (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd. :/ I use large text on my screen, maybe that somehow inserted the return? -Malkinann (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A browser issue? I'm using Safari 1.3.2, if that helps. -Malkinann (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Ōsaka Prefecture wasn't in the Wikipedians in x prefecture nomination list nor was it tagged. There were a couple not on the nom list that were tagged, so I upmerged those, but simce this one wasn't tagged I can't do it. You might want to have a new listing for it. Hiding T 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also is Category:Wikipedians in Hokkaidō part of the nom, as it doesn't meet the in prefecture style but it is tagged but it isn't on the list. Hiding T 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first, the most conservative way to handle it would probably to nominate it, citing the previous discussion as precedent. But honestly, I think there is probably little problem citing WP:IAR, and speedy merging, based on the previous discussion. Up to you.

For the latter, the reason was to bring all those nominated into a single standard, though I should have made that more clear, I suppose. If you look at the cat intro, it's clearly a prefecture cat. What would you suggest? - jc37 09:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind IAR on both of them, I just wanted to check that was the desired outcome. However, if someone complains on procedural I'll warn you I'll likely restore it and it will have to go to UCFD. I'm tetchy like that. Leave it with me. Hiding T 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Have a good day : ) - jc37 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I set the standard a bit higher for WP:FA articles. I'll go relax on general articles. Don't worry. Thanks for the message. Dekisugi (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you added a rationale to Image:Totaleclipse4.jpg, for its use in Total Eclipse (comic). While looking through Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008, I noticed lots of Star Wars comic cover images. Most of these are over-use, but I wondered if you'd be interested in adding rationales for the few that can reasonably be kept? It's mainly the ones from "swempire" onwards, though you may find it easier to work from articles or categories like Star Wars: Empire, Category:Dark Horse titles, Category:Star Wars comics, and so on. Though I see there are rather a lot of these comics! :-) Anyway, just a thought, in case you were interested. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia:There is no deadline does look good! Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at something for me?

It involves Tarantula (Marvel Comics) and the edits dune under 67.141.241.71 see here and User:IhateJGreb (and I've already posted that to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention which the user in question immediately blanked.

Suggestions?

- J Greb (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully... The sad part is I can see where he was coming from with the Tarantula article — he's got a solid cite that is as good, or bad, as a lot of the cites used for "full" names on other articles. If he had taken it to the talk page, the debacle wouldn't have happened.

So now I'm hedging about undoing his last edits... I'm very tempted to move them to the talk and ask for an uninvolved editor with the book he's referencing check it. And make sure it isn't a role playing game or supplement. - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between how I feel about it and how I think about it. I dread the potential hassles, and yet I know I can do some good. I'm "really really sure" that I can help clear up XfD backlogs, do page moves, protect or semi-protect pages, make appropriate edits to protected pages, fight vandalism better, and deal with block-evading socks. I hate asking other admins to do some tasks for me (like certain page moves) when I'd have been able to do those things for myself if I'd previously accepted some of those same people's offers to nominate me. In December, I had to make a 3RR report against two people who each reverted an article about 9 times in one day. One of those two was an admin. I made the report anyway because I couldn't report the other person without reporting that admin, but I did realize that I'd have felt better about making that report if I'd also been an admin at the time. As for those potential hassles which I dread, it's not like I can't set limits on what I get dragged into. Based on the things I've been involved in and how I've handled them, numerous people already thought I was an admin. (Every time I discover this misconception, I point out that I am not one.)

Best, Doczilla (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your warning of an edit war. The relevant facts seem to be:

• a) my most recent edit was to add some detail from an excellent source which I have found.
• b) the opposing editor, TTN, has reverted this entire article to a redirect - a practise for which he is notorious.
• c) you seem to have warned me but not him.

I suppose that you are not impartial in this matter and are using your admin status to try to intimidate me. This seems improper so I shall continue to edit this article as I find more good material to add to it. If there is some way of resolving the dispute with TTN short of another arbcom, I shall be pleased to hear it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for apprising me of your warning to TTN. I still fancy that your involvement in this matter is not impartial as you seem to be in the camp which prefers lists to individual articles for such material. Myself, I consider lists to be poor style for this encyclopaedia. I have been contemplating AFDs for the lists of Pokemon n to m, as these seem fairly arbitrary selections which are inferior to both the master list of all Pokemon and the articles on notable Pokemon such as Slowpoke. I'm not familiar with the mechanics for this though and the matter seems so fraught with wikipolitics that the action would be futile. Where there are differences of approach, it seems better for them to coexist and compete, since constructive competition is healthy. By improving the article on Slowpoke, I aim to make the corresponding list article seem inferior and redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You directed my attention to a procedural motion calling a halt to edits. Be that as it may, I'm not seeing the relevance as that seems to be about TV episodes. My interest in Slowpoke relates mostly to the game. Are you claiming a general freeze on the entirety of fiction/games/pop culture? D&D? Comics? Movies?Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the history of the Slowpoke article as I didn't recall having made many edits to it - barely a skirmish rather than a war. The basis of your concern is revealed: you seem to be upset that I trampled on some edits of your own. You're trying to stifle both me and TTN so that your own version of the article can prevail...? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had wanted a civil conversation about the content of this article as a fellow editor, you could have had one. Instead you started the conversation with "you may be blocked from editing". Please see Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in the middle of replying to a couple of threads when he archived. As such, I inadventantly edited after he archived. (I replied at 13:23 & 13:27, he archived between 13:24 and 13:26)

I immediately apologised (13:32) and reverted the apology (13:33) so as not to fill his page, by that time he had already reverted my change.

I feel what I did was an accident, and immediately moved to apologise for it. Thus I feel I acted in good faith. I understand if he doesn't feel that way, I'm sure this whole Timeshift thing has unsettled him as much as it did me. I certainly don't feel that I was deliberately impolite, just a victim of bad timing.

Thank you for your input.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the events perfectly. I don't think there was an edit conflict that particular time, but I can't be sure. There have been a few on that page tonight... even OrderinChaos himself assumes there was one that lost a edit he made... so these thing have been missed and gotten confused. There may have been an edit conflict and I don't recall it.

The other thing is that the conversation was long and there were many threads. The one I mistakenly made was somewhere in the middle. I have a recollection of having trouble finding the things I was replying to in quick succession. Perhaps I should have seen the archive thing, but I really didn't. I've made a couple of excuses, but I just didn't see it.

I saw it when I'd made the edit.

So I apologised.

And so I felt it was done.

I realised it was impolite, so I apologised, and acknowledged his right to revert it.

I'm not sure why I needed to be told that it was impolite 50 minutes later, but there you go.

I've apologised to him. I've explained myself to you.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accuse me of.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You said that what I did was impolite. I agree. When I do something impolite, I apologise and figure that that's that. Impoliteness -> apology.

When you told me I'd been impolite, I figured you'd missed the apology, so I pointed it out. Pointing out impolitness -> Pointing out apology.

Yes, there should have been signs that something was up. I missed them. Clearly. I thought that went without saying.

When you pointed out this I began to lose good faith and figured that you weren't correcting me in good faith.

Please respect other people's wishes. If you feel you are doing that, then there is no problem.

As soon as possible after I made the mistake, I apologised and acknowledged his right to revert my changes (although he'd have that right even without the archive). By acknowledging his right I felt I was showing I was trying to respect his wishes. I really did.

I made a mistake. I apologised. You said I was impolite, I admitted that I'd made a mistake and pointed out I'd apologised. You pointed out how I'd missed signs that I'd made a mistake, I admited that yes, I'd certainly missed them.

Now you say If you feel [I'm] [respecting others wishes] then there is no problem. Great. I felt that before you posted. I'm not sure why you felt the need to re-enforce this idea. It feels like an accusation. I'm sure it's not. However, that hasn't been a fun incident. I've been looking since midnight for trivial changes to make to "calm me". I haven't really found any but for a while the search took my mind of things. I was hoping to get to bed at midnight tonight, but hyped up like that I wouldn't have slept. Your contribution, I'm sure, was meant to help everyone involved, but it's dredged it up again for me. It's one in the morning here now. I'm tired. I'm annoyed again, and all I can see is you picking. Accusing. I'm sorry, I'm sure it's not there, but at the moment it's all I can see.

I'm nuking my second Horlicks, and I'm hoping that I can find some calming trivial changes to make. I hope that tomorrow it all looks better.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, who needs that sleep thing anyway.

I'm sorry if I read too much into your comments and didn't assume good faith.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doczilla

Feel free to add your nomination text. I'm still trying to gather my thoughts. - jc37 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, regarding this edit, [10], so what? So they were the exact words of a deletion review closure. Since when does that mean anything. Since the drv closure is disputed, and even above that, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I think that using one admin's words and opinion to decide consensus is completely and utterly anti to the Wiki spirit and Wikipedia:Consensus. Are you prepared to negotiate over this? Hiding T 11:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was exactly because it was contentious that I was trying to stay where consensus has been already determined. (3 DRVs closed by different admins, with a myriad of commenters seems like "current concensus" to me, at least...)

So to stay with the exact wording (which was also bolded in the closure) seemed to me the better course of reducing further confusion (which in some cases has been leading to disruption).

That said, I typically have no problem with BOLD changes (as you know). So I guess let me ask, what about the current wording do you find problematic? - jc37 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the wording you are insisting upon is that it does not reflect either consensus or community practise. That there have been three drv's indicactes the issue is not as cut and dried as waas stated at that third drv. I think one can also look at UCFD and see it is not that cut and dried, but also, I think the responses at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories indicate the wording does not represent consensus. I have tried to edit it closer to where I believe consensus lies, so that should indicate better my exact problems with the text. Hiding T 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The text from the diff:

• "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default, as user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration."
• "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default, as user categories are generally intended to be aids to collaboration."

You know, I've tried several times to explain my thoughts in this edit, and each time they've turned into a discourse on Wikipedian categories themselves, which, while on topic, is, I think, a bit broader than just dealing with the semantics of the sentence.

So I'll spare you the length (hopefully), and just offer a suggestion, let's just drop the sentence fragment

If we're not going to quote the closer, then the rest of the text of the section should explain/say the same thing. (I find it interesting that the word "aid" is already in that section, for example.

And speaking of bolding, I think that the first part is the part that really should be bolded.

Anyway, I'll make the modification. Let me know what you think : ) - jc37 10:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll do for now, that seems a sensible suggestion. Also, I think you left out an important part of the quotation first time around. Regardless of where you feel the conversation was going, you were quoting what was explicitly stated as being one admin's opinion; <my emphasis> "I think there is consensus on this: user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration." This also ties into the discussion above. You're probably right that we are mis-communicating on some level. It would help me if I had a better understanding of your position. Do you believe that consensus on Wikipedia is driven by closures of debates by admins, or by the actions, edits and discussions of Wikipedians? Hiding T 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that any discussion of Wikipedians can result in a consensus, and especially our 'process-driven" discussions, such as XfD/RfC/etc. Though being bold is a valid way to edit, it does not particularly equal "consensus" by the act alone (since I presume "consensus" means having at least more than a single person discussing - Silent consensus aside, of course).

Note that the discussion closers of an XfD process discussion have an "oversight" (as it were) of DRV. And reslly, any discussion has an "oversight" of the community, such as at WP:AN/I, or through the dispute resolution process. (Though personally, I wish we had a DRV-like page for those who close non-XfD discussions, such as RfCs.)

So yes, I think it would be wrong to dismiss XfD discussions as not being consensual discussions, when in truth that's what they're actually supposed to be. - jc37 10:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comments about how you seem to characterise previous CFD and DRV closures seems contrary to my understanding.

If a closure is the result of a discussion, and the closure is determined to be one of consensus (in other words, not an overall "no consensus" closure), then I presume that that should be considered a consensus of Wikipedians. And I would think that this is even more clear when the closures continue to be consistant, and further are upheld by a DRV closure (which is also a result of a consensual discussion).

I guess I don't see how (as it seems) that you can offhandedly dismiss such discussions as not being a consensus.

Yes, consensus can change, and you know I'm a proponent of that. But to claim that, the persons making the claim should probably have a better handle on what Consensus means (which unfortunately hasn't always been the case), if they're going to claim that it has changed. (Not to mention the typical issues of forum shopping, "vote"-counting, and so on.)

If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. - jc37 10:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think probably why we disagree is because you support a position and I don't. And I don't think anything I can say will change your mind. You appear to hold the view that the category system should not be used to categorise wikipedians in a manner that wikipedians choose. I disagree with that position. I also disagree that that represents the consensus on Wikipedia. However, again, I can not seem to iterate my position clearly enough to you. Consensus is not determined at a cfd. Consensus is not determined at a drv. Consensus is decided by Wikipedians. If one group of Wikipedians says you can't do something, and another group of Wikipedians says they will do it regardless, it is pointless to say consensus exists. For another example of this, see the arbitration case regarding television episodes. Hope that clarifies my position. Hiding T 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• "You appear to hold the view that the category system should not be used to categorise wikipedians in a manner that wikipedians choose."

Well actually, I hold the view that it's been determined repeatedly at CFD that categories should not be created at editors' whims. As categories are technical constructs, not just pages to be edited, category groupings should exist for a purpose. And there are several things categories should not be, which has been determined by consensus. (See WP:OC, for more information.) For example, categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If there is information to be noted, note it in the article. If there is a valid reason to group the articles together for navigation purposes, then by all means, use a category. If the validity is in question, well, there's always WP:Categories for discussion.

Usage of Wikipedian categories stem from that idea. They shouldn't be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If there is information to be noted, note it on the user page. (This is directly why personal identification cats have been repeatedly deleted.)

And so what would be the "valid reason to group the [user pages] together for navigation purposes"? Collaboration.

It's not any more complex than that.

The only issue here is that those who do identify personally with something, often will fight for whatever they may see is associated with it, even to the point of illogicity. So even if there is no actual reason to have a Wikipedian category to group Wikipedians who can twiddle their toes, the members of the cat will often fight to the death to keep the cat, when all that's really needed for personal expression is a notice of some sort on their userpage (such as a userbox).

I support "personal expression" in userspace (within reason - no attack pages, for example), but it's an inappropriate use of category space.

I hope this clarifies. If not, feel free to ask, etc. etc. - jc37 10:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"And when did a deletion debate become focussed on whether an article was notable enough to keep? I thought it was whether it was within our domain as an encyclopedia. Is this a suitable topic for an encyclopedia? Would this charcater be covered in any encyclopedia? A comics encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then we should cover the topic. And the answer is yes. This character is likely to be covered in some form of encyclkopedia, and since Wikipedia is not paper that means we do not have to limit ourselves to regurgitating Britannica. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, but the intention of that is that we do not cover topics which would not be covered encyclopedically, for example travel reports, plot summaries, dictionary definitions and so on and so forth. It does not apply to anything which contradicts our main purpose, which is being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article improves that encyclopedia. Therefore we should keep it. Some people may not like it. Some people may not find it to their taste. Some people may point to guidelines which support their view. Others will point to policies which support theirs. There is a reason WP:N is a guideline and not a policy. It does not have the wide community support of a policy. It is not a fundamental principle in the way that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is. It is simply a guide as to what to write about, aimed at new editors. It is not a rulebook since Wikipedia has no rules."

Beautiful stuff, thanks for writing it.  :) Unfortunately, I have seen "non-notable" used as a reason to delete in many AFDs, particularly in numerous Dungeons & Dragons related AFDs I have participated in. That argument seems to carry a lot of weight with most deletion-minded editors, and it also convinces more than a few other editors to vote delete as well. Unfortunately, it seems hard enough to refute.

Another one that is a problem for comics and RPG articles alike, is the Reliable Sources requirement. Unfortunately, Verifiability is a policy not a guideline so it can't be simply dismissed. It can be very difficult to find what deletion-minded (and many impartial) editors will consider reliable secondary sources for such topics. I fear it's a losing battle sometimes.

But then I read stuff like that above and it gives me some hope. :) BOZ (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ. I have no idea where that quote was taken from, but it's a nice refutation of WP:N. - jc37 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't anticipate a wider audience.  ;) Hiding himself said it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks,

I'd like to get some community feedback on the comparative merits of the current version of the Buscema article and this longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - but to avoid any misunderstanding I asked - jc37 to request and moderate the RfC, which he's graciously agreed to do so on condition that User:Tenebrae and User:Hiding agree with this. Feedback on this would be appreciated.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk)

cc. User:Tenebrae, User:Jc37

I think it might be best if Skyelarke and I abide by the spirit of the Arbitration decision, and remain uninvolved in the John Buscema article for the duration of the ruling. I'm not sure why there's any rush, given the deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is something that shouldn't be rushed, and the proposal has been on the table for over a month now. And I agree with the no deadline essay, although I think that waiting two more months to resolve a specific content question is a little too long; moreover, I think that the editing ban is good a safeguard to insure that no misundertandings that might lead to edit warring occur - Also, the arbitration decision does state that 'they are welcome to edit the talk page', (which is where the RfC would occur) as long as they don't engage in 'any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.' Any thoughts?

--Skyelarke

cc. User talk:Tenebrae, User:Jc37

CC of reply at User talk:Skyelarke:

My gut feeling is it might be better if both of us took some time off from the article, and the Arbitration's proscription is as good as any. There's no reason either of us should be obsessive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. And that said, I would have to agree. While I appreciate your (Skyelarke's) enthusiasm in wanting to help with the article as soon as possible, and the arbcomm ruling doesn't prohibit such a discussion (indeed, I believe it explains how such should be done), I think we may be overstepeping beyond the "spirit" of the ruling by starting such an overall discussion so soon after the closure. (Especially since no one else supported, or even commented regarding this suggestion when posted there.) Let's just give this some more time. - jc37 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's cool - and I also agree that right now is not a good time - perhaps we can arrive at a compromise solution - between now and waiting several months perhaps we can have a middle ground, let's say in a months time?

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk)

cc. User:Jc37 , Tenebrae

Cool - I think it would be simpler to leave aside the idea of a moderator right now and simply make the RfC request myself (in about a month's time) - thanks for your help - Although I do think the concerns raised are valid - there are other factors (most that aren't really appropriate to bring to a Wikipedia talk page) that I feel would make a RfC beneficial to the situation -

If anyone has any questions or doubts concerning this, I would suggest that the following arbitration support ressources are availible for consultation -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

Cheers,

Skyelarke

cc. User:Jc37 , Tenebrae —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyelarke (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My own damn fault here... I was trying to get a bet of clarity in place re this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Damage being done with CB (last bit) and moved the wrong article first.

Trinity (series) needs to go to Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman: Trinity (Talk page as well...).

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup... that'll work. Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No... you got the talk as well. And it is a mess since Duggy decided to be bold and create an article for the post-Final Crisis weekly. And didn't check for hidden articles. - J Greb (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL

The one I should have moved first — Wagner's mini published in 2002. Putting the already existing article under it's full title (This is the one Duggy missed). I also moved the 1993 story arc anf mini to a (story arc) page.

I wnet to move the Wagner one and realize too late I'd moved Duggy's contribution. - J Greb (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And in digging I find more and more mess...

Follow me on this one Olli:

• Starting at 00:00, February 10, 2008 (as per the date stamps that comes up for me) we had
  • "Trinity (series)" (created 10:22, December 4, 2006 by Sbpat21) — the Wagner mini;
  • "Trinity (DC Comics)" (created 19:47, September 17, 2006 by Waza) — the 1993 GL mini;
  • "DC Universe: Trinity" (created 23:26, November 1, 2007 byQueen of Swords) — a redirect to the GL mini; and
  • "Trinity (comics)" (created 10:41, November 9, 2005 by Rtkat3) — the character.
• At 00:50, February 10, 2008 — Letsgetgoing created "Trinity (comic book)" for the 2008 weekly (and does a good job of it)
• At 03:20, February 10, 2008 — Duggy physically moved "Trinity (DC Comics)" to "DC Universe: Trinity", overlaying the redirect.
• At 03:24, February 10, 2008 — Duggy blanked "Trinity (DC Comics)" and proceeded to create an article for the weekly with minor comment to the Wagner mini.
• At 13:28, February 10, 2008 - I muddled things by:
  • Moving "DC Universe: Trinity" to "Trinity (story arc)", thinking it was the original article; and
  • Screwing up the atempted move of "Trinity (series)" to "Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman: Trinity"

You've fixed my botch with the Wagner mini, so that one's fine. So's Letsgetgoing's article for the weekly and the article on ther character.

Now...

I'm going to revert Duggy's edits to "Trinity (DC Comics)" and blank the (story arc) article so that the GL mini can have an admin move it to the (story arc) page. Then I intende to either rework th (DC Comics) page into a mini DAB or redirect it to Trinity (disambiguation)#Literature.

- J Greb (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... "Trinity (DC Comics)" and "Trinity (story arc)" are ready... - J Greb (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:) One last thing — the move of "Trinity (DC Comics)" to "Trinity (story arc)" to preserve the history and talk page. - J Greb (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt, even though it's just the project header and the civility one. - J Greb (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... looks good. - J Greb (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Following up on something you mentioned in re-opening the checkuser...

Since Asgardian is editing with minimal comment - few useful edit summaries, if any, and no comments/reasons on talk pages - 1) is that a breach of the ArbCom restrictions and 2) if so, shouldn't he be called on it?

If the answer is yes, should the call be an comment on his talk page or a 1st degree block? (ie 24hrs since it is a different issue than 2+ reverts in 7 days.)

- J Greb (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking with J Greb re: this now. I think it is easier if you just read what I had to say on his Talk Page rather than just repeat it here. I'll also speak to the other user and explain those edits in more detail. I can support them all as much of what I corrected reeked of POV.

Asgardian (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I got that wrong. I've no recollection of the article at all. Deb (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim any of the reasons you restored it. A7 is no assertion. If you consider that "Pamela Rambo is a colorist who has worked in the comics industry" asserts notability, I don't see it. "XYZ is a <occupation> who has worked in the <notable industry>" would make any internet engineer notable, any lawyer, any bit part actor, etc. Rather than continue a wheel war: off to afd land, I guess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

On your no-rationale page, at least half of the listed images are now either fixed or deleted. If you find more to take a look at, I'll be happy to lend a hand again. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, there's new ones to be added as well. A few of my own contributions were tagged the other day. It appears that Betacommand has worked his way back around to the "B" articles again. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just fixed one a few moments ago myself. I'm sure there are dozens and dozens more which will get tagged by that silly bot. :) (It's on D now, because I'm talking about Image:Defenders 34.jpg). 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You two must be doing a really good job, because of the 20000 tagged images, only 263 are comics related, or at least categorised so. Either that or I am compiling the list wrongly. AWB snagged on doing it through categories so I have listed every image which transcludes {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Are there other templates to look at? Hiding T 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes nagging gets things done.  ;) Really, I was just looking for something to do, and it helps if I can save some images along the way! I picked up a few that seem to have been just added, and I'll get to your list when I can. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing I want to clarify is this, which I think is the nub of the dispute. You assert that "it's an inappropriate use of category space". Is that your opinion, your opinion on where consensus lies or a statement of fact? I hope we both agree it is not the latter, I know we disagree on the middle one and I hope we agree on the former. Where we are disagreeing is that I think that there is a lot of leeway given to user space, and I tend to think that applies to categories categorising user pages. You are coming from the other end, and saying that this is what categories do for articles so they should do it for user pages. I'm not sure where consensus lies, but I hope you agree that it lies somewhere between our two positions.

The other thing we're discussing is how consensus is determined. You seem to be placing greater weight on a consensus established in a deletion debate, which is how I read your statement about 'process-driven" discussions. I tend to try and consider all debate and actions and edits as equal, and I tend not to discount any opinion. You seem to indicate that people who believe something is useful are being illogical and are therefore dismissing their view. I do not hold that view. I think if deleting something drives contributors away, and that thing which is being deleted is not something which would form the encyclopedia, then deleting it harms Wikipedia. I also believe that people's feelings should be taken into account, per Wikipedia:Consensus. I do not see my goal on Wikipedia as telling people what categories they can and cannot have on their user page. There was a point in time when this issue was divisive and it was important to iterate the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, being to build an encyclopedia. I think that time has since passed. I hope that clarifies what I think are the main points of dispute here. Hiding T 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Is that your opinion, your opinion on where consensus lies or a statement of fact?"

Yes, yes, and obviously no. There are few actual incontrovertable "facts" (rules) on Wikipedia, as I'm sure we both agree (as you note rather well below concerning notability).

I think you're taking my comments to an extreme that I didn't intend.

One thing in hindsight that I didn't explain was that the whole thing about namespaces also stems somewhat as a result of the userboxes discussions of the past as well. One thing was clear, template space should not be used for certain things, but userspace is given a bit more leeway, and so Template space was an "inapprorpiate" location for such userboxes.

If that is true, then the same can be said of categories. It's not userspace, and should follow the same (or at least similar) such "appropriateness" guidelines, as has been previously determined by consensus.

And in (nearly) every case, it has been. Both at CFD before UCFD was created, and of course at UCFD.

• "There was a point in time when this issue was divisive and it was important to iterate the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, being to build an encyclopedia. "

In no way has that "point in time" passed. I think you know this as well as, if not better than, many.

All of that said, let me see if I have your opinion correct:

You feel that category space should not have any limitations on inclusion. If a Wikipedian creates a category, then that category should not be deleted, regardless of the reason, simply because that Wikipedian wants it?

- jc37 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of things really. There was a consensus that template space should be used for "templates" back when the user box row broke out. I'm not sure whether that consensus still exists, but if it does it exists because template space is somewhat different from category space. Template space is somewhere we stick templates, (although I am unsure how we define templates since a lot of them are notices rather tan templates) as opposed to a technical function. Transclusion is the technical function related to templates, and transclusion can be done from any space, so there was no need to have transcluded pages in template space. Category space is different. It is a marriage of pages and a technical functions. The results given by categorisation cannot be duplicated any other way. Let me put it to you like this. You could delete all the "category pages", but users could still categorise themselves with the category link being a red link. Now how do you delete the category? You can't. Nothing exists in category space to be deleted. You would have to go into user space and start deleting things, which is somewhat divisive. I hope you now see my point. This brings us on to the question you asked me:

• You feel that category space should not have any limitations on inclusion. If a Wikipedian creates a category, then that category should not be deleted, regardless of the reason, simply because that Wikipedian wants it?

I'm obviously not being clear enough. My point is that a category should not be deleted where no consensus exists to delete it, and consensus on whether something is useful or not is not formed by ignoring the people who say it is. If only one person says it is and ten people say it isn't, you have a consensus to delete. If the debate is evenly split there is no consensus. As to whether category space should have limitations, can we first define what category space is? Hiding T 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit it feels odd to mention it to you (since I know you know and understand this, but here goes:

• Consensus is not a vote.

And one should say more than just "I think it's useful". (WP:USEFUL) They should express why it should be considered useful. And after the discussion, someone closes the discussion, attempting to determine both the consensus of the discussion, and the broader community consensus. (And of course, if they're involved, other policy or foundation issues, of course. And I think at least lately, that now includes arbitration results as well.)

So yes, Consensus can change. But if as a result of a community discussion, a closure is determined to be "X". And then it is endorsed following a DRV discussion (another community discussion), then I'm not sure how we could say that consensus has not been determined? It's been determined, and endorsed.

Now to your question about what category space is:

A category is a location which has Category: as its namespace antecedant. It's both a page; and a grouping of pages through technical means.

This gets somewhat confusing for some, because a category can be populated by the adding of a single line to a template (Or any page which may be transcluded), thus every page to which that template is transcluded will suddenly be added to the category.

So adding a category to any page (including templates) is also considered an edit to Category: space.

This isn't in doubt, because several Wikipedians have been warned (and some eventually blocked) concerning misuse of Category-space by making "redlinked categories" disruptively (among other things).

Does this answer your question? - jc37 06:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what category space is. You seem to be misunderstanding the point I am making. The reason that the no userboxes in template space came to be was because it was a compromise position between those who wanted userboxes and those that didn't. It worked because people could still do what they wanted to do in other spaces. That can't happen in category space. The comparable compromise is that we treat user categories with different latitude to article categories. I would suggest that position probably has consensus, were we to ask the community, because that's usually where consensus lies, that user stuff has more leeway than article stuff. I am also well aware that a cfd is not a vote. Again, you seem to misread me. At what point do you weigh the opinion of people who say this doesn't aid collaboration as being of more validity than those who say it doesn't, bearing in mind the impartiality a closer has to have. When the only thing you are deciding is the community consensus on the utility of a thing, how do you determine the consensus? Hiding T 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, that's like saying that the myriad people who add "SEX" or whatever to articles are a larger consensus than those who are removing it, so such additions should stay as a pronounced consensus.

The same goes for he myriad "editors" who develop Ownership over "their" articles, and scream like mad when you decide that such articles need editing, or should be deleted. I don't see how Wikipedian categories are any different (except we're finding it's rather widespread, including admins with the ownership issues).

What clinches it for me is that (until recently) all of these editors whom you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to only comment on "their" categories. I've seen discussions with over a hundred commenters on a page of 50 noms, the rest of which had less than 5 each. Not a strong indicator of consensus about Wikipedian categories in general, to me.

However, recently (as you know) several editors who are unhappy with the repeated closures contrary to their want, have started several WP:POINT noms, and have added similar comments to existing discussions. I wouldn't call this consensus either.

So where are you finding this consensus you speak of? Or are you including one of the groups I'm noting immediately above? - jc37 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have answered the question I was asking, which makes me wonder if you've missed the point I was making. I'm not really sure what you're replying to. In no way is anything I have suggested similar to "saying that the myriad people who add "SEX" or whatever to articles are a larger consensus than those who are removing it, so such additions should stay as a pronounced consensus." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, adding sex to articles does not help create that encyclopedia therefore they can be removed.

As to ownership issues, I'm surprised you italicised admins. I thought one of the things we agreed upon was that adminship was no big deal. It therefore stands to reason admins will act like normal editors, since admins are normal editors. And I don't quite see what point you are making about ownership. Is there not an ownership issue here regarding the category structure? Is it possible some people are screaming that you can't do that in "our" category structure?

I'm bemused that you have managed to determine that I am giving the benefit of the doubt to users in the manner you have stated at my talk page, simply from my comments in this debate.

However, here's another viewpoint for you. Imagine there are editors looking for categories which don't conform to their view of what the category structure is, and that they are then listing them for deletion and together they are all working towards a shared goal and commenting en masse on all category deletions. And they disregard the views of editors who have created those categories, because they haven't contributed to all the debates, and because they have ownership issues because they created these categories.

Who has the most to gain contributing to deletion debates? Whose input is going to have the most impact at deletion debates? Whose impact should have the most impact? Whose view wins the day? How do you determine consensus? I know how I do it.

As for your final question, I am unsure what you refer to. So where are you finding this consensus you speak of? Or are you including one of the groups I'm noting immediately above? Which consensus are you talking about? And why am I bound by your definitions, noting that impartiality is a part of deeming consensus. Hope that helps clarify my broad point and thrust better. Hiding T 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well wow. AFAICT, you totally misunderstood, or misread, (or whatever other mis- applies to the response), my comments. I think I may move this whole thread to a sub-page because I have a feeling when I return (having more time to respond), it'll get quite lengthy (in the hopes of preventing another miscommunication : )

The quickie answer is that, from your last response (and of course, other discussions), I honestly feel that you and I agree on what consensus is, mostly. I was/am attempting to stay within the bounds of this discussion/debate, and so sometimes the answers/responses are ones which you likely already know, but are the answers nonetheless.

Anyway, more to come, once I puzzle out how to try to better respond. - jc37 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can you have a look at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Image galleries? and Category:Wikipedia image galleries? It looks to me like there's some sort of confusion over what the category is for. To me I would think it is for user and Wikipedia space pages which don't violate WP:FUC, but it appears some article space pages are creeping into the category and it's sub-cats somehow. Aren't article space categories to be kept separate from categories which categorise other space stuff? Hiding T 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about "expertise" (as most know, the ins and outs of images is a weak point of mine - User:J Greb is usually my "go-to-guy" for that - is he an admin yet? : ), but I've commented on my confusion, there. Hope it helps. - jc37 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To watch a dozen images, a sandbox, and a user talk:

The user talk message I left is here. I'm posting my last dif as Skyelarke likes to clear his talk.

This also list his sandbox, where there was image issues, and the 12 images. BetacommandBot had tagged 9 of them as Orphaned on the 12th and Sky just killed the tags. I've reverted that and tagged the remaining 3, which he had "safe harbored" as 1) used in an article pending a move to article space (his version of the Buscema article, and as "{tl|free}}", which is debatable.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :. File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.      "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler Doczilla RAWR! 06:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hiding I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Comics-awb has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've just added some references to the Nicky Wire article, but there are some statements (particularly the quotes) that I can't find sources for. I noticed on the talkpage you mentioned that you have a lot of material on the Manics. Would you mind having a look at the article and adding some sources if you can? I've put in some {{Fact}} tags. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 12:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you have built a bot, Comics-awb, which runs on AWB. I'm planning on making a bot which also runs on AWB to deliver some newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles. Can you give me some advice as well as how to build one? (Since I never build one before) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you agree with the consequences of treating television episodes, DVD commentaries, and the like as self-published, but thanks for at least recognizing my point.Kww (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't think of DVD commentaries as self-published. Any DVD I have with commentary has a disclaimer that says (in effect) "The contents of the commentaries are the sole responsibility of the commentators". Since the commentators are usually the writers or actors, that certainly looks self-published to me.Kww (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think our key in determing whether something is self-published is the outside editorial control. People publish commentaries by directors because they know fans will buy the real DVD instead of bootlegs to get things like commentaries, not because they have any interest or exert editorial control over them.Kww (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That was very kind of you and made my night. Wikipedia has been challenging of late as we all seem to be spending whole sessions just maintaining the status quo on some articles as opposed to making actual progress. I like your comment which Jc37 placed on his user page: "...no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again..." It sums up the situation some days perfectly. At some point I'll walk away from Wikipedia, but hope that my legacy will at least be getting the history of many of the characters through the classic Marvel period straight. That should hopefully stand for as long as there is a Wikipedia. For now, I'm going to take a little detour onto the road less travelled and help BOZ with a few minor characters.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that – I think I was just being lazy yesterday, which of course is nobody's fault but mine. I'm going to try them again, using the following edit summary: "adding categories, per User talk:204.153.84.10#categorising redirects" Of course, I don't know whether or not User:Brian Boru is awesome will just revert the addition of categories again or not, as he has done this before. I'm not going to edit war over it, but I'll give it one last try the right way this time. But thanks for the guidance. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading your essay on notability, I was wondering if you could help me understand something. While editing, I came across a user who claimed that "notability does not apply to disambiguation pages". I think this to be an absurd statement; if something isn't even notable, why even list it in a disambiguation page? I didn't find anything in either DAB or NOTE to support it. Am I missing something? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your response certainly does help. Thank you for the assistance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of notability... (it seems like everyone is speaking of notability around here these days, doesn't it?) Since you are more of a comic book guy than an RPG guy, I'd like to solicit your hopefully unbiased opinion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Origins Awards. There are certain individuals which have been working hard to prove a point about the non-notability of the many fictional elements on Wikipedia for several months now, and the RPG articles we have here have served as ripe hunting grounds for such battles because it is no small challenge to find WP:RS for them. I'd very much like your opinion there if you care to give it, whatever it may be, since we seem to be having a hard time finding someone who doesn't have a stake in the matter. BOZ (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Did someone rollback my rollback? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... now it's back. *shrug* --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They're discussing it at WT:RfA... Just a gentle nudge, in case you may have changed your mind : ) - jc37 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• here - jc37 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J Greb

Just in case you (or anyone else watching this page) were interested (though noting you seem to be on a slight Wikibreak). Also left a note with User:Doczilla - jc37 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like your advice: I used to edit Wikipedia a lot a year or so ago, and I'd like to do it again, but I'd like to change my name. I haven't edited with any regularity in a year. Should I just register a new name, or should I try to do a semi-official name change? I mean, there are thousands of edits on the old account. I think you would agree with my reason for wanting the name change. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I perhaps just suck it up and go back to editing? Also, have you been watching Torchwood? I love it. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer but I have absolutely no intention of standing for bureaucrat at this point in time. Recent events are causing me to re-evaluate my stance towards Wikipedia, and until I work that through I can't really see my position on that changing. All the best, and take it easy. Hiding T 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just for future reference, however, you're still on my list of those whom I would have no problem supporting.

May ask which "recent events"?

And, I'm sure you know, I wish you all the best. - jc37 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Far too many to recount or bother getting into. Hiding T 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. - jc37 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would {{R comics naming convention}} replace the current tags on some all caps redirects like BATMAN, BAT-MAN, THE BATMAN, THE BAT-MAN, THE FLASH, and SUPERMAN? Please reply on your talk page, as I've watchlisted it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you would prefer them too. I don;t think there's any rules. You could have both of them on there as far as I know. This is Wikipedia, we make it up as we go along. Don't let anyone tell you any different. Hiding T 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How's the category look? Still has a long way to go, doesn't it? BTW, Sgt. Rock (comics) is supposed to be at Sgt. Rock. Guess someone messed this one up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Something that should have been on you radar... - J Greb (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jc seems to be handling that. I'll let him plow his own field, he can touch base with me if he wants. Although it occurs to me Jc may be a she. Never have asked, to my knowledge. Hiding T 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem... more of a heads up since the CoC issue became relavent. - J Greb (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back.  :) While you were out, Comics deletions kind of went crazy - although you may have noticed some of these already. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(smile) You appear and suddenly tasks come out of the woodwork : )

And no worries about "stepping on my toes". As I mentioned to Doczilla, I'm a big fan of "many eyes". So your comments/thoughts are welcome. - jc37 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Back in January you informed me that you wished to nominate Anarky for FA status. I've nearly completed the article to my preference. I should like to replace the anarchism navigational box with one more specific to anarchist fiction, but I realize several topics that should be contained within it are not currently in existence, and the current state of anarchist media articles is disorganized. The creation of such a navbox must wait for a future point. Until then, we may consider the Anarky article as complete as I am capable of making it. I invite you to nominate the article for Featured Article status, if you have no further reason to wait.--Cast (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I've updated the article as best I can and have now nominated it. If you're not too busy, please do comment.--Cast (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Request_for_Comment_-_Integrate_two_versions

--Skyelarke (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Comics infobox without image - J Greb (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey man,

Sorry to have been one of the ones to have brought crap to your door if you were just popping in momentarily. :) Hope everything's OK with you. I sense some frustration on your part with the way certain things are going on around the Wiki, and can't say I don't share that. Anyway, if you see this, have a good one. BOZ (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2008#hey_jude

Well, it's been a month of thinking about this, and trying to "puzzle out" how to respond. I hope this is clearer.

One thing that seems apparent to me is that we're sliding all over the various perspectives of the usage of the word "consensus". How it's determined, who determines it, and how it's applied both in it's determination and in its application.

There are some things which a typical XfD discussion can determine. There are some things which require broader discussion, or perhaps require arbitrational judgement. There are some things which it's doubtful will ever change on Wikipedia regardless of how many Wikipedians may not like it.

Having watched "Rollback granted by admins" being railroaded into place (and other, probably less well-known, examples), I sometimes despair of the community's ability to actually have real consensus determined in some cases.

But I suppose this doesn't answer your questions/thoughts directly.

I'd like to think my perspective is rather straightforward and logical:

After many discussions (at Cfd, Ucfd, WP:AN, WP:AN/I, the Village pump, misc talk pages, and elsewhere), it seems fairly clear that:

1. categories may be populated of many members by a single editorial action of a single editor.
2. reversion of that action often requres a full CFD nomination, rather than simply re-editing, contrary to what WP:BRD suggests.

After witnessing the many "discussions" noted above:

1. Wikipedian categories may be about a person's personal preferences, and as is often human nature, a person gets "attached" to their preferences, and by extension, they often get "attached" to anything that has to do with those preferences. That's nothing new on Wikipedia. (WP:AADD.) If it was in article space, we might be discussing WP:OWN issues (or in some cases, vandalism, or WP:POINT issues). But it's in category space, grouping pages of users, which may be being done (as noted above) by a mere edit to a transcluded template.
2. Honestly, one of the main opinions whenever these discussions come up in a broader forum is "who cares" and "get back to directly contributing to the encyclopedia". Though it's interesting that, once those disinterested become interested, and start doing the reading, and so on, they tend to see the issues. So, in my experience, it's a matter of the uninformed saying "who cares", and the informed saying "you should", and the "IWANTMINE" crowd saying "we do".

UCFD

1. At UCFD, AFAIK, the guidelines for CFD are followed (with the fairly common exception to the closure guidelines, since so many admins seem hesitant to close, due to how much "drama" may ensue from the "vocal minority", among many other reasons).
2. Any XfD discussion presumes that any interested editor will comment in the discussion based on placing a "tag" (a huge template notification) at the top of the page nomintaed for such discussion. I don't think anyone suggests that we must notify all page editors of a page when it's up for discussion. (though I have seen that done in some cases, for good or ill).
3. The presumption at an XfD page is simply that if someone wanted to comment (presuming that they aren't on WikiBreak, or are in some other way prevented) then they will. It is their choice, as editors, to contribute or to not contribute however they see fit.

Based on many discussions at CFd and UCFD (and elsewhere):

1. Categories shouldn't be used anywhere as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If someone wishes to add such information, add it to the article (or the userpage) in some manner. A "category grouping" should not be created for such things.
2. Wikipedian categories should be directly useful to collaborating on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site, and probably more clearly Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Creating categories for all the infinite amounts of personal data on Wikipedians is simply not considered a "good thing". A "userpage notice" should be enough. So as is often said at UCFD: The userbox is probably fine, but the category is not. Imagine the category bloat if all such categories were deemed "acceptable". We'd have more categories for Wikipedians than for articles. And while I strongly support supplemental support of the Wikipedian community as an indirect way to indirectly contribute to the encyclopedia, creating a mass of indiscriminate categories is not the way to do so.

So does this all have previous consensus? Yes, I believe it does. The archives of CfD, UCFD, and DRV list repeated examples. And WP:UCFD/I shows how consistant the results tend to be.

Have I done any better at attempting to explain/clarify? - jc37 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the long response Jc. Sadly, I can't see any point in taking it any further. I simply disagree quite strongly with your whole premise. You believe you are right, and I have never in my life believed I am right about anything. Therefore, we have such strongly opposing philosophies that we cannot come to any satisfactory conclusion. Your close of the debate on whether to delete Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers pretty much shows we have vastly different ideas of consensus, an admin's role, Wikipedia's purpose, what ultimately matters and so much that I just couldn't get my head around it. I really don't want to be here anymore involved in this sort of stuff anymore because I simply do not recognise Wikipedia anymore and nor can I see any way of restoring the Wikipedia I passionately believed in on a scale that could work. All the best for the future, and don't worry about it. It really doesn't matter. I'm sorry this response is woefully inadequate, but it really isn't something I wish to fall out over, and our views are so diametrically opposed on this score. If I have misrepresented you in anyway I apologise, but in all honesty I'd rather just walk away. Maybe some other day we can chat the breeze about something or other. Until then, take it easy, Hiding T 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I have to say... While I would agree that we both, at times, differed in opinion about this or that (sometimes to the point of confusing the heck out of at least me), that doesn't mean that I don't respect you or your opinion. And in this case, I was noting your usage of the word "debate" in the header and was following that line. Though I must admit, this last response makes me feel that I did something wrong, or in some way, treated you in some way untoward. If I did, I apologise, as that was not my intention.

Someday, sometime, if you feel up to it, I'd honestly be interested in what your vision of what you felt Wikipedia is, and should be, is.

As for songs, at the moment, I have "Rainbow Connection" (from The Muppet Movie) going through my head. Though I suppose it's apropos.

If this is "goodbye", I do wish you well. - jc37 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome job sorting that out, although it does my watchlist explode ;)

One thing I noticed in the last run is that it is doing everything under British comics but this needn't mean they all count as being British comics. For example, British comics -> British comics writers -> Warren Ellis -> Comics by Warren Ellis -> Fell which is what I'd include under the US work group as it is an American title (and not one of the Big Two). Hence I changed it back [11]. Just an FYI and I'll double check - it might be in fact that we want the work of a British creator in the British work-group even if the publisher is American but it hasn't been how I've been assigning work-groups so far.

Not a biggie either way but something to keep an eye out for as various areas intersect. (Emperor (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Ah yes I remember having a chat with Steve Block about such things, as comic stories are often loosely described as comic strips when the actual definition used here is, well, a comic in strip form that usually appears in newspapers. I have been changing as much of that as I found (I think I went through the Eagle entry the other year) but there is still a lot of it about.

We never did come up with a solution for such comics anthologies. Category: 2000 AD titles (and equivalents for other British comics) should probably "Category: 2000 AD titles" which would allow us to differentiate between comic titles (like 2000 AD), stories (like Judge Dredd) and comic strips. Of course things like Judge Dredd have appeared as comic stories, comic books, comic strips, graphic novels and trade paperbacks so I think having a proper structure would help (I ran into something similar with some of the earlier DC Comics' anthologes the other day - Creature Commandos appeared first as a story in the Weird War Stories title and then as its own comic book when revived).

If you spot anything like that let me know and I'll get stuck in and sort it out. I'll have a look at Billy's Boots, and related, entries, later. (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

I know you haven't been involved in the discussion regarding membership above to date, but I think you are probably the most highly respected member of the Comics project. There is a recent addition to the talk page of the above article from Tom Brevoort, editing from an IP, added to the Talk:List of Avengers members#Questions about the membership wrangling. I can forward to you the e-mail I received from Mr. Brevoort separately as well, which I think contained the material verbatim. Also, the IP does indicate that there is an officially published source on the subject making those statements. I can't be sure, but I think that the source, in and of itself, is probably sufficient. I would however welcome your much better informed opinion on this matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Well, can't say that I'm totally surprised, given a number of things I've seen lately, but I'm shocked and disappointed all the same. Wikipedia really needs more administrators like you, and this will be a big loss for the community. Godspeed, and if you ever return I'll be sure to welcome you. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand leaving wikipedia, I've more-or-less done it myself. That said, I want to say I think you were an outstanding member of the community. I think of you and Jerry as two the best... Hobit (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling this might happen. Thanks for all your efforts. They did not go unnoticed. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Each response section header in an RfC identifies the type of response and the name of the user posting it. I didn't see any pressing need for yours (or ScienceApologist's) to be different. FCYTravis (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Honest to God, I got such a warm feeling seeing your post. It is truly good to hear from you. I've been spending time with my family back home -- my mother's pancreatic tumor hasn't progressed OR regressed, and fortunately hasn't metastasized (after which it would be basically over in a month or so). She's in-between chemo and radiation, and we're just hoping this in-between period doesn't leave a window for the tumor to do something. Still, however, she is strong and feisty, and if you were just speaking with her on the phone, you'd never know she was sick -- she sounds exactly like always.

I'm back in NY now, and want to try to work on some more creators' bios and comics history. I hope you're well and busy, and despite the working anonymity, I want you to know how much I appreciate your concern, and being able to relieve myself of the burden a bit by talking with you. You're a valued colleague to me, you already know, and I'm also glad to be able to speak with you as a person. I can't tell you how much it helps. I'd better stop now before I get any more emotional... :-)

And what better place than the Comics Project to say, "See you in the funny pages!" --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I have to say... While I would agree that we both, at times, differed in opinion about this or that (sometimes to the point of confusing the heck out of at least me), that doesn't mean that I don't respect you or your opinion. And in this case, I was noting your usage of the word "debate" in the header and was following that line. Though I must admit, this last response makes me feel that I did something wrong, or in some way, treated you in some way untoward. If I did, I apologise, as that was not my intention.

Someday, sometime, if you feel up to it, I'd honestly be interested in what your vision of what you felt Wikipedia is, and should be, is.

As for songs, at the moment, I have "Rainbow Connection" (from The Muppet Movie) going through my head. Though I suppose it's apropos.

If this is "goodbye", I do wish you well. - jc37 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't do owt that was "wrong". And it wasn't "goodbye". It was more, I can't do this conversation anymore. I was getting frustrated and the best thing for all is to go away and recharge the batteries. The conversation, at my end, was getting more and more obtuse. I was having trouble following your thinking and your leaps, the way you were going from a to b and the connections you were making, and trying to work them out was driving me to distraction. I got the impression you weren't acknowledging or even understanding the points I was trying to make. The thing that was getting me though, was that the debate was starting to matter to me, and I needed to get to a point where it didn't matter, because like I said, I didn't want to fall out over it. Beyond that, there was a lot of other wiki-drama going on that was starting to sicken me. And it all keyed into what I kind of believe about Wikipedia. Which I can't really put into words. Sorry. I know what shouldn't happen. I believe admins shouldn't delete things in a csd category without looking at them and investigating them. I believe admins shouldn't be rude. I believe admins and editors shouldn't have ulterior motives. I believe everyone has the right to have a voice, and that everyone's opinion is equal. I do not believe any policy page can cover all angles, nor should it try. I believe policies should be short and simple. I believe in honesty. I believe too much happens behind the scenes, off-wiki. The key things for me are WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS. Some of the stuff going on today seems to mean we should deprecate those sections of WP:NOT. I'm really opposed to vindictiveness, spitefulness and process creep. And I'm unclear on whether this is really worth it, whether it can really work, or not. I'm sorry it all blew up the way it did. I hope you'll respect the fact that from my end it's better if I retreat and let it blow over. I think the guidance you are putting together is a step in the right direction. Hiding T 10:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a "process wonk" (as I've been repeatedly accused : ) - but "withdrawing from the discussion" is a step in the dispute resolution process (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Stay cool - noting the section used to be titled "Second step: Disengage for a while"). And it sounds like it was probably a good idea. I know I did so myself as a result of a discussion in the past with Dmcdevit. (Another time I was accused of being a process-wonk - I dunno, personally, if we need to re-invent the wheel, fine, but if we don't, let's follow the processes that have worked so far, especially if they will aid in reducing disruption? - Note, I'm referring to that discussion, not any of ours).

In looking over your "I believe"s I don't find much that I disagree with. If I can refer to a Barnstar I just received, UCFD doesn't "drive me nuts" anywhere near as much as policy "discussions" can. People are so territorial. And WP:OWN runs rampant. ("But it's not in enecyclopedia space" - rolls eyes.) So I'm definitely empathetic.

(I didn't understand the reference to WP:NOT, but it's ok.)

And I'm sorry too, specifically as I didn't realise we were heading towards a "blow up". I guess sometimes when you respect someone, you forget that they're human too, and that emotions can get involved, whether we wish them to or not. And communication breakdowns can be incredibly frustrating, as I too, so know.

(looks above) well it looks like once again I've written the "long version" of what should probably have been "Ok", "I'm sorry too", "I don't disagree", and "Thank you".

Non-verbose, I am not, I suppose : )

Anyway, I do hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

These sources are from websites. The only questionable one is BOOKENDS\ANTI. That may be a typo. I think the site was called BOOKENDS\ANTIBOOK, the web author listed Vern Reed's pseudonyms from when he did Sci-Fi and pulp fiction. The Batman letter's page is self-explanatory.Bernard ferrell (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is in no way anything but a notice (since it seemed the smart/fair thing to do).

I've been working on transclusion of Wikipedia:Userboxes (among other things). In the process, I noticed that your comments about User categories (at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Design and construct were pretty much orphaned from what they referred to. (And later, when I had an idea to split the page even further (though I've reverted that now), they were on a talk page of a deleted page.)

However, since Wikipedia talk:User categories was a redlink, I decided to restore your comments and move them there. I don't know if they still represent your thoughts about the current form of the guidelines (though I don't believe much has changed, except to reference and clarify more), so I feel/felt that you should know where I moved them. - jc37 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all said and done as far as I'm concerned, so where it gets archived is really of no concern to me now. Hiding T 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.

And thank you very much for the barnstar. (Awww... What do you mean I can't bite it? And it looked so tasty, too : ) - jc37 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:United States comics workgroup members, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:United States comics workgroup members has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:United States comics workgroup members, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to ask you a question: are you of the opinion that some of those recent edits you made were not pokes in the eye to me? If not, I'd like to point out that I definitely felt poked. If they were meant as such, do you imagine that such behavior engenders the sort of assumption of good faith and courtesy from me that you yourself would like to have? Maybe take a look at some of those edits and edit summaries; you took some cheap shots, and unwarranted ones at that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you posted to my page before reading my comments in Talk:Batman, right? My comment from above was the edit where you changed all fo the cn tags to refer to Daniels' book and added my name in CAPS. What was that all about? As well, your commentary in the edit summaries took the tone of 'well, I think its utter bullocks to include this, but here it is.' Not the best way to foster respect between editors, wouldn't you say? Calling a spade a spade states the obvious when you are right and marks you as a jerk if you are wrong. I am saying that keeping your cool and considering that if one person has the temerity to ask for something that a dozen passed by without having the courage to be berated for asking the same thing.

This isn't a mountain or a molehill of a situation. I was just calling attention to how one of your edits and several of your edit summaries were perceived. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you were a jerk, Hiding. I said that calling spade a spade is a bad policy all around. When you are right, you are stating the obvious. When you are wrong, it marks the person naming (incorrectly) a spade as a jerk. And no, I am not trying to come across as, nor think of myself as, intimidating. However, when I take the time to explain my edits, I expect other editors to read and respond to them. Politely, if possible. You kinda assumed bad faith, and I noted it. It isn't fatal, and I am pretty sure we can regain faith with one another. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno a bloody thing about how these things are supposed to work, but I figure you, being our equivalent of Shazam (meaning possessed of boundless knowledge, forgot the possible "dead" implication too, didn't mean that) probably do, and I like passing the buck whenever possible. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost blocked him myself (for the reasons cited), but was waiting for more "discussion". (That and, as J Greb will probably vehemently agree, I tend to be slow about such things, unless time is a factor.)

Anyway, as I suppose I'm supposed to say:

"I support the resolution/closure of the discussion, good block". - jc37

And thank you for your quick response as well. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the block, I'd actually been mulling it over and had come back to seek out your view. I'm pondering the discussion initiated at WP:COMICS, and how that impacts. I'm thinking that that needed to happen a lot earlier. Anyway, best wishes, Hiding T 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree. That was also part of why I didn't immediately block based on the evidence. I was hoping that they would start talking (and dial down the accusations). But to be honest, even since - and just prior to - then, there have been more concerns about his edits. Given that there is an ongoing discussion, and that hopefully something good "could" come from it, perhaps the block could be reduced to 48 hours (we've learned - per past experience and arbcom - that, with him, anything of a shorter duration is pointless), with the caveat that this is for discussion. If he edits without discussion in that interim, the week-long block would then be restarted. But this is just a thought. The week-long block is appropriate in that he has been repeatedly warned. What are your thoughts? - jc37 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning. I'd be prepared to unblock Asgardian now if he promised not to edit an article for the next week, merely limited edits to discussion. Is that out of the question? What are your thoughts? Hiding T 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though if so, it would need to be made clear (and I mean carved in stone, clear) that all edits for the next week (starting now) be restricted to the "odd" namespaces (the talk spaces). Even a single edit means a restart of the week-long (or longer) block. I only suggest this due to the wiki-lawyering I've seen him attempt in the past.

(Incidentally, for the most part, I've begun to learn to (roughly) wait in unifying our discussions, and had actually checked my watchlist and compared the time to see if you were active before removing from my talk page : ) - jc37 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mull it over. I may not be around the next couple of days, but I'm wondering whether it isn't worth seeing how the situation plays out as is. If another editor wants to unblock, that's fair enough, but I had warned Asgardian about reverting without discussion. There was no discussion initiated by Asgardian. That's a position that needs to be amended, because it is counter to how Wikipedia ideally works. Hiding T 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. - jc37 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read this and your description of an Admin reminds me of a roadie. maybe we should start a wikiroadie group.... no? anyway, what I was going to say was, What are your standards? That page seemed more of a description of an Admin then your standards for electing them.--Pewwer42  Talk  23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't get the point you are trying to make. Hiding T 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, H. Yeah, that was me; I'd forgotten to log in. I didn't think much of it, since the edit summary read typically like one of mine, I thought. I hope I didn't give any impression otherwise; I certainly would never, nor did I in this case, suggest there was another editor involved.

As for the bigger point you made, you're probably right about my tone with Asgardian having seemed pointed. I just don't know what to do — when I word things more carefully and try to be polite, he accuses me of being "condescending" (his word). I guess I could try to find another way to word things, but it can feel like a damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don't situation with him.

In any event, I appreciate the nudge. Sometimes we're driving blind here, and we need each other to help us stay in our lane and not drift off into the shoulder.

Now I have to go hit the sack — ironically, given my own maternal situation, a friend's elderly mother just died and I volunteer to help sit shiva, of all things. What did John Lennon say? "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

Thanks again. I fleshed out Ogden Whitney a day or two ago, and hope to get back to the bios soon. With kind regards as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know when she created a hurricane and/or if she is at least powerful enough to make a tropical storm (which can become a hurricane). If possible, can you provide answers back here? Or you may reply below if desired. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[12] I like that idea. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Has User: responded to your question yet? I ask, because Loeb's email, and can relay your question to him if you want, as I worked on his article, and had some dealings with him over the article's accompanying photo. Nightscream (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he and I corresponded a bit yesterday (I met him last August, and we exchanged emails), and because of his experiences with identity theft, he requested, on advice of his legal counsel, that his year of birth be removed too. Do you think that would be okay? Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed your addition of the "underpopulated category" header to a year in comics category [13] and then noticed you'd done the lot. The thing is by their very nature they (and the decades in comics categories are going to be underpopulated because most things added there will get moved to more specific categories (as I've been doing with the Category: 2000s comics, and what I've been more generally with Category: Comics, Category: Comic book titles and Category: Graphic novels - if they are full to the brim then we have done our job wrong). If they start filling up with things like events in that year then the solution would be to create a category and move them into it. So the main work I'd be doing is depopulating those categories in favour of the more specific ones, which makes the underpopulated headers in those categories redundant (and counter-productive if the articles put in there should be in the comic debuts version). Before removing them I thought I'd drop you a note and see if I was missing something. (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

OK cool.

Looking at it, an events category looks like a good idea - these days Marvel and DC seem to have at least one a year and there are categories like Category: Infinite Crisis (and the potential for others. I might raise this over on the comic project talk page. (Emperor (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

It would be great to get your opinions on making space the disambiguation page for the subject. See here. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrific find and add! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins and his behavior regarding notability templates. BOZ (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That statistics page is a list of all the backlogs we've got, so to my mind it is a noticeboard of all the tasks that need doing. Thoughts? Hiding T 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

K, here's mine, though I'll admit to at least some of it being merely my personal preference:

When I was saying "noticeboard", I was considering one in which editors can post to for notification of "something". Our main ones are the main talk page, the noticeboard (of course), the clean up page, and the proposed task list. (CotM was there as well.) Statistics doesn't seem to be any of that.

In addition, I tried to pare the first section down to what someone who would be a newbie to the Comics WikiProject should check out/read, yet to try to avoid overwhelming them. So that's the main page and "getting involved". Everything else is pretty much referential to the tasks of editing or organising pages covered by the project, or the project itself.

(And honestly, I also thought it looked better : )

Anyway, does that make sense? - jc37 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, go ahead and remove the section. I was just a little concerned that in removing the improperly cited sections, I was completely removing a notable part, but if there is only one small article, then it's clearly non-notable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see [14]. My comment was in no way meant to be critical of you personally, and I apologise if it came off that way. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, then. :) By the way, I like this idea of yours. I think it successfully addresses some of the concerns that have been raised regarding insertion of libellous material by new accounts, and it seems unlikely to be opposed by a substantial number of either proponents or opponents of the proposal to reverse the AFD default for BLPs. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the work of user-Asgardian - you might want to consider taking a step back from direct arbitration enforcement action in the interest of objectivity and neutrality - maybe limit yourself to offering comments on the situation and allow other administrators less involved in the situation make the actual enforcement decisions if necessary.

IMO, if it's not a situation of sock-puppeting or revert-warring, then parties on both sides can arrive at a compromise solution through the standard wikipedia discussion options.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in fact away for much of the time that the block was in place, and don't see it as a big issue. Yes, if I am literal with the Edit Summaries and Talk (although many aren't!) that will solve that bone of contention. I must admit receiving a Barnstar was a pleasant surprise. As I said before, my aim is to just use my comic-knowledge to get many of these articles up to scratch so that the information is there for all (eg. Thanos etc.) and no one else ever has to slog through creating lengthy biographies.

Regards

07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiding, WP:OUTING is a guideline (section) concerning the topic discussed, and therefore is the most relevant link for expanded information. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection also addresses this issue, as a policy. I don't see a problem at all if something as important as outing is mentioned several times, in different ways, to make it even clearer. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is not "jargon" — it is an important part of an official WP guideline, and outing people is a blockable offense, per policy. To repeat it in different ways is fine, as it will contribute to clarity. Crum375 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am "entrenched" in the view that outing is an important issue, that per policy it is a blockable offense and that this should be made very clear. If there are other ways of achieving this clarity, I am open to suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you need to toss coins. "Outing" is the commonly used WP name for this offense, and should be in the title. Having the expanded version there is fine too. Crum375 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Think your bot archived my comment too soon. Anyway, do you have an answer? I'd like to see if I can incorporate this data by Asgardian as well. Please reply on your talk page, or at WT:COMICS. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, sorry, I haven't been up in the loft yet. I'll try and do that this week. If I haven't by Wednesday nag again. Hiding T 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (read the comment). I'll make the update soon as I can. BTW, have you watchlisted Storm's page? There is a user who keeps adding unsourced content. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment on my talk page about removing my material from the Batplane page. I was indeed the author of the material that I added, as I am the owner of the website from which it was taken. Sorry I didn't know how to identify it as such. I think Wikipedia is the worse off for it having been removed (the Batplane page is just pitiful now) but the information is still available on my site so I guess I won't worry about it. I only occasionally visit Wikipedia so I didn't see your comments on my talk page until well after the changes had been made (right now, as a matter of fact). Obviously, I'm not a suitable editor for Wikipedia since I don't monitor my edits regularly. Blackhawk66 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

... just a friendly note to inform you (if you don't already know) that someone (perhaps inadvertently) left a note regarding "David Vern Reed" on your user page as opposed to your talk page. Later, Ling.Nut (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aha. Thank you. Hiding T 10:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You declined my prod suggestion for this article. Do you believe converting this article to a redirect to List of Brookside characters would be ok? The article is too short and lacks any real-world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Since you said that you can improve it, I believe you. I am just merging/prodding articles that remained untouched for months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What should we do with the pending prods for the various people on list of Brookside characters? Obviously, anyone can remove the prod, or change to a redirect. I have no idea of the importance of the show, but it would seem a redirect would be the obvious sort of compromise, not that all people necessarily seem to be willing to compromise. I am prepared to do either. I ask because of your comment at User talk:Magioladitis. That same user also tried to speedy direct a redirect from another of them, Thomas Sweeny which I declined as having no basis at WP:CSD. IIt has now been nominated for WP:RfD, where I am about to defend it. Is there ar Brookside workgroup? DGG (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a Brookie workgroup, no. I don't think there's a need to have an article for every character, but there's no need to delete redirects from useful search terms either. I think it's more a matter of educating people. 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE does not pertain to the situation. The article was started in August of 2007 by an editor who was experienced. There were no newbies involved at the time, and clear cut discussions where consensus is obvious like this one do not need to be extended the full five days. I appreciate the fact that you are looking out for new editors. Feel free to contact me in the future if you have any questions! Malinaccier (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Now I see where you're going with this. I think that you're probably right on that point. The way you're seeing it never occured to me. I will go back and add a rationale for my closure. Thanks for looking out for the new editors. Malinaccier (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I would like to award this to Hiding for going out of his way to make new editors feel welcome. This kind of work truly makes Wikipedia a good place to be. Malinaccier (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay...

Over all it looks good. However...

1. Is this going to incorporate/refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines? There are some, at least currently, fundamental naming/reference conventions that are missing from the SG.
2. Page layouts:
   • The Infoboxes, normally, wind up preceding the lead when writing the articles. Otherwise the slip below the TOC. This needs to be clarified.
   • There is a collected edition table template that should be finalized "shortly" (the discussion is on the project talk page). This may be worth adding to the "Media information" point for series. Also, both the arc and series infoboxes have a built-in link to [[#Collected editions]] that may need to be mentioned.
   • We need to clarify some things with the "lists" applicable for the MI section. Are we including issue lists for series and/or reading order lists for arcs? I'd rather not see the former, and the later only if it isn't to pad out the article.
   • Noting that navigation tools: navboxes, categories, and interwiki links should be added below the "External links" but without headers.
   • Characters... and this is a blinking landmine... how strongly are we going to try and avoid the current FCB styles? If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like we'll be trying to scrap them out of hand since we'll be working from a real world perspective. There's going to be an awful lot of heels digging in when it becomes apparent that retcon will be presented when the were published, not when the revised story line has the character "experiencing" them.
   • Other article types — Off the top of my head we've got 6 or 7 additional sets: story arcs; expanded dab articles (Robin (comics)); teams; organizations; species; locations; and equipment. Are we going to create separate exemplar sections for these or append them to the existing 2?

- J Greb (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one to express that the mediation process will likely be ineffective and that arbitration is the way to go. You'll note how many people expressed their reservations on the D&D project talk page. Even I am not sure what to think of it, and I was the one insisting on it. :) It didn't take long to encounter turbulence since the case started, but I want to see where the process goes. If it does go to arbitration and you'd like to be involved, I'd like you to know that I value your judgment very highly. Jeske seems to have only reluctantly done the mediation at this point, but I'm glad he's supporting this as well, and would welcome him if it does go to arbitration, which he believes would be more successful. In the meantime, I'd rather not talk much about "what ifs" though. :) BOZ (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've watched the mediation page. To be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in arbitration lately. Hiding T 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's too bad.  :\ BOZ (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that I understand, then! Inferno did kind of completely destroy that character in just about every conceivable way. :) I've often wondered if Claremont planned something like that for her all along or if he just switched gears with her at some point. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Debbie McGrath, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie McGrath. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, It seems we write together in Wikipedia. Sorry, I didn't know that you intent to improve this as well. Well, since the article is only 3 lines long with not significant history, wouldn't be better to recreate the article from the scratch as long as you have a better version to improve? If you insist please note that in the AfD. I think this is a WP:HEY case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to close it as speedy keep? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you gave me a chance to write about it first.:) But since there's been another delete, I guess not. But at worst the redirect can be expanded back again. DGG (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wizard#Publications
• D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd
• List of DC Thomson publications

Here's a challenge for you : )

A publication called "Wizard" is named on the Wizard dab page. It's not listed at either of the other locations above. While I realise that the company published quite a few papers, 56 years seems somewhat notable, at least for listing on the list. Can you find some confirmation of the paper's existance? (And while your at it, for Rover, since it's claimed to be related.)

Good luck : ) - jc37 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wizard and Rover, alongside Adventure and Skipper were illustrated story papers rather than comic papers, at least according to Paul Gravett's Great British Comics. Hotspur looks to have started out that way too, but then become a comic at some point in its history. Gravett states first publication of both as being 1922. Gravett describes these DC Thompson papers as being set apart through "the writers' and editorial staff's refreshingly improbable and often outrageous storylines, which truly stood the test of time by being revived, sometimes repeatedly, in strip form for decades after in Thompson's weekly comics." Wilson, the Man in Black appears to be the most notable of the characters to have appeared in Wizard, also known as Wilson of the Wizard. According to Gravett, the character was the prototype of the "astonishing sporting prodigies" which became popular in British comics, (cf. Alf Tupper, Roy of the Rovers) and was an "unassuming totally dedicated loner, [wanting] no glory or publicity". Again, according to Gravett he inspired many British athletes, and his adventures were retold in strip form in Hornet from 1964 and then Hotspur. The aforementioned Alf Tupper likewise started in Rover before moving to Victor in strip form. Hiding T 10:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You did a damn fine job with the Damon Grant article. In the beginning when I created it about 2 years ago, I slapped it together in the hope I could lay down the barebones and see if any other Brookside fans would contribute with information , which didn't really work out (nor did the other 100+ articles I created)

I was wondering if you were gonna tackle any more?

Conquistador2k6 11 May 2008 12:28 (UTC)

• I doubt I'll do that many more, but I'll keep them in mind. I'm sorry they are slowly being purged, I think that quite a few of the characters achieved a certain level of notoriety or notableness within the British media, and that it is possible to source fairly decent material on them. Hopefully they'll get the articles they deserve at some point, and when they do, your contributions should be restored per GFDL. Hiding T 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached about the plot summary at the FAC, so if you want to take another stab at it, it would be much appreciated.

On an unrelated note, would you be able to track down any other NME/Melody Maker reviews for me? If so, I can compile a list of albums I need reviews for. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have a look at the Sinestro Corps page. Also, compile the list, and next time I'm able I'll certainly have a look for you. Hiding T 10:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief list of reviews I'm looking for, based on priority: Murmur, Disintegration (NME only; I have the Melody Maker review), Ten (might not even exist; the album was pretty much ignored by reviewers when it was released), The Downward Spiral, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, Siamese Dream. If you can find any of them that would be much appreciated. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and take a stab at these next week. I almost certainly remember Ten being reviewed. Hiding T 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you just deleted the above article under A3. Do you really think it fits that definition? Hiding T 15:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, with no sources, I did an admittedly quick search on the article's title and found nothing substantative. The article's contents were recently vandalized and the previous content was not substantive or meaningful - to the point where it was hard to tell what was true and what was not..if any of it was... Is it a notable character? If you want to restore it, I'd have no objections. Dreadstar † 15:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored it, took out what looked like vandalism. Not much there, but I'll leave it up to you..!  :) Dreadstar † 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect works for me. Hiding T 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hiding, I was just wondering about your recent edit to List of English flags. You added this flag to the article, saying it is the flag of Surrey. I can see where the design comes from but I was a tiny bit curious as to where you saw this flag as I live and have strong connections with Surrey and I have never seen this flag before in my life. Thank you. --DWR^talk 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very speedy response. Happy editing! --DWR^talk 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One might be inclined to think that writing about anything must inherently be done with a bias. After all, history books are written by the victors - if not, wouldn't an American history book, a British history book, a Communist USSR history book, and a history book from Nazi German all tell the same exact story if covering the events of World War II? This is not only true of fiction, but with fiction the bias is simply more blatant. Food for thought - I don't want to get involved in the policy debates, but I do look at it from time to time out of curiosity. :) BOZ (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you help cleaning up the article... unsourced must go!PersecutionComplex (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, although I'm perhaps not as absolutist as you. I certainly agree the article needs work. Hiding T 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind assessing Comics Arts Conference? I originally created the article, so I don't think I should assess it. Thanks. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• It needs third party sources to get up to A-Class, but I guess I can make it a good article, it has been a while since I looked at that process. I'll trawl through my Journal issues for any coverage, probably using that index by that guy. Now I'm pondering who you are... Hiding T 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not anyone who's named in the article. Doczilla _STOMP! 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• hmmm. I'm going to apply IAR. Hiding T 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		Thanks to your help and review, Sinestro Corps War has reached FA! Keep up the good work! Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Talk_page_highlights#User_talk:jc37

Enjoy : ) - jc37 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If we did create such a project, how would we organise and integrate it? Hiding T 12:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a myriad ways to do it. For one thing, the Anime/manga Wikiproject seems to bo going along fairly well. At most, they should become a workgroup. And if Comics subsumed Animation, then that would also deal with last arguments for Superman being a separate wikiproject, as well.

Personally, it seems to me that most of our workgroups seem to be mostly a way to organise the info under the main WikiProject (there's a lot)), and for periodic ad hoc "CotM" teams. (Which is also part of the ebb-and-flow of the project, and the interests of the project members at any given time.)

So I think that we'd do better if we thought ahead and structured the overall project by article type as well. Comics articles cover a lot of information, and each section often draws a different type of editor. We should structure the project to take better advantage of that.

In addition, there are so many potential workgroups that it might be a good idea to "group" similar ones. This could be done either by creating an "over-workgroup" or a group noticeboard. I've seen both work to varying degrees. I think the best plan is to start with the noticeboard, and if we discover that editors are creating overview MoS pages, etc, then the noticeboard can be subsumed into the "new" over-workgroup.

So if I were to put forth my preferred way, it would be to:

Create the "Comics by region noticeboard". (At this moment, I think the World and US workgroups are probably our weakest links, and if the fact that they finish the "by region" scheme isn't clarified somehow, they should probably be remerged into the WikiProject.) - This set of workgroups would draw those editors who are interested in comics from a national or international perspective.

• Create the "Character workgroup" (can you think of a better name?) - I think that if we advertised its existence, this would likely be a fairly popular workgroup. (Characters, and groups of characters, like teams, organisations, etc.) And it's something that really needs to be dealt with in terms of naming conventions, plot summary, and so on. It would be nice to have a separate workgroup with its own MoS, etc.

• Create the "Episode workgroup" (again, better name? I'm trying to convey "form of presentation") - This is another popular focus for editors (all we have to do is notice the semi-recent arbcomm cases...) This could either stay focused on an "serial" presentation of comics or animation (comic book series, animated series, etc.) Or be broader to include "stand-alones" like one-shot graphic novels, films, etc.

• Rename the comics creators workgroup to be the comics and animation creators workgroup.

• Create the "Inter-media noticeboard". (better name, please : ) - This set of work groups would draw those who are interested in a certain medium of comics. And would also group those things which may not quite be "comics-related media".

• Leave comics strips alone. It's a broad enough workgroup as it is. And is a nice way to deal directly with that media.

• Create the animation workgroup (well, this would be where the old wikiproject would be moved to).

• Create the "live-action" workgroup". - This would be for all the television and film adaptations.

One thing that we'd need to deal with is the question of "what is a superhero?" Or even the mosre general: "What is comics-related media?" - There are obviously many examples of "comics-related media" which have no version actually in comics. But that doesn't necessarily mean that something like The Incredibles, Mystery Men, or even City of Heroes shouldn't be part of the WikiProject.

Even if we don't subsume the animation project, I think some of the above would be worth while. The "by region" noticeboard, and the character workgroup in particular.

Implementation:

Start a discussion at the WikiProject about the creation of the "by region" noticeboard, noting that it could be developed into a "parent" workgroup, should the be interest to do so.

Start a discussion with whomever is left at the animation project and find out of they're interested in becoming a workgroup.

Presuming so, move that to a workgroup.

Start a discussion about renaming the comics creators workgroup.

Start a discussion about the creation of the characters work group.

Start a discussion about the creation of the episodes/serial/publication/presentation work group (whatever it ends up being named). Perhaps even being more than one workgroup.

Start a discussion concerning the "by media/presentation" noticeboard, and the creation of the "live-action" work group. This discussion should also delve into the questions of inclusion ("What is a superhero?/What is comics-related?")

Start a discussion as to what the Overall WikiProject should be named. Some of the above could be part of WikiProject Comics-related media, which could be its own Wikiproject, or all could be merged to WikiProject Comics. (or, or, or...)

Once all this is done/resolved, then go to other Wikiprojects, such as Superman, and Anime/manga, and discuss merging.

What do you think? - jc37 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure about separate mos guidance... hmm...there's a lot to digest. I'm not a huge fan of noticeboards as you can tell by my absence at the comics one, for me that's what WT:COMICS is for. But yeah, I agree with a lot of the broader points. Hiding T 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I doubt the anime/manga project would actually merge. There's so many articles that are not only comics and cartoons from Japan, but have specific issues related to that, among other things, that a full and separate WikiProject just makes more sense from an organizational standpoint. Alternatively, just think of the two projects as sister projects, or the comics and animation project as a parent project, like they do in relation to WP:TV. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The organisational difference between a WikiProject, an "organisation", a "CotM", an "AID", a noticeboard, a task force, and a work group, is largely nominative (name-based). We can call the pages "The comics corporation" if we want. Honestly, Hiding's note above how he prefers the main talk page is one of the strengths of the comics' project. We currently have several ways in which editors can "get together". And in the restructure, that should always be our goal. How can we help provide the structure and conventions for our editors to "get collaborative", and "get editing"? : )

That said, personally, I think to be called a "WikiProject" should require having more "support pages" than just a couple templates, the main page, and main talk page. If that's all it is, then it's barely a work group, and likely would be fine as a collaborative noticeboard. Anime and manga obviously are fairly developed. But Superman? Not so much. And Animation obviously has a fair amount of overlap with the comics' project.

I suggested a noticeboard for the regional also because that seems to be the preferred way for regional topics. (See also: Category:Wikipedians by regional Wikipedian notice board) But as I said above, we could just as well call it the regional hero sandwich : ) - jc37 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in to a conversation I eavesdropped on by accident, really, it was an accident) For what it's worth, the Animation project is a comparatively recent creation, primarily created to deal with the non-American and non-Anime animation, which are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation and the Anime and manga project. It might well be reasonable to absorb both all three, but particularly Animation and American Animation, given the remarkable degree of overlap with comics, although it would be useful to come up with a project name which makes it clear that the project covers both. As one member of both projects, I would support such a merger if a workable title could be found. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the name is one of the things I proposed above which would need to be discussed.

As I might consider you to be currently one of the one of the "pillars" of the WikiProject council, how would you suggest that we start these discussions? - jc37 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to pick up on where you said we should probably rename the comics creators work group. I was wondering why you felt that way? Hiding T 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if we're unifying the project to absorb animation, I'm not certain that a writer/artist of a comic is that different than a writer/artist of animation, in terms of presentation/collaboration.

As an aside, I thought it would be smarter also since it's pretty much the only workgroup that directly deals with WP:BLP. (Everything else seems to be fiction-related or publication/presentation-related.) So it seemed smarter to group them together for that reason as well. - jc37 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Hiding T 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can never work out where to reply to you, because if I start a discussion here yo move it to my talk page and yet of you start a discussion on my talk page and I move it here, you move it back to mine again. It confuses the hell out of me. Hiding T 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Noting that I split this comment from the animation comments above. I thought I should comment in a separate section in order to try to keep the threads less confusing.)

I had thought you and I had discussed this previously, but I guess not, or at least not enough to your understanding, at least. So to clarify:

I've seen others post "talk page guidelines" at the top of their talk page, but to me that seems typically more confusing. I don't know.

To clarify, my general practice is:

a.) discussions to be unified. I personally think that the segmented discussions between 2 or more talk pages would seem to be more confusing, and honestly more "work" to try to keep track of, than a discussion unified on a single page.

b.) defer to the other person. I've found that (unlike me) most people don't watch their watchlists or contrib history to keep track of discussions. They prefer the orange bar letting them know that it's time to respond to "something". (Which is why some prefer the segmented discussions.) And even for those who do keep track of where they're discussing, it's easier for them to respond however they see fit. They can then comment on their own talk page, continuing there, or leave a note on mine, knowing that I'll (per "a") restore it and my response to unify the discussion.

c.) If more than one person joins the discussion at my talk page, then I leave it there for "a" reasons (unification), since the point is to not have segmented discussions. In those cases, I just "hope" that those commenting will notice the "new changes", though it's been my experience that after a few comments, such discussions die without resolution. Wikipedia is a large place and it's easy for anyone to become distracted.

d.) The only exception to the above that I can think of would be certain notifications (like "RfA thanks") which don't require a response. Though to even some of those I'll respond in order to let the poster know that I've seen it.

My apologies if the above seems confusing. It just seemed to me the more polite and courteous thing to do, while attempting to keep discussions unified.

If you're still confused by this, please feel free to ask for further clarification. - jc37 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I know now. I'll just reply here from now on. You have to forgive us old people our memories. Hiding T 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you have me wondering if something of the above came off "insulting" to you somehow. If so, I apologise, as that wasn't my intent whatsoever. - jc37 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you weren't insulting. I just meant I couldn't remember discussing it before, so if we did that's my memory. Hiding T 00:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'm going to have to mull its issues over a bit. I think some of my summer students might want to sift through it too. Doczilla _STOMP! 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The people I know who are the best experts on this topic aren't likely to edit the article because they'd either (1) anonymously be giving away work they normally get paid to publish or which at least gets them lines on their CVs or (2) get jumped on for conflict of interest since contributing to the article would inherently publicize their own publications. I know a non-professional (well, not that kind of professional anyway) who owns a number of books on the subject, but what timing! As of a few days ago, he has embarked upon a potentially permanent wikibreak. I can probably borrow some materials, but it will be a few weeks. One of the best sources I've read on the subject is a chapter I proofread for someone else's book, but that won't come out until later this year, so I don't feel comfortable citing it right now. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I often link to it so when I saw it was a redlink I thought I'd made a typo, so reversed the speedy deletion - it needs improving and more sources but isn't a speedy deletion candidate.

The same user added similar tags to a number of other comic stores (Special:Contributions/OccamzRazor) - I checked through them and the others seem weak but you might want to double check (and it might be worth seeing if some won that Eisner, as that'd help. (Emperor (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

And I never even knew we had a bottom class (which amuses me, but that me because I'm British and we are not only very class concious but we find bottoms awfully funny too) but I was wondering if you really meant to change the importance of a number of entries to "bottom" (still funny) as it seems a rather 'strong' rating on the importance scale and seems like the kind of thing that should only be deployed in certain circumstances - assigning Secret Invasion to 'bottom' [15] struck me as very odd as 'mid' might be too low given its huge sales, spin-off ongoing series and importance in 2008's comic scene. You may have your reasons but it seems to be a blanket change for all titles listed as future titles even when they have already been rated. Checking the other changes on my watchlist I don't think any should be classed as bottom - perhaps it might be better to give a default rating of 'low' if one doesn't exist?

Also some of them still count as "future", at least according to the {{future comic}} header, which also classes ongoing limited series in this group, and I always imagined the two went together (although I was never sure when to remove them - perhaps we need an "ongoing comic" header, or just reword "future comic"? We really only need the warning if it still hasn't been published as things can be up in the air until then). (Emperor (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

And some of them are still future comics: Marvel Apes isn't out until October, for example, and Trinity (comic book) is still a week or two away. (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

• I took the decision to deprecate the future class since it isn't part of the WP:1.0 project's assessment. They're looking for articles to print, so they care only for the quality. The importance is a measure of how important the article is to print in an encyclopedia, so I've rated them as bottom as they're not of vital importance to a print encyclopedia. Given the series has yet to finish, it is impossible to fully evaluate it. It's possible it is of utmost importance to comic book fans. To readers of a general encyclopedia? I sincerely doubt it. As you have noted, we still have the {{future comic}}, which also covers ongoing series judging by its wording, and we have the future=yes tag on {{comicsproj}}. These achieve the same thing whilst not interefering with the WP 1.0 goal. Hiding T 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bottom class came about through discussions at the comics assessment talk page, we wanted an assessment scale below low to differentiate, and it appears the cricket project use bottom, so that's what I went for. Prior to that it was likely to be minimal, but bottom fits with top, and puts mid in the middle. Hiding T 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I see is that we don't rate things as how important they'd be to a paper encyclopaedia (although that would depend on amount of coverage a paper encyclopaedia gives to the subject) or nearly everything would be "bottom class" - the description is: "This article has no real significance to the project, but it covers additional topics of general or specific interest, some of which could be described as trivia, though all are notable in their own right." It is the importance to the project, as in within the world of comics. I would suggest the 'mid' rating for Secret Invasion is provisional - if it has large long term impact on the Marvel universe it could easily sneak higher. As I say "bottom" is a 'strong' rating and suggests the article is of virtually no importance at all and that seems harsh as a provisional rating. (Emperor (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

If you want to amend it, amend, it. For me, I think until the series has finished and can be evaluated, it is likely covering details of specific interest. If you aren't conversant with the series, how general is its scope? At the minute you seem to indicate it is based on speculation. But I'm no edit warrior. If you think I'm wrong, change it. At the minute I fail to see how it can have any significance beyond some impact on Marvel's fictional universe. For me the project is about comics, not Marvel Comics, so the significance should be broader. Hiding T 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• That said, the importance assessing, the very point of assessing, is in deciding what gets published in a print encyclopedia. That's one of the whole points of assessment. "The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content." Now, do we need to prioritise work on this article, or are there a number of other articles which should be given a higher priority? And what rating would you expect it to get keeping in mind static releases? Once teh series is finished and its impact can be reliably sourced, I'd quite happily review where it should sit, but whilst it is in progress? Hiding T 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Some one else reassessed it already (along with a number of others you set to bottom). I would contend that, although it is still ongoing, there is enough information for a provisional rating - I've added sales figures in already (along with the trade sales, as they also managed the feat of getting the prequel trade in the #1 sales slot for trades too) and both ongoing series that are tie-ins and using Secret Invasion as a launchpad sold out immediately and are on a second printing (although there sales won't be released until next month). As I say we may need to bump up a provisional rating but we have enough to know it is pretty important. Doczilla also dropped a note in about the rating so I've directed people here (rather than spread the discussion across half a dozen articles). (Emperor (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

I don't really think there needs to be a discussion. Phil has the right idea, to be honest. All I did was ask the question. Consensus will dictate, and consensus is best achieved through editing and discussion. I think the new bottom assessment may cause some issues, but mostly I'm thinking it's for really minor characters, tangential articles and years in comics and the like. I just lumped future comics in there based on my reasons above. As ever I will bow to any consensus however achieved. You don't need to convince me, I'll happily respect what the majority think even if I think different. Hiding T 13:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought someone was goofing around with the assessment scale. Then I saw that it was you, so I knew it wasn't horseplay. When someone gets a chance, can we update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment to show the new category? That ought to help to prevent confusion. I'm actually glad to have an additional grade. Four seemed a bit limiting; I tended to give most articles a "Low" rating. But I see a difference between, say, Advanced Idea Mechanics and Akasha (comics). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've updated what I can. The one place it won't show is in that assessment table, because the bot doesn't pick it up. Maybe I'll have a word with the bot owner and see if we can't do something there. Hiding T 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for taking a look into it. I've been trying to chip away at the huge backlog of unassessed articles, but it seems like a never-ending mission. Interestingly, I hadn't realized that pertinence to WP 1.0 was one of the considerations to make when assessing the article. I had only been going by the importance to the WikiProject. Hence, I tend to give comics creators a higher rating for WikiProject Comics than I do WikiProject Biography. I'll have to take a look at the assessment discussion. If anyone disagrees with my previous assessments, I will defer to their judgement as it is, of course, subjective. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, where was the assessment discussion? I ask not because I have any disagreement, but rather because I want to make sure that I understand the context of the new category. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Carry on assessing as you are, it'll be fine. I made what appears t be a bad call yesterday, although I stand by my reasoning at the time, it has sorted itself out. Don;t overly worry about what to factor into assessing stuff, just go with your gut and consensus will eventually sort it out. The discussion occurs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Assessment scale issues, although it is almost a year ago now. I think me and Fram and Murgh discussed it somewhere else around then, but I forget where now. But it was basically just to give us more room to play with. Like, um, some characters of the LSH are more important than others, but that doesn't mean some are mid to the whole project, you know? Hiding T 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks! (And I see it now. I just didn't look back far enough.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wowwwww! Great find on that image! Big, big step toward fleshing this page out the way it should be, given his significance. Bravo! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you have removed my contributions to the Superman page on the grounds that "The Batman Superman friendship... is original research as it is analytical of primary source". Not entirely: Byrne's version of their first meeting does conclude with Batman thinking that they would have been friends in "another reality" (i.e. the Pre-Crisis world). Which edition of the Penguin Book of Comics do you have? Because I have an edition from the 1960s and it does include the scene that I describe. If you like I could scan and put it online for you to verify.--Marktreut (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It helps to explain why it is getting so pointless in contributing to wikipedia. People like you are getting far too demanding. It is not just Byrne: I have read other Batman/Superman adventures in which they are far from bosom buddies — and I am not going to name them all just in order to make my point. There comes a time you know when you have to trust the judgement of others just a little bit. I have seen analysis that I did not agree with and without references, but I did not purge them there and then, I let them stay. What will convince you to let my contribution is based in a fair assessment: a signed declaration by the head of DC Comics in front of a Supreme Court judge?--Marktreut (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that an encyclopedia is supposed to inform people of facts and, I believe, make conclusions based on those facts. For me, what makes a subject interesting is not just how it happened, but the motives and reasons behind it all. A friend and I once saw a film which included a lot of action and drama, but afterwards our main conversation was not what the characters did but why they did it and how it affected their relationship with one another. To say that this happened and that happened is not enough in my book; it should also be about why it happened and how it affected events. On the subject of Superman, it would be a little more to the point if, instead of taking my contribution out completely, you had re-written them in such a way as accepting it as a feasible observation even if it is not cast in stone.--Marktreut (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATT is not an essay. Crum375 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I get an extra set of eyes on this? Especially in light of User:ComicsPlace.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think uncited comments like "Despite lasting only 15 months, Skinn's tenure at Marvel was hugely productive" are okay to leave for a very short period of time with the citation tag, but there are several sentences under Controversy that really must go until/unless citation can be found, particularly in the first paragraph. The article is a bit of a mess, isn't it? Are sources for all those marked places likely to be found? If not, then perhaps it needs a major cut-down. --Faith (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. This one seems to be fairly cut and dried. SE6666 insists on repeatedly deleting the image in the SHB for the Abomination article without discussion, and does not replace it. I can't see the rationale, and they have been warned by another user and myself.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that change a number of times myself, and from their talk page it looks like this person has been up to other recent trouble as well. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have been invloved in the discussion at ATT regarding its status as an essay or otherwise. I'm concerned that the current "Summary" tag implies that this has status greater than an essay, though it has no consensus to be otherwise. Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Hiding/Archive 2008#WikiProject Comics and animation

Did anything come of this? - jc37 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Not that I know of, but I'm on something of a sabbatical. Hiding T 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh ok, please pardon the interruption. - jc37 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

An important discussion on Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But were your comments directed at me? As the author of the section, I was wondering if I was being referred to as a child for suggesting the more appropriate solution to the focal problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy

I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had given me a chance, I would have added the image to the article. Having spent half an hour downloading and uploading it would have been nice to be the one to do so, but that's life. Also, if you do add an image to an article can you please amend the talk page accordingly. Sorry to sound grouchy, it's just frustrating to have your thunder stolen. Anyway, thanks, Hiding T 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to just jump in after I saw it added at Commons--I have a very fast home connection and just whipped up the other crop and pushed it right back out. I didn't mean to step on your toes with the fast upload. :( rootology (T) 21:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

None ruffled at all, Hiding. But I remain keen to convince you, perhaps over time! TONY (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I need some extra eyes on this User talk:J Greb#Bizarro and [16].

To be honest, I'm tire (long day), and frustrated with this situation. I think I may have crossed a line with my post on my talk page, but I'm really at a loss as to how to get my point across. Hence the request for some level-headed 3rd eyes.

- J Greb (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:AN/I

I'm currently under time constraints, but wanted to leave you a notice concerning Juggernaut and Phil Sandifer. - jc37 21:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like the kind of thing which now makes me limit my time and actions here. Sorry. Hiding T 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• No worries. (And you're probably smarter in this than the rest of us : ) - jc37 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - the name didn't instantly ring a bell when you mentioned it but I must have read his work. The whole thing is very borderline and the best argument I can put forward is that it needs some time to shape up as it could, potentially, make the grade. (Emperor (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Funny thing - it looks like you need to use a lowercase Y for the template to accept it as a yes. For example, I fixed one for you; you used capital Y's and they didn't register, leaving the article "unassessed". BOZ (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ta. I'm off to bed, but I'll look into fixing that asap. Hiding T 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a good night.  :) Your hard work to improve the project is appreciated! BOZ (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And coincidentally enough...

BOZ rightly and humbly pointed out when I complimented him on his talk page just now that I somehow, and stupidly, missed sending the same compliment your way. To save my tired brain, I'll just reiterate: You're doing a hell of a lot of work adding ComicsProject class/grade boxes and detailed rationales to a lot of articles. I, and I'm sure other regulars would join me on this, want to acknowledge and thank you for doing so much needed and time-consuming work. A round of applause! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, we all do our fair share. But thanks. Hiding T 09:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hiding. I happened to see you on Tony's page, saying "I've often thought it would be wonderful if we could fork off our better articles to a front-space, as it were, and treat the rest as the back of the shop, tooling, working and not worrying if they never get fixed." The Veropedia project is, or is trying to be, such a front-space. I'm not involved in it myself, but in case you're interested, active users on Veropedia include User:Moreschi and User:Danny (owner). There's also a #veropedia ^connect channel on Freenode. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the message, I was actually the one who tagged the article for a speedy! But the author's org might be article-worthy, so I thought I'd try to help out with creating a decent article, and they seem to be a bit overwhelmed by the whole Wikipeda-experience. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank you so very very much. Can we send you chocolate chip cookies from Oregon? We also have an MVED organization that we could use help with as well.

I am not sure how you all keep all this straight? It's mind boggling!

MDG 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting the article. I should have thought of just making it a redirect myself but it clearly escaped my mind. ^^ Vadigor (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories like that are always accepted as fine, even if the artist only has one album. This is a common outcome per CfDs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• With respect I disagree. Hiding T 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, whoops, didn't realize the band and their album were up for afd too. In that case, yeah, the category can go. By the way, there are plenty of subcats in Category:Albums by artist that only have one entry, yet all of these are commonly accepted; keep in mind we also have Category:Singular albums which is similar in scope. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Petra Feriancova, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --Alinnisawest(talk) 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why you didn't relist this. I saw you closed it, but it only had two votes, one for delete and one for merge. Wouldn't a relist have brought some more thoughts? Undeath (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• A relist may have brought some more thoughts, they may not have. It's been listed on afd and the deletion sorting page for music, and whilst it is listed at afd it limits editors options to merge or redirect the article. I'd suggest looking at other options than deletion here for the time being, since no policies are actually breached by this article, only guidelines, and our editing policy calls strongly for verifiable information to be retained. If merging or redirection prove to cause editing conflicts, I'd be happy to mediate. Hope that helps. Hiding T 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Petra Feriancova, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --Alinnisawest(talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - looks interesting. I did find a Flickr account with good photos in but the licensing was unhelpful (that said, now I think about, it should be possible to contact someone with a good photo and ask if they'd be interested in uploading that to Wikicommons so it might be worth identifying anything we want but can't quite use). That looks a lot better (although I am not 100% sure if it is exactly what we need - looks good to me but it is complex).

User:Jenniscott is one of the folks behind Caption (comics convention) and has been able to upload quite a few of her photos and should be able to identify just about everyone. She hasn't edited in a month but she's obviously been busy. I'll drop her a note and we should be able to tag team this (as long as the licensing looks like we can use it). (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

OK that is great. I have to say I am rubbish at identifying comics creators (the only way I've improved is through photos added here!! I'll see if I can spot anything and then throw it over to Jenni). (Emperor (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Definitely. It is often photos where we fall down, there are some examples that could be tricky (Steve Ditko) but usually this should be easy enough to address and this is a great way to do it. I'm sure there was another tool I used a while back to look for available images - I'll try to remember what it was. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

My thoughts exactly - it is theoretically possible someone has got a picture of him but it'd be highly unlikely.

You would think BBC stuff would be up for grabs but their iPlayer is very restrictive and you'd think they'd just let people download what they like but I don't think it works like that. It'd be worth checking. Also yes I'd dearly love to have more say in scheduling (I'd certainly put the mockers on any chance of a second series of Bonekickers for starters). I'd worry about Blakes Seven - I might give it a go on cable when they repeat it some time but the special effects were poor at the time and I can't imagine the passage of time has treated them kindly!! I caught a few a while back and it made my eyes hurt. That said I saw a classic Tom Baker Dr Who yesterday and it was gobsmacking how awful the special effects were - they were genuinely running around in some sand quarry and the baddies appeared to be sheets of crumpled silver foil. Still a good story though!! (Emperor (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

I've done some investigations and the worked out the identity or possibly identity of quite a few of them. Two left, by my count, but my all this thinking has started to make my head hurt. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Brilliant. Thank you. Hiding T 08:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any established criteria for how we name categories? I'm thinking of something similar to what we have for lists at WP:NCC? I'm trying to revise the editorial guidelines along the lines of the MILHIST ones, and I noticed they had it covered. Hiding T 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much just following typical conventions at CFD for fiction.

• "Lists of x"
• "Fictional x"

(With the use of "fictional" being presumed in the same cases as shown for lists at NCC.)

In general, don't mix types (For example, don't categorise BLP articles with fictional content.)

etc.

Also, we (well, I...) haven't gotten around to attempting to write a BLP section for the NCC as of yet.

As an aside: I'm looking for thoughts (and eventually, help) with a fiction version of WP:CLN. I've mentioned this to DocZilla, Emperor and others. Any insight/help would be most welcome. (So far, every time I've tried to write it, it seems to want to devolve into an index/list of examples, rather than self-explanatory general guidelines. But perhaps a balance of both will be accepatble... Dunno.) - jc37 09:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, have a look through User:Hiding/X7 and see if I've made any points there that are of use. What specifically would a fiction version of WP:CLN do that the original doesn't? What have you got so far? I also need help with the category structure. Hiding T 09:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow.

After reading through that I have to admit, I have a deluge of questions. However, here's 2 for now: Do you have a link to the military project's version? Does the military project have separate pages for some of it's editing guidelines (such as it's own NC page), or is it all on one long page like this?

And now to answer yours : )

The fiction CLN would have things like showing when it's useful/appropriate to use a navbox, or a category, or a list. (Which is why I keep getting awash with examples.) A key part of this is how, often the information presented is as a result of primary sources. And also to help prevent the constant cycle of create cat - cfd - listify - Afd - turn into a category - cfd - listify - ad infinitum (and sprinkle in navbox creation to taste.)

As for the categories you listed, I would suggest making a subcat of "comics" to be "comics content", to hold all fictional content (persons/characters, places/locations, objects, concepts).

Also, somehow we should probably be explicit about "Lists of x" categories.

Hope this is helping : ) - jc37 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The milhist guide is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide. They mention a couple of naming conventions that apply, but you may want to look at the page as it is quite substantial. By that I mean, yes, it is one long page, but yes, there also appear to be naming conventions for events, ships and aircraft, as well as task force specific conventions too.

The comics content sounds a good idea, but would you put storylines in there? And in the European tradition, a particular strip appears in a comic, which is more an anthology. I might split the category bit off for the minute and ponder it and get input. I think we've sort of gone about this the wrong way, creating categories and then filling them, rather than thinking about what we need to categorise.

Do you have any drafts of what you're doing with the guide. Although I'm not sure how much help I can be, I'd be glad to chip in and see where it gets you. Hiding T 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the goal was/is to have a "top-level" parent for all fictional content. To try to reduce confusion between "real-life" things and concepts, and fictional ones.

For example, a genre is a real life concept/label, which, based upon real life interpretation of content (fictional or otherwise), may be applied to real life comics.

I was going to suggest that perhaps this is a case where "fictional" can't be presumed. (So Category:Fictional content in comics.) But comics (as any publication) may have non-fictional content.

As an option, Category:Comics content could contain several categories including one which would be the "top-level" parent for fictional content.

If that didn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. (I'm attempting to "keep it shorter" : ) - jc37 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from. I think I'm going to start drawing up a category structure and seeing what we categorise and how we achieve that, and then I'll get you and Emperor to chip in and go from there. Hiding T 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I guess within fiction I'd be looking to categorise by out of universe reasons, and listify anything in-universe. So you'd categorise characters by year of first publication, but listify fictional lawyers. This creates something of a problem, granted, for linking to lists, but maybe we need to encourage a link of the kind Daredevil is a [[List of lawyers in fiction|lawyer]] rather than Daredevil is a [[lawyer]]. Navboxes, I don't know. I never saw the point of them, I thought that was what a category did. I suppose a navbox should represent the top level category of whatever it is a navbox for, and should only be placed on articles that fall within the specific remit of the navboxes topic. Does that make sense? Taking the Batman ones being discussed at WT:COMICS as an example, the Batman navbox would go on Batman, the Christopher Nolan Batman film franchise would, well, personally it would just go, but it would only go on... no, I just question why nav boxes are needed. Just use the category. I can't help with navboxes. Sorry. Hiding T 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT Navboxes are mini-lists, following some theme or topic, placed directly at the bottom of an article as an aid to navigation.

I find them rather helpful, but when dealing with fictional topics/subjects, they can get out of control.

That said, I'm starting to wonder if there wouldn't be a benefit of adding the specific list pages to navboxes, rather than trying to duplicate them. The biggest problem being, of course, lenth. List pages are infamous for being rather lenthy. However, I could see splitting lists smaller and using navboxes to "hold" the lists together.

As for what I've done so far, it's pretty messy gathering of isolated sentences. I'll try to clean it up somewhat and post it somewhere. - jc37 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I find some navboxes useful, but I can't define which ones work and which ones don't, so I'd rather just say none or nothing than try and voice an opinion. I like {{Green London}}, but it saddens me that it is better than Parks and open spaces in London and Category:Parks and open spaces in London. This speaks to me of a problem in utilising our resources adequately, but I can't work out the solution. Maybe navboxes are just more inherently intuitive for us to use than categories and articles. This could perhaps be why people are so eager to create them. At a guess I would say the guidance on navboxes is hideously out of date; I remember it used to be they were sideways boxes that simply linked to sub-articles that had been split from the main article summary style. Maybe a purge needs to be instigated simply to establish where the ground lies. I'm not volunteering to participate in any shape, manner or otherwise, mind. ;) Hiding T 21:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that things need an update. Personally, I think that they are so prevalent because a.) Categories have a tighter set of restrictions (which has been more enforced) than navboxes. b.) For some editors, it's easier c.) they get more "notice" than lists because they're on more than one page, and d.) Look at the pretty colours : ) - jc37 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to build a category structure so that I can add it to the style guidance, and I'd appreciate your input. I've made some initial comments at User talk:Hiding/X7. Hiding T 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've responded there : ) - jc37 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - some thoughts:

I think "Comics by country" and "Comics by continent" is unnecessary as they break down quite well with the countries going under the continent - the film structure looks overly complicated.

The problem with Category:Comic book magazines is that it seems to include two types of things - I'd define comic magazines as those (like Judge Dredd Megazine, which includes articles and comic stories) and obviously different from what are "magazines about comics" - I'd suggest a new category for the latter which would go under Category:Media about comics. Worth noting Category:Films about video games and Category:Films based on video games are not the same thing - as their structures show. The latter are motion pictures adapted from video games and is consistent with the broader structure (like Category:Films based on comics). I should know as I made a lot of them. Category:Media based on comics and Category:Media about comics are dealing with very different things (although I still object to the "media" structure someone imposed but has been difficult to get rid of).

The only change I'd make to Category:Comic book titles is to change it to "Comics titles." I think it is doing something much simpler than you seem to think it is doing. All it is a holder for collections of comic titles (like comic titles by country and publisher - which in a lot of cases end up meeting up). I'd also be against renaming Category:Comics as I don't really see the need. A note on size: Marvel UK only used the comic book size during the nineties push into the American market they mainly used the larger size of comic before that (with weird exceptions like... Rampage? It was landscape) - same with 2000AD and their US Judge Dredd comic. I'd be wary about trying to split comics up like that - I'd be wary of using comic book at all (as well as comic magazines - it isn't a phrase I use apart from the very specific example like the Megazine, even if it might have been the original term that got shortened to "comics"). Comic and comics strike me as neutral and less fraught with problems. For example we don't really need "Comic book titles by country" as Category:Comics titles by country seems to be doing that in a more neutral manner.

I think Transformers comics can go under Category:Comics based on toys.

I'm not sure we really need a category to put fictional content in and I'm not sure how we'd name it successfully "Comic content" seems too broad and "fictional content in comics" doesn't seem to work, because it all is in the end. I had a look round to see how it was done elsewhere but there is nothing under film - got any examples?

We might not need "Category:Comics characters by publication title" (although if we do I'd suggest just "by title") as this is mostly covered by Category:Comics characters by company and the titles slot in under that. It looks like a bit of a tidy might be in order though.

Basically I think the category structure is largely working well. I'd be against renaming the parent or major changes - I think comic magazines needs clarifying and the remainder of the "comic book" titled categories changing. I've read objections to the country-based publisher structure being "Comic book publishing companies of X" and I agree. I also think Category:Comics terminology and Category:Comic book terminology needs merging, as it is bordering on the silly. Other than that it largely seems OK - I've been up and down it with a fine tooth comb and over into other parallel areas connected with other media and it seems simple, straightforward and consistent - I'd not really want to over-complicate it unless there is a problem. (Emperor (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Before I try to comment, do you wish the discussion split between here and there? Or should we pick a single location? - jc37 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) - (Note, even though the edit summary said question for Emperor, it's really for you both, sorry about that.) - jc37 23:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of copying it over and then letting Emperor know, and then going to bed. That may be presumptuous of me, and if so apologies. Hiding T 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then a good evening to you sirrah : ) - jc37 23:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me - I hadn't noticed a discussion section there (or it developed while I was typing, thinking and generally faffing around). (Emperor (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I've replied to you both over there, although the threading might not be 100% tight. I'm now off to bed. Cheers, Hiding T 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a series of links to Flickr sets and conference reports from Caption here - you might be able to scoop up some other photos from there. I also dropped Jenni Scott a note as she seems the best person to identify the people but she isn't around much at the moment.

Also I thought you might be interested in this as part of the Danish cartoon controversy. (Emperor (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

• I'll have a scoot through the images, thanks. And thanks for the link. I think I'm all Danished out now though. It doesn't seem to be that vital any more. Hiding T 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hiding...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Except when I don't. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you keep this up, I'm seriously going to have to create a "smile of the day" barnstar/template : )

(I may anyway : ) - jc37 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A smile of the day barnstar would be a nice idea, until it got listed at MFD. Which it inevitably would. Hiding T 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially when I don't. ;-) I should have thought of that notice a long time ago. It would have saved me a lot of explaining. Hiding T 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here I make an off-the-cuff comment about something, and it appears on my watchlist.

Not intending to comment there at this time, but it was definitely a double take moment : ) - jc37 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• See. You're the Grant Morrison of Wikipedia. He gets ill when he makes his characters get ill. You make controversies by wiki-linking. What were you wiki-linking during the userbox wars? Hiding T 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Hey now... That's not nice. Actually, as I recall, just prior to the Userbox wars I thought I would be helpful and had organised all of the userbox gallery pages... - jc37 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  I see a pattern forming. I'm going to cross reference your edits and controversies involving Giano... Hiding T 12:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Well, whew. AFAIK, absolutely zero interaction there : )

  (Betacommand, on the other hand has been rather active at CFD and UCFD, so I've at least encountered him a few times...) - jc37 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Another coincidence: Otto just posted a response to you (26th). His words about consensus and subjectivity are almost a quote from what I just said at Notability (fiction). And he apparently posted his, before I posted mine.

(Looks around nervously)

I'm starting to hear Michael Jackson's voice singing the theme from Somebody's Watching Me: "Sometimes I feel like, somebody's waaatchin' me..."

Maybe it's time I walked away from the comp for a bit... - jc37 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth keeping or listifying under another name (presumably UK specific)?

If so, any suggestions for the name? - jc37 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, delete it. It's better done in a list. Hiding T 12:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  Check this out: Category:Publications by frequency. And someone just added Weekly comics to it. - jc37 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"You can't now get to Eclipse comics titles from Comics publishers, which seems silly."

I closed that discussion, so if it needs to be reopened/relisted, that can be done if necessary.

That said, I'm not sure I understand your concern. The cat had 2 members: Eclipse Comics, and Category:Eclipse Comics titles. The latter can go under Category:Comics titles by company, which is under Category:Comics publications.

I'm fairly sure I must be missing something. - jc37 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are problems in doing this as they all slot into a larger structure (ditto your deletion of Category:Elseworlds because it was "empty" - after you emptied it).

So, for example, Eclipse Comics titles it is no longer a child of American comics which it would have inherited from its parent. I created that category (and didn't get a note so I didn't have a chance to voice my objections, neither was it posted on the Comics Project noticeboard) and didn't do so on a whim, the parent allows it to be plugged into other categories. Ditto Category:Antarctic Press.

I'm not sure what to put it down to: over-enthusiasm? (Emperor (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Did you bother to go back to the discussions we were having, or are you just shooting from the hip?

You know, there was (and is) nothing stopping you from dropping a note about any concerns you may have.

Perhaps I'm taking the above comments a bit more harshly than intended, but, seriously. My goodness.

This especially since I came here (Started this thread) to better understand, with an open mind for discussion.

You know, I've cleaned up quite a bit of the organisation of the categories over the last few days. I'm sorry that this one occasion (elseworlds) wasn't to your liking.

Again, did you bother to go back to the discussion? If you did, you might have noticed that I (and assuredly others) were openly collaborating. This wasn't and isn't about pushing one POV "over-enthusiastically".

And finally, the following were the cats of Category:Elseworlds at the time of deletion (and had been since July 11):

• Category:DC Comics dimensions
• Category:Comic book alternate futures
• Category:Comic book terminology

Let's compare those to the cats of Elseworlds (before my edits, and not including the international cats):

And what they were after my edits:

• Category:Fictional concepts in DC Comics
• Category:Comic book imprints

So please, tell me what this "larger structure" was that your suddenly concerned about. It's not as if the article or the cat was anywhere near being under any publisher or publication parent cat (as an imprint). If anything I placed it under such in my cleanup.

And yes, I'm annoyed.

All the good faith and free and open discussion. I thought we were actually moving forward, and moving towards something we were all agreeing on. But if I've tread on some personal territory of yours, fine, enjoy. - jc37 04:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took it personally as it wasn't all really directed at you (as you didn't nominate any of those categories for deletion, for example) - I know informing people that categories they created are up for deletion and/or flagging them in the appropriate places is more of a courtesy than "procedure" but it can lead to problems. We have a notice board with a section specifically for category discussion and it is helpful if things are listed there so we can get as much input as possible - it is all fine and dandy if we agree but it is always worth throwing the floor open to others.

Also my comments about structure were specifically about the comic publisher categories. The Elseworlds is another issue but I don't agree with emptying categories and then deleting them because they are empty, except in extreme cases (it can lead to all sorts of problems, although they might not necessarily be the case here I think it is worth avoiding in general).

I'm afraid technical problems have kept me offline recently so I am still having to catch up on discussion. (Emperor (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

I've had technical issues myself, so I sympathise. (One of which I just fixed a moment ago, and am now in an enthusiastic mood : )

And my apologies for taking your comments so "quick". I had just had a discussion involving "enthusiastic editors" (among other things), so your comments likely hit me in a way you may not have intended. (See the comments directly above this one for a series of coincidences lately.)

And I honestly should have known better. (Especially as I don't recall ever having such issues with you in the past.)

But anyway, rather than continue this, let's start over.

I'd still like to find out what Hiding thinks concerning his comment above. (As I am still somewhat confused by it.)

And as for you, what are your current concerns with elseworlds?

And you both, would you clarify your concerns about the 2 cats which were deleted? As I said above, I have no problem discussing reverting/modifying the close or at least relisting the discussion if there was something "missed".

Anyway, my apologies again. - jc37 08:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise - I should have been more specific and not tried to address a number of points at once.

Anyway there is nothing wrong with enthusiasm - it is one of the underlying tenets of Wikipedia after all, as nothing is ever lost. The important thing is to make sure all the checks and balances are in place to keep the unbridled enthusiasm moving in the right direction (well that is how it worked for me anyway, although I'm still learning ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

I have in my head a sort of structure, which goes something like (names just to sketch the idea):

• Comics
  • Comics publishing companies
    • Comics publishing companies of the US
      • Eclipse Comics
        • Eclipse Comics titles

alongside

• Comics
  • Comics publications
    • Comics titles by company
      • Eclipse Comics titles

alongside

• Comics
  • Comics publications
    • Comics publications by country
      • Comics titles (oops) of the US
        • Eclipse Comics publictitles

For me, if I am in Comics publishing companies, I should be able to navigate straight down to Eclipse Comics titles. I can't do this if there is no Eclipse Comics category, because Eclipse Comics titles doesn't fit into the tree. Unless you're putting Comics titles by company in Comics publishing companies. In which case forget I spoke. Although I still don;t see the point of deleting categories for no good reason. If you expect to see the category there, it makes sense to have it there. Eclipse Comics makes a good parent company to Eclipse comics titles. People seem to forget that the articles in the subcat are in the parent when they say there is no scope for expansion and it is very empty. All the articles in Category:Eclipse Comics titles belong in Category:Eclipse Comics. Don't they? And if not, why not? Hiding T 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The cfd aside, for a moment, the main thing that I see in the above that differs from what I was thinking in terms of the ReOrg we've been doing is the question of whether "publications" should be listed under "publisher". Though I'm obviously not necessarily saying it's wrong.

The other thought I had was that these trees would effectively kill the broader "Indie comics" cat.

So I guess it's a question of which way should we head? The tree above, which is more accurate, but may allow for categories of only one or two members? Or having a broad independant comics cat, as a catch-all cat?

Personally I prefer your system.

As for the CfD, if Emperor also agrees then I'll revert the closure, and relist the nom. - jc37 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That is essentially my thinking and the way I see the structure working - as has been said by others it isn't really a tree it is more like a braided river system and you can use the structure to draw together a complex categorisation with the proper use of parents, grandparents and great grandparents. It does mean that it is easy to slot new categories into this structure and they inherit categories but it does mean it can come unstuck if one of the ancestors is taken out. So yes we do need the Eclipse Comics category - it might look odd acting just as a parent but it does have an important role as a bridge category that draws together various grandparents.

Indie comics is a tricky one as I feel in my gut it has an important role but I have no idea how to establish criteria for inclusion, which suggests it is a Bad Idea, which seems a pity. I can't think of a goo fix though. Perhaps throw it open to the Project and see if they can think of something? (14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

I've relisted the two categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 30. I suggest that "someone" comment there farily soon, else they may be speedily closed as empty/deleted. - jc37 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out Category:Categories by medium. This was a recreation in January after being deleted in December per this CfD.

Looking through this tree, it's a hodge-podge of genres, types, and media.

And we also already have:

• Category:Media in media
  • Category:Media in popular culture
    • Category:Fictional works in popular culture
      • Category:Fictional characters in other media
        • Category:Comics characters in other media

• Category:Media based on media
  • Category:Media based on comics
  • Category:Comics based on media

• Category:Media by genre
  • Category:Literature by genre
    • Category:Comics

• Category:Fiction
  • Category:Fiction by genre
    • Category:Literature by genre
      • Category:Comics - Isn't it fun that Comics is a medium, and a genre : )

• Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters - which is somewhat unique itself.

Anyway, with all of the above, I'm thinking that Category:Categories by medium is incredibly duplicative (and has quite a bit of miscategorisation).

I'd nom the whole tree, but it would take me forever to tag. Any suggestions? - jc37 10:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that perhaps this should be moved to an appropriate sandbox discussion, if you'd prefer. - jc37 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. "Fictional characters in other media" is on the face of it an ugly name, but I suppose someone thought it was a worthwhile holding cat. That could do with a rename to something more suited, "adapted in other media"? Ugh.

Comics is so not a genre. It's a form. That's fixed. Um. I have nothing specific right now. Sorry. Hiding T 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

*Nudge*

Aw c'mon, you wanna take a look at what is being called a medium under Category:Fictional characters by medium

(Stands by with the airsickness bag : ) - jc37 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That confused me. We seem to have a train crash between genre characters by medium and fictional characters by medium. Or something. I really have no idea what the solution is. Maybe we need to instigate a breathalyser test before we allow a category to be created? Oh boy. Category:Fiction by genre is a train wreck too. You can see the two categories, almost, hovering over each other, fighting for supremacy. You've got "Fiction by genre" and "Fiction by genre" battling it out in a yin and yang match to the death. I don;t have a scooby, sorry. Hiding T 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Train wreck" is a good way to put it. I'm daunted to even try to start fixing that mess.

I suppose I'll see if someone with a helpful tool could make a list of all the subcats of Category:Fiction (scares the daylights out of me to think of how many there probably are), and then I'll see if I can figure out a plan. - jc37 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AWB timed out on it, so you may need a bot. Betacommand, possibly? Hiding T 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, I can see how that may have appeared to be a "subtle hint", but I wasn't. But in any case, thank you for trying : )

I'll ask. But as I mentioned, my contact with him has been minor. - jc37 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe someone else. See User_talk:Betacommand#Please_stop. - jc37 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the category structure that is a thorn in my side. It was cludgily bolted onto the side of a structure that was already working just fine. If you can unpick it all and get rid of it everything would work just fine without it. It was put in by one editor and if you look on their talk page you'll see numerous requests from people to explain the thinking behind this and there seems to be little communication on this, Note the most recent notes from Cgingold - it strikes me we might want to drop them a note and see what they think on the whole thing.

This was put up for CfD in February [17] and what I find odd is that everyone seemed to think it should either be deleted of merged but the result was no consensus, although the consensus seemed to be that something needed doing and most of the suggestions involved getting rid of the categories one way or the other. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

As it's a recreation, and due to the number of complaints/concerns, I suggest someone just be bold, and recategorise the tree. (I may start on it somewhat myself.) If this went through CfD and was successful, that's what the closer would have to ask someone to do that anyway, since such recategorisation couldn't be done automatically by bot. - jc37 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:Jc37/Sandbox/Comics characters

User:Black Falcon made this list. I think it may be useful : )

Also, Our categries discussions seems to have "taken over" your sandbox talk page. Would you mind if I moved the talk page to a different sandbox page? (And then copy the discussion which actually concerns the whole of the page back to that talk page. Or something like that.) - jc37 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do intend to move the whole thing when it is all said and done and sorted, so I'm kind of keeping it where it is for now. Also, the history of the sandbox is more than just this discussion, so if you don;t mind I'd prefer to do it myself, so I know it gets done the way I want ti done. Where did you want to move it. I was going to keep it with the style guide which is on the front page and will eventually detail the category structure. Hiding T 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  When I said "I", I was volunteering to help, not that I was suggesting to preclude you doing it.

  Also, we never got back to that, but I think that the naming conventions and category parts of the style guide should be a link to a separate page (pages?). The page is currently just too long, for one thing. (Needless to say, NC is a big part of categorisation.) - jc37 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  Not a problem. I apologise if I was overly emphatic in issuing a stay out of my user space notice. ;) I'm shocked at what I turn up in my sandbox histories, so I'd hate to have an outsider wade through them. I've once moved notes for an arbcom case somewhere they shouldn't have gone to, so if it all goes tits up I'd rather be the one at fault.

  I'm not convinced the page is too long, using the milhist page as precedent. The idea is to try and keep it all in one page and iterate how it all applies. A lot of it already links off to specific pages for more detail, but if you look at how I've rewritten the naming conventions for people, it clarifies how they apply in comics. I'd much rather have one page, where each section has a shortcut, so we get the best of both worlds. If you have too many pages you get forum shopping and fragmentation. (For an example see the issues we have with our one core policy, NPOV being espoused on WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and so on.) Style guides, ultimately, are long. You may well be right. I just disagree. Hiding T 22:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  I understand the idea. There are two pages that immediately come to mind: List of comic book superpowers, and WP:AADD. To split them would cause more trouble than to retain them as lengthy pages.

  That said, I guess I just see NC as a "clean" split from content exemplars.

  However, I'll give the page more of a going over, and see if that changes my perspective. - jc37 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regards this, I think we need to pick a few categories and work out where we would place them, and then build a tree back from there. For example, Category:Tintin characters I have always felt the entries should be merged and listified, to the point that I started doing so in a sandbox some time ago here. So I would take a similar approach with categories by protagonist, which would then mean the creation of a Category:Lists of characters by protagonist or something like. I think consensus has also been to not categorise by team membership, is that right? So we need a Category:Lists of characters by team or something like. As to the rest. It's trying to break up the characters by publisher categories, isn't it. Do we go for:

• Characters by publisher
• Titular characters - by which I mean characters who are or have been the titular character of a title
• Supporting characters - by which I mean characters who are not a titular character

But this would then lead to team categories. So bad idea. So we characterise by powers and "goodness", by which I mean superhero and supervillain. Yes, this is the issue we have to solve; how to sub-categorise Category:DC Comics characters and similar. For me, Category:DC Comics science fiction characters is a bad category. How do you define science fiction in this context? We could sub-categorise by planet of birth, tortuously worded to avoid getting misunderstood saying race. We could have a Category:Aliens in DC Comics publications, and rename "DC Comics deities" to deities in DC Comics publications, but then this too brings into play why imprint categories are important: characters published in Helix or Wildstorm or Milestone comics are published by DC. Maybe Category:Aliens in the DC Comics universe or thereabouts, which would allow a sub-cat of DC animated universe? So to categorising by power; we need to limit these to the very common examples, if you ask me. Flying, telepathy, super-strength. Rename categories, so we have Super-Strong characters in the DC Universe, Telepathic characters in the..."Characters able to fly unaided"? But this would allow a top-category of "Telepathic characters in fiction", which I guess would sit in Fictional characters, because a fictional characters by type or ability may be a bit off? You can imagine branches such as "Fictional characters able to drive". This might square the occupational circle: Detectives in fiction, and so on, but limited to major occupational archetypes. So, some thoughts for starters. Hiding T 10:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "top down" plan we've been doing has seemed to work so far.

And I'd like to see how much we can fix of the existing before dealing with listifying. (Especially since there are quite a few which probably will need to be nominated for listification - "by protagonist" tops the list. I guess we better start looking for examples of past CfDs : )

I haven't delved into the "Lists of..." cats much yet. I'm fairly sure that when I do, I'm likely going to get quite lost in cleanup. So I've been somewhat "avoiding" that for the moment : )

I think the first thing we probably need is Fictional characters in comic strips.

Category:Fictional characters in comics by publisher - this should probably be the main categorisation of most character articles.

"By medium" probably needs to be clarified that it means media other than comics.

For powers, see this cfd. This would seem to remain the standard, even now. - jc37 11:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Hiding T 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick thoughts (sorry if this has come up elsewhere):

• Tintin in that category is referring to the title of the comic series (so it would be "Comics characters by publication/title") and given that it is a solid well contained fictional universe that seems fine by me. I would certainly not want to see "Fictional characters in Tintin," especially not considering the Pink Lotus hoo ha, but that might just be my smutty mind.
• In the Eclipse Comics category discussion it occurred to be that Category: Eclipse Comics superheroes was falling outside of the Category: Comics characters by company structure and it needs an "Eclipse Comics characters" category as a bridge between the two (we should also check that category for non-superheroes, although I am never sure of the strict definition of a superhero, and check Category: Superheroes by publisher in case there are other categories falling into the same problem). The above nested list of structures underlines this problem - a break in the link (and with the loss of "Eclipse Comics" a break in 2 links) and the superhero category is off drifting on its own (actually outside of the Category:Comics structure).
• I also note we classify superheroes by publisher and Comics characters by company and I agree with the jc37's example using by publisher as company seems more nebulous (especially given imprints which count as their own publisher but depending on their states might not be a separate company - it could get a little silly).
• I am still not 100% about changing the need for adding "fictional" to the character categories. Grant Morrison and Warren Ellis have appeared in comics as characters but that doesn't make the character real (even when it is essentially that person, as in Ellis' in Powers) - aren't nearly all characters in comics fictional? Even when based on historical events they are still fictionalised accounts. As with not bothering to categorise ongoing series (as we can assume they are by default unless specified) we can safely assume that all but a few comic characters are fictional and it would be worth only flagging this in a category with the exceptions. I don't really mind (care?) if it is changed just that it is worth kicking the idea around and it is a lot of categories so I am wondering if it ain't broke should we try and fix it?

Anyway see what you think - the problem with superheroes from comics outside of the comics structure is the most troubling to me. (Emperor (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

• How do you mean Tintin refers to the title of thw comic series? Tintin was a strip in an anthology magazine also called Tintin, similar to 2000AD, so imagine if 2000AD were called Judge Dredd and then we had a category called "Characters in Judge Dredd]]. It would be somewhat ambiguous.
• I don't mind what is done about publisher rather than company.
• Biographical comics are not fictional, nor are factual comics like the cartoon history of the universe. When Alan Moore appears in an Eddie Campbell comic, it's Alan Moore, not a fictional Alan Moore. It's an Alan Moore Campbell takes artistic license with, but it is still Alan Moore and not a fictional Alan Moore. See Harvey Pekar as well. Still, whatever consensus thinks is best is best. Hiding T 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah very good point so we either have "characters from the Tintin title" or "characters from The Adventures of Tintin story"?
• But as it is not Alan Moore doing things Alan Moore hasn't done wouldn't this make it fictional? Equally the cartoon history of the Universe (and bear with me as I read it nearly 20 years ago) is less straight history (although we could ask what that means as it is just someone's interpretation of "facts") and more a dramatised version (a bit like the real-life stories in the Big Book of... series - they are fictional retellings of real stories. Nikola Tesla appears in Five Fists of Science but he appears as a fictional character that is based on a real person. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

• I'd rather merge all the articles into a big list and so not have the problem. Maybe Adventures of Tintin characters to suit the rest of the categories. I don't know. I get the feeling if you do that it opens up a can of worms. Tintin (character) characters is dumb.
• It's Alan Moore doing what Eddie Campbell remembers him doing. But yes, broadly we're both right. It really is Alan Moore rather than a fictional Alan Moore, but not a real Alan Moore because that would be silly. For an even more convuluted example, in one of his later works he includes photographs of his daughter and scripts word for her to say which he then includes in the work as her dialogue. So it really is her and she really said those things, but only for the demands of the story. Complicated. I think maybe what it comes back to is that if the convention is to use the term fictional in the category title, that's what we should do. But like you, I'm not sold on doing it otherwise. Hiding T 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but we're talking about pages, when talking about categorisation. Do you envision a separate article for "fictionalised people" or even "people presented in comics"? And when considering a category for either one, each would likely be deleted. - jc37 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Eh? I don't get what this is following on from. Hiding T 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your (plural) comments about Alan Moore, etc. - jc37 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're going too far. You're saying our article on Alan Moore is not Alan Moore but is actually a page, and it might include not only information on the real Alan Moore, but also the Alan Moore who did things which Eddie Campbell remembers and documented with artistic license and also the Alan Moore who has been caricatured in Cerebus and other fictional works? And we might have to mention all this on a whole 'nother page which we shouldn't even begin to categorise? And you inferred all that from some subtle wordplay 'tween me and Emperor? Maybe we can get this back on track: What's the thinking to adding fictional to the comics character categories again? What was the issue with doing it? Now I'm confused. I hadn't even begun to ponder how real Louis Riel is when he's drawn by Chester Brown. Hiding T 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Our comics-related articles are pretty much a cluster of various things. And since we don't categorise articles of characters based upon features or abilities of alternate versions of those characters, I would presume that we don't categorise articles on people based upon fictionalised accounts or other presentations of the person? Therefore, unless such are in articles, there would be no need for categories to group them. Or am I missing something? - jc37 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think Emperor was asking why we were adding fictional to the character name, and I segued off into a bad explanation. Emperor's point is that there are no real people depicted in comics, so we don't need to add fictional to the category name. I think it follows on from the fact that since we don;t categorise "real people" in comics character categories, it kind of implies they are all fictional. But really i should let Emperor speak for himself. I'm not sure anyone is arguing that they'd stick a "real person" (read article or page) in a comics character category. I think if either me or Emperor were likely to do so, you'd spot it at the bottom of Grant Morrison. SO I think we can assume that at least the three of us are on the same page on that one. Hiding T 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"I think if either me or Emperor were likely to do so, you'd spot it at the bottom of Grant Morrison." - Ok, that made me laugh : )

And I'll freely admit to greatly enjoying his run on Animal Man. (So I'd likely be right behind you two : ) - jc37 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between Category:Comics by genre and Category:Comics genres? Hiding T 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The latter are genres, terms about comics.

The former are comics, which are sorted into subcats by genre. This is a place where the use of "titles" in the subcats' names might help with ambiguity. - jc37 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, the former are Comics titles by genre?

I've been thinking that, after looking at the top level cat, we have an industry top cat and a publications top cat, but not an artform top cat, and maybe a Category:Comics form would start to solve a few issues. Thoughts? Hiding T 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

Wouldn't that be merely a rename of Category:Comics types, and Category:Comics by type? - jc37 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So a rename might be in order?

Don't know. I'm not sure about much except all I do is talk bollocks. Hiding T 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really going to have to have a think about that because I'm not sure I get it - surely the latter (Category:Comics genres) are comics sorted into subcats by genre. I'll mull this over and get back to you on this. (Emperor (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

No, wait, I'm with you. I get that the former is essentially Category:Comics titles by genre, but I'm not sure the latter is being what I would call Category:Comics genres. Fumetti, wordless comics, comic strips, mini-comics, experimental comics, maybe 24 hr comics, and black and white comics, since that involves a different technique, damn, what's the term they use for Rabbithead and Hope Larson, some people do stick figure comics, there's Matt Madden and Oubapo, possibly even small press and underground and so on. And superhero and so on. But first, the sub-cats of Category:Comics genres should generally be in Category:Comics by genre, and second, do we have acceptable sources to cobble this together? Hiding T 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) - Well, atm, yes, there are apparently a horde of "comics by genre" subcats in "comics genres". They just need to be moved to "comics by genre". Category:Comics genres is useful as a subcat of Category:Comics terminology. While Category:Comics by genre is useful as a subcat of our publications cats, and of Category:Literature by genre. - jc37 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been through and sifted a little. What I propose doing with these categories is create the following structure to mirror Category:Film genres:

• Category:Comics genres
  • Category:Comics by genre - rename to Category:Comics titles by genre
    • Category:Fooian comics - rename to Category:Fooian comics titles

I think Category:Alternate history comics needs to go into a comics titles by setting.

I am unsure about "Anarchist comics"

Category:Christian comics, Category:Crime comics, Category:Romance comics, Category:Horror comics, Category:Science fiction comics, Category:War comics should all be split, with articles relating to the genre remaining as they are and titles published in the genre being hived off into a Category:Fooian comics titles

Category:Feminist comics contains one article, a title, at the minute. I'm sure there must be more stuff about feminism in comics: Sequential Tart, Friends of Lulu, Trina Robbins...

Category:Mythology in comics maybe this needs to be in a setting category

Category:Erotic comics the parent article Erotic comics needs work, but otherwise this can be split like others listed above.

Category:Underground comix not 100% sure on this, but I think the titles should be split off to Category:Underground comix titles

Category:Superhero comics Do we really want a Category:Superhero comics titles?

Any objections? Hiding T 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right - I understand now. Could I suggest we kill all subcategories in Category:Comics genres and just leave it for articles which describe the genres? Perhaps move Category:Comics by genre in as the only child? I think that would make things a lot clearer.

I don't think "titles" needs adding to the name as it is clear what the categories themselves are for - it was the parents that was causing the confusion and I think rejigging the structure (and improving the description? After all this should be working to help clarify things) will sort it out.

There are some that need changing and "Mythology in comics" has niggled e for a bit - what about "Mythological comics" although I note there is Category:Mythology-based video games so we could follow that pattern.

However, I'd argue that alternative history is a genre and makes sense here. (Emperor (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Emperor in that we should only disambiguate using "titles" when we have to. And about Alternate/alternative history. And that all the subcats should all be moved to Category:Comics by genre/"killed" : )

There will always be an argument about how mythology (or legend) is not fiction. I think we're probably better off keeping them separate and distinct.

I'm thinking that the whole Category:Superheroes and Category:Supervillains trees should be listified. And regardless of that, there is much there that should just be upmerged/deleted. - jc37 14:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I completely disagree. Jack Chick should be in the Christian comics category, for starters, and it doesn't make sense for him to be in a category that is a sub-category of comics by genre if that is comics titles by genre. And the same applies for other categories, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby pretty much were Romance comics just like Harvey Kurtzman is associated with War comics. I haven't just pulled this out of nowhere, there's a clear structure to this, and it mirrors the film structure. Hiding T 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but in looking over the Category:Film genres structure, I'm not seeing "film creators", or even any people. What am I missing? - jc37 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you look in Category:Silent film and Category:Experimental film you can clearly see them in there, sub-categorised in both but also with people interspersed in. Does that help any? Hiding T 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at those, and I'm wondering if they should even be called genres. They are, but they aren't. (Compare to comic strips. Are they genres of comics?) - jc37 17:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our article on Genre? Or the one on Film genre. Artistically, comics is a genre of art. Except somebody removed it from that cat the other day because he was feeling crabby. Yes, silent film is a genre of film. And as I said above, fumetti, wordless comics, comic strips, mini-comics, experimental comics, maybe 24 hr comics, and black and white comics, since that involves a different technique, damn, what's the term they use for Rabbithead and Hope Larson, some people do stick figure comics, there's Matt Madden and Oubapo, possibly even small press and underground and so on are all genres of comics. Genre is more than just romance or comedy. Film itself is a genre, as well as a medium and a form. I wish there was a better online encyclopedia than us sometimes, especially on the arts. Wikipedia is severely lacking in the arts. Hiding T 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... SO you're saying that there are thematic genres as well a "formatic" genres? - jc37 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

not exactly, but almost. Let's start by saying that a genre is a set of conventions within which a work operates, when we're talking about works of art, which can be anything from paintings to comics. So imagine if we use the word convention instead of genre, which would probably be more useful in some circles. So a romance fiction works with certain conventions, usually there's a woman and a good guy and a bad guy, and she has to decide between them. Comedic works have a number of conventions depending upon which era, but basically it's about being funny; creating a situation and gently extracting the comedic potential rather than the bleaker drama. Of course, you can combine the two and have black comedy, so it's complicated. Hmmm. Where are we. Conventions. Genre. So the way you make the work is also by using conventions, or a genre. A romance film and a romance novel share one set of conventions but not another, they're made in the romance genre, but one is in the film genre and the other is in the literary genre. So the effect is the same, but the way it is presented, the way that effect is achieved, is different; sometimes the choice of genre is an artistic affect. ;) So yes, broadly there are genres based upon the effect a work should provoke in an audience, and then there are genres based upon the artistic language used to provoke that effect. So yes, broadly you are right. There are also genre based upon setting; in the later comics of Will Eisner we see a propensity for urban Jewish settings. Although there I am straying a little into OR. I'd hope someone has commented upon it though. In fact, I'm sure Eisner himself did. Sorry, that was more than you probably needed. To be honest, a lot of it was auto-dictatorial; I needed to set it out for myself to fully process it. Hiding T 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I understand what you're trying to convey, but that makes it look like anything with composite parts could be called a genre.

Is Skywriting a genre? Is film itself a genre of "visual presentations"? Is radio a genre of "audio presentations"? What about the live performance? Is "musical theatre" itself a genre?

I'm just not certain.

I looked over Genre after writing the above, and it didn't really convey the difference. But Film genre would seem to. Based on that, I think the fiction genre cats probably all need clarifying/renaming - jc37 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

I don't think anyone has ever worked up anything on skywriting as a genre, so you may have a phd route open to you there. Film is usually seen as a genre of the visual arts, if you want to get absolutely technical. It appears radio has been posited as a genre, likely of the performing arts. I can find an essay "Scary Women and Scarred Men" by Alison McCracken, in Radio Reader that looks to formalise the genre, although whether this is the first stab at it, or there are others or it didn't catch on I couldn't tell you. I'd possibly argue, although I haven't read her work so that's a little unfair. But to me it isn't actually a genre, because radio is the medium of presentation; it's complicated. With film, you have three different meanings; you have the chemical film in the can, which is the medium, you have the art form in which the director works, and then you have the work itself. Radio is simply a medium for broadcasting works in aural form. What live performance do you refer to? Musical theatre is a genre, it's a genre of theatre which is a genre of the performing arts. Doesn't our article reflect that? <insert>Our article quotes Broadway historian John Kenrick who states "And change is the clearest sign that the musical is still a living, growing genre." my emphasis.</insert> But certainly film is a genre; damn, like I say there's not an awful lot online. Jacques Derrida is important to read, in fact Derrida should be required reading before you're allowed to opine at a CFD. Ooh, we have a slightly better article, Genre studies. Film is probably the artform which takes genre most seriously. Hiding T 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do about your uncertainty. It's at times lik this I wish there wasn't such an impersonal screen in front of me. This stuff is real. Especially in film. If you know anyone who took film studies, ask them. I guess that's the best I can do.

Fiction genre is probably a mess. But a decent clean-up would probably involve a really wide discussion, dragging in a lot of people who actually understand this stuff. Otherwise you;d be back to square one. As Derrida pointed out, (well, I'll paraphrase, he's dead, he won't mind), categorising is subjective, and that subjective nature means that the where and when of the categorising is just as important as the categorising itself. Which, to tie back into something which we're involved in elsewhere, means that the thoughts of two people on a category's utility over a seven day period a few weeks ago aren't actually the be all and end all of anything. The timing of the discussion and the participants is as relevant to the outcome of the debate as the category itself, and as such no decision reached should be thought beyond examination. Which rather sums up my issues with CFD entirely. Hiding T 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(de-dent) - Well, I appreciate the effort there. It was quite an interesting read. (Who says we don't learn everyday? : )

Genre seems to go hand in hand with categorisation (the term, not the Wikipedia technical process). Though that categorisation would seem to translate decently to Wikipedia categorisation.

I'm starting to think that perhaps we should have 4 (or more) subcats of "genre": setting; theme; mood; format.

If we do, how would you propose we phrase the various catgories?

("It's at times lik this I wish there wasn't such an impersonal screen in front of me" - Upon first read, I had the impression (vision) of you wanting to put your hands through the screen to strangle someone : ) - jc37 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if genre goes hand in hand with categorising, but I can see where you are coming from, so yeah, okay. Wikipedia categorisation is flawed, and was from day one. The feature was requested and implemented and nobody ever considered how to use it. Most of us actually wanted a system more like tagging, where you'd tag an article with a number of keywords and then the category space would sort them based on the keywords. But either that stopped being the goal, a priority or a practicality, I guess. Theoretically this could be computerised. A sub-routine could be implemented to read articles, generate the keyword list and so tag it. But that's just a pipe-dream, and this is not a pipe.

Um. I'm trying to think. Content is usually one form of genre, and style another. But I think those terms may be cribbed from the film genre article, so fine by me. But I don't rightly know if you will get it to fly.

That was me lamenting the fact that I know nothing about you as a person beyond my own assumptions. Which I can't act upon. Hiding T 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understood it upon re-read, just thought you might enjoy the imagery : )

Though I'll have to say you have me curious now about what those "assumptions" might be. If you feel it's email-worthy, feel free.

And yes, totally "cribbed" from Film genre : )

Though I think even if we just split the "format" ones off, that should be enough. Style/content/theme/topic/setting all seem more semi-related (in-universe?), when compared with format. - jc37 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don;t really want to embarrass myself, but thanks all the same. And the imagery was nice. It's been true on occasion.

I think you may want to discuss the idea at WP:FILM if that's what you are thinking of, and possible also either the arts wikiproject or the visual arts one. I remember helping draw up their category structure a long time ago, so it might be worth dragging a few of those people into it. User:Ham may be someone to talk to, but I haven't had contact there in a long time. Hiding T 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Embarrass yourself?

And I can only imagine it's been true on occasion.

So to bring this back around, what do you see as the difference between the members of Category:Films by genre and Category:Films by subgenre? (Or even Genres and Subgenres?

And I'm looking at Category:Genres by medium and wondering if whoever did that understood genres the way you do.

I've studied literature and such, but I'm wondering at the disparity in definitions concerning genre and medium/format. In doing a bit of searching, it seems that some people do include format with genre, and some do not. And this seems reflected on Wikipedia through (possibly mistaken) practice.

If we are to have any sort of "order", it would seem that someplace somewhere, we're going to have to have people decide what is media and what is genre in relation to categorisation. As it stands now, this would seem to currently be a barrier to navigation. - jc37 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I may well be wrong in my ideas.

Haven't you looked at what they categorise? Take Action films, which are a genre. Within action films, you have action comedies, action thrillers, martial arts and so on and so forth. They're genres within a genre. So they get to be called sub-genres to clarify what is being spoken of. Hmm. In comics, we have superhero as a genre, but sub-genres would be anthropomorphic superheroes, for example Captain Carrot, superhero comedy, for example Kieth Giffen's JLA, Excalibur, superhero fantasy, although that needs a better name, but you have the Black Knight, superhero mythology, again a bad name, but Thor and all of that, superhero horror, which now I say it I forget what I was thinking of, oh yes, Ghost Rider and the like. Does that help?

I don;t have any particular issue with Category:Genres by medium. It's one definition of genre and one definition of medium, and it works better than Genres by genre. That's clever naming. That's posibly one reason why there are so many terms used to refer to mediums, genres or forms. Because they have such fluid meanings. That's why we shouldn't have Category:Media by media.

Terms are certainly fluid, that's a bloody truism of the English language. Why do you think we put so much effort into WP:NCCAT. We really had to grapple those standards into place, and that was just with nationality categories. That's the place to delineate what term means what. The problem is this; context is everything, and it is really hard to place contextual markers within a category. I'd suggest a centralised discussion rather than a cfd, to work up a proposal and then get consensus and then add it to WP:NCCAT and then run it through cfd. That's what I think we did. That's what I'd do. And I would definitely invite the relevant wikiprojects. They know how to use this stuff, and they know what it means. Seek out the experienced hands, the wise old heads and the topic experts. Sound out people at the manual of style; maybe categories need a style manual of their own, look at the debate the en and em dash issue is causing. Hiding T 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been attempting to get people interested in a discussion on a WP:CLN for fiction for some time. Few seem interested, and of those few who were, most would rather that "someone else" did the work, so that they could just comment on it. Based on that alone, I'm tempted to just be bold.

See also: Category:Media by source. It and its subcats seem to be roughly the same thing...

And the "fluidity" is what I was attempting to convey. Every genre is a subgenre under Art, I presume? - jc37 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you have mentioned it to me, but I can't recall seeing anything you had worked up. The best way forwards is to delineate what is happening in cfd's. What fictional categories regularly get deleted, and what get listified?

Well, yes and no. That's somewhat different. That's categorising by the origin point of the initial idea, as far as I can see.

Um. I'm not sure where you're going with this one. No. A sub-genre is only a genre anyway, but there's very specific instances when you'd use the term sub-genre. I don't think you'd often refer to film as a sub-genre of art, if ever. Hiding T 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Atm, I think we're delving into semantics (which in itself can be hazardous). For example, I would think that a creator of film would consider their work in film to be an "art".

Anyway, scrolling up to find the topic before this one, it's something about how I was suggesting that people don't appear to be in the genre cats, but rather only in the (using our new acquired terms) format (and media?) cats. So I suppose this is a question of what "standards" we're placing upon inclusion in these cats. The work, or those involved with creating the work, or anything whatsoever related to the work? - jc37 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you 'think that a creator of film would consider their work in film to be an "art"'.

Again, you're losing me a bit. Jack Kirby and Joe Simon belong in the Romance comics category, I can source Will Eisner making the claim that they were Romance comics. There are other examples. What you've got to do is look for sourced material regarding who has affected or shaped a given genre and categorise based on that, rather than based upon arbitrary standards. Superman defined superhero comics, so should be categorised at the top level there. What you have to remember is that a genre isn't just something that we make up or apply ourselves. It has been created and identified and commented upon by theorists, scholars and artists, and so should be treated like any other grouping. If you put Charles Schultz in the Peanuts (comic strip) category, quite rightly, why wouldn't you put the things which defined a given genre in that genres top level category? This is like the dispute I have with Otto; why on earth would you not put the founder of a company into that company's category? I thought that was the purpose of a category? Do you put anything relating to a work into a category? I don't begin to understand the question. Does everything article worthy that is related to Star Wars belong in the Star Wars category at some level? Hiding T 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You said: "I don't think you'd often refer to film as a sub-genre of art, if ever"

In response, I said: "I would think that a creator of film would consider their work in film to be an "art"."

In other words, I'm not sure I agree with what you said, but I have a feeling there is a connotative context in your response which I may be missing. (Which is not uncommon when people start discussing philosophy and theory. All we need do is look to how people initially understood Galileo (among others) to know that words aren't necessarily the best conveyance. But they are what we have : )

So anyway, I think we're getting lost in the "liquidity" of the terms and even in some cases possibly even "talking past each other".

As for your last comments, the key words are "at some level". Often, some things are better grouped in a subcat, than directly in a cat. And, except for "non-alphabetised" entries, I think we should make a clear effort to not intermix people (and groups of people) with other category memberships. WP:BLP is a major concern, for one thing. And I would rather err on the side of caution in regards to that. And from what I can tell, our BLP pages seem to be some of our weaker links in the comics project. We have lots of enthusiastic editors constantly edit warring over their watchlisted characters, publications, video games, and such, but no where near as many looking over most of the BLP articles. I haven't looked, but do we even have exemplars for such articles? I know that we never got around to the BLP NC that was discussed.

And I totally agree with something you said above about how we choose to group things is rather subjective.

Personally, I'm looking for consistancy throughout, while allowing room for exceptions. To minimise expansiveness of intersection, while being broad enough to categorise more than a few members. To be as much of an ease to navigation as feasible, rather than a burden. And I like the idea of "top down design" in organisational structures, while also liking the morphological interdependence of how categories need not be "trees". I agree with the idea of WP:OC, due to our current state of Wikipedia: both the tech issues, and the WP:V issues. - jc37 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. Film is a genre of art, not a sub-genre. I was trying to make the point that the term "sub-genre" is used in very specific instances, not that film was not a genre of art. You would refer to film as a genre of art rather than as a sub-genre of art.

I quite agree that often , some things are better grouped in a subcat, than directly in a cat. But I disagree that people should never be intermixed. I don;t see any BLP concerns that should arbitrarily prevent this, this is a matter for case by case thinking. We do have exemplars for biographies, I think, but we already have WP:BLP. I also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/BLP, and then added [18] to the to do list for comics. The NC BLP concerns are a little over-blown, if you ask me. What was the result? It was use (writer) or (artist), which I agree with, but I lost track of what to do if that caused an issue. You may want to take a look at Frank Miller and work out how you would dab those three comics related people, and then we'll write up the results and have our convention.

Well, regarding categorisation, I tend to let the information in the article guide me. That somewhat ignores top down design, which I think should be limited to how to name categories. I don't think anyone should be ruling that Stan Lee has no place at some level in Category:Marvel Comics. That's dumb. I appreciate there are concerns that people may add anyone and everyone, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But then it depends on how we view the category structure. Maybe we think about it the wrong way. Maybe we need to instil the idea that the article is the first place to navigate from. Otto was moving towards this idea and I think he may be right. This certainly needs a centralised discussion to work it through. Maybe we should only categorise by things you wouldn't expect to link to in an article? Which feels grubby, but may work. Hiding T 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's Otto's belief: if something can be primarily linked to among the member articles, then there is no need for the category (or something like that). Though, sometimes it "feels" inconsistent, so perhaps there is more to his opinion that that.

And I disagree and agree with it. I don't think it's appropriate across the board, but rather on a case-by-case basis. This especially since categorisation schemes seem to be semi-proprietary to themselves.

I'll look at the BLP-related links later (not ignoring, just been trying to get through an apparently active watchlist).

So besides genre/medium/format, and philosophy concerning the concept of categorisation... I'm not sure I remember what we were talking about : ) - jc37 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For your tireless work making the unusually complex citation template {{Cite comic}} run smoothly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I don't know why it is not presently displaying properly; I brought the matter up at the VP on Commons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, cool, it is already fixed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice you've moved a lot of the cats I'd left in the comics genre category to comics by genre. I had thought this was still under discussion. I'd prefer to go down the film route personally as I have already indicated. Hiding T 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:J Greb

And, can I please not be the ball in this ping-pong match? : ) - jc37 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to be the ball. I just find it odd when I say this is how I would like to do it, and people say, well, maybe, and then they go off and do it another way. It makes me realise I should be less polite and just do it how I want to. I really cannot be bothered to chase this round a dozen talk pages. I just felt it might have been worth a courtesy note. Hiding T 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I hadn't realised I had stepped on anyone's toes.

I remembered that Emperor had an issue with them still being there, and J Greb asked me about it. And I didn't remember that you had an issue with retaining the comics in the genre cat. If you look at J Greb's talk page, you may see the impetus for actually making the change "at that moment".

"I really cannot be bothered to chase this round a dozen talk pages" - Well, I dunno. That's kinda what I've been doing for and with you for awhile now. So I'm sorry to hear that you feel that you "cannot be bothered" to try to understand now.

And by the way, when reading: "I'd prefer to go down the film route personally as I have already indicated." - I had and have no idea how that applies to the genre cats. Last I knew, you and I were discussing what genre meant (including questions of whether a format is a genre), not that you were suggesting that cats containing comics titles should be in a cat which contains articles on comics terminology.

And finally, while I think it's great to follow others' examples, I don't think that the examples in question should be the be-all and end-all of the structure. I would hope that we would be looking at ways in which things can be improved.

And personally, I like how the comics category structure is turning out. I don't know if you remember what it looked like before our discussions at /X7, but look at Category:Comics now. Doesn't it look great to you? And other than the fictional characters cats (which obviously need work), and that the publications cat needs to have much of its membership diffused into subcats, the whole structure looks way better to me. We've done quite a bit of cleanup. I'm glad that you started these discussions, and that the 4 of us found some consensus (I presume) about cleanup.

My next stop is going back to /X7 and update the tree at the top (and check for any hanging threads).

Anyway, please feel free to clarify, and let me know about whatever your continuing concerns are. - jc37 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've obviously offended you somehow, for which I am sorry. I am certainly not looking to do what everybody else is doing for the fun of it. To refresh your memory, what I was looking to do was to rename the genre categories that housed titles to genre comics titles. Emperor wasn't overly keen and a discussion ensued which, as you say took in what genre meant. Based on what you are saying here, I am not sure any of it reached you, so I'm not sure where to go from here. You seem to still be insisting that genre is simply terminology, rather than a categorisation in itself, and that a category titled Christian comics can cover more than just publications. I hadn't realised I had dragged you round a dozen talk pages, and I apologise if I have demanded that of you. I'm glad you like the way the comics categories now look. Personally I still see a lack of structure and a lack of developing such for the needs of the articles and the information they contain, but I'm starting to think there are philosophical issues at heart here. Best, Hiding T 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As has been fairly usual in our discussions when we seem to get to this point, more surprise than offense.

I'm open to discussing rename possibilities. I've just learned that the "x by z" construction works fairly well. (In the case x = comics, and z = genre.) I especially like the "Comics by z", which allows for categorisation under the publications "tree". That alone is light years better than the disorganisation that we had.

I dunno about "didn't reach" me, but I can tell you that towards the end of the discussion, I had rather completely lost focus on what we were originally discussing. I attempted to go back a re-read at that time, and wasn't very successful at discerning it. I'll do so again, and perhaps I'll fare better this time.

And you didn't "drag" me around. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, after all. Though I am somewhat discouraged when considering that that is how you may see it when I share links with you. To me, that was and is a way to promote transparency in discussion. (In my opinion, far too often, obfuscation is a "way of life" on talk pages.)

And I would be happy to continue discussing structure, though as you say, there may be a philosophical difference. My perception of categories is being as clear in name and inclusion criteria as possible, and (again) when possible, having categories with a very simple intersection of criteria. Whereas, I am guessing that what you apparently feel is that grouping things of a similar topic, yet not necessarily of the same topic (or type) is necessarily for navigation. (Please clarify if I've misunderstood.) While I feel that that's why we subcat.

Category:Comics terminology might be a good example. I think having the items in the subcats as subcats serve a far better purpose, both for clarity in inclusion and clarity in navigation (seeming intuitive to the reader as well as the editor). For example, Jungle girl (stock character) was grouped under comics terminology. This way, the whole stock character subcat is grouped under terminology. By reducing duplication, I believe we've increased usability and navigation.

Anyway, that aside, it sounds like you would like all the genres to have this tree: X comics/X comics titles. I don't strongly oppose it, but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea. I can see how it can lead to sprawling categories, as well as to single member categories (or even empty categories). Most of which will exist merely because this may be considered useful for a few, but all would receive this scheme. To be honest, it sounds more like category bloat to me. Though, as I said, I'm open to discussing it. Perhaps there is something that I'm not seeing? - jc37 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how Romance comics titles is less clear than Romance comics. For me it is far more clear.

As I recall I wanted to place creators and other relevant items into a genre category. You said you didn't think that was how things were done and I pointed you to the silent films category. You said you didn't feel silent films were a genre. It then went from there. From your comments it now appears to me that you have a predisposition to interpret Foo comics as being comics by Foo. I am unclear how to continue this portion of the debate. I would not want to see a Romance comics by creator, as I think that would lead to category bloat. I do not want to see a Romance comics by terminology, as that would be category bloat. I do not want to see a Romance comics by country.

My usage of categories has always been to place things in a category that you would expect to find there.

You talk of single member and empty categories. Can you explain what you mean and define Category:Comics for me? Is that a single level category? If not, why not? I certainly don;t want to see categories created for all genres which cannot house anything beyond a sub-category. Likewise, I do not want to create articles for publishers which do not have articles. But yes, it is cleaqr we have differences on how to use the category tool.

I don't understand the distinction you make between categories and sub-categories. Aren't all categories also sub-categories?

Maybe my tone was overly snippy. I may have misread your speedy deletion of a category you emptied as a fait accompli and that colored my interpretation of what happened here. For that I apologise. Hiding T 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, from your comments, it's clear we do have a communication disconnect. For one thing, I believe that you really don't understand what I'm attempting to convey, which is likely my fault in conveyance.

"My usage of categories has always been to place things in a category that you would expect to find there." - What you, I, or others "may expect to find", is going to be subjective. Which is part of why there are so many different category schemes.

Another reason there are variant category schemes, is that there is a general consensus that categories shouldn't exist until a "need" exists for them to be created. Excessive duplication, or a scheme of mostly 1 or 2 members categories are rather often "felled" at CfD. Typically such schemes have 1 or 2 categories which can be justifed, with the rest just being "bloat" without need. So instead, the 1 or 2 are upmerged, until such time as the rest may or may not be "necessary".

Another issue is "broadness" of categorisation. For example, technically, all the members of every subcat of Category:Comics, could be upmerged to Category:Comics. It could be a valid categorisation, but due to quantity, and broadness of definition (anything related to comics), it's rather poor in potential for usage for reader navigation. So we use subcats. And then we have subcats of the subcats. Sometimes operating as a tree, and sometimes as a matrix. But either way, attempting to minimise duplication. It's better to point to a subcat of a group of like items, than to hope that all those like items will become members of a specific category. Hence my example about concerning stock characters. Obviously most, if not all, of the members of Category:Stock characters apply equally as well for comics usage, so only having Jungle girl as a member of Category:Comics terminology, was a hindrance rather than a boon to categorisation. So in that case, it's better to make Category:Stock characters a subcat of Category:Comics terminology, than to expect that every member of Category:Stock character would be simultaneously added to both cats. So it aids navigation and usage for both readers and editors.

However, on the converse, burying information too "deep" in categories may cause the information to be "lost". A scheme in which a category has a single subcat, which has a single subcat, which has a single subcat, which has a single article, probably should have that whole tree deleted, with the article upmerged.

So the goal is to try to be specific without being too specific, and to categorise without overcategorising.

And that's much of my concern with your suggestion. I understand placing a company article at the head of a publications category. But do we need a parent cat to hold just the publisher article and the titles subcat? Perhaps if it's part of an over-arching scheme. But if most of the scheme is the same, then it should probably be removed, as superfluous, and as a hindrance to navigation.

To use your specific example, yes I understand that your concern is that you want to get to a specific publication subcat from inside the Category:Comics companies tree (from a specific comics company). But I think that there may be other, better ways to do that, than to create an almost empty scheme. (Otto had a few ideas in the cfd discussion, for example.)

And a similar situation with the genre cats. Yes, we could have broad categories which include everything of a topic, but I would presume that it would be better to be more precise in the category inclusion criteria as an aid to navigation. And further, categorising people by what genre they may have worked within, may also lead to extensive overcategorisation. Yes, Kirby may have written in the romance genre. But how many other genres had he written within? For that matter, how many genres did he develop? We could have dozens, if not hundreds of categories at the bottom of that article. And that tends to be considered a "bad thing". What you're describing is actually something that concerns WP:CLN. That's a great example of where a navbox template might be useful. (Though I seem to recall that you personally don't like navboxes.) But in this case, such a navbox would aid in allowing navigation among things of similar topic, while somewhat describing the relationship between the items of similarity. In a category, unless you knew that Simon and Kirby developed the field of Romance comics, how would one know just by looking at the category? But in a navbox, a simple header would resolve that.

Am I conveying better? Is this clearer? - jc37 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see where we disagree in theory. It must be something in the practise. I guess it's better just to say you're most likely right. I'm aware of overcategorisation. I just find it odd not to place Kirby in both Romance Comics and Superhero Comics. Just like it is odd not to put Superman in Superhero Comics. But yes, when do we stop. I get that. It seems we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or likely never have the baby at all. I'm not opposed to navboxes, I simply have one small issue. If we have a navbox for everything that we currently use categories for, at what point would the old arguments about the number of categories at the bottom of the page feel like the good old days? And your question about how, "unless you knew that Simon and Kirby developed the field of Romance comics, how would one know just by looking at the category", doesn't that apply to anything? Don't you have to look at the article, which should contain the citation. But I suspect you are right, and although my use of the category tool feels intuitive, it isn't how it is done. I don't have an issue with having a category on Eclipse Comics. But I can see I am not going to convince you of my viewpoint. I'll try and get back to writing up the current category structure after I finish some template work. Hiding T 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those concerns are valid concerns.

And the dividing line between lists, navboxes, and categories may shift with each discussion, as I think you well know, considering what we've seen over the last few weeks of CfDs. It's all subjective, often with a touch of IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT involved.

For me, I tend to lean towards references. The more needed, the less that I think something should be a category. If several different explanations are needed for different members of a category, then again, it probably shouldn't be a category.

As for Eclipse comics. I agree and I disagree. I'm really waffling on that, actually. What may make up my mind is going through every category of the scheme, and see how it actually works for grouping and for navigation. (Something I've only done cursorily so far.) - jc37 21:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all subjective, often with a touch of IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT involved. Frankly, I think every opinion voiced on Wikipedia stems from IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT. I think I've pointed you to WP:PTN before, haven't I? Experience has taught me that policy and guidance was written to encode particular IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT positions by people smart enough to work the system out. I'd also point out I have a long history at CFD, it's where I earnt my bit. It also eventually soured me on deletion debates; people bare their souls a little too much. Hiding T 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, from that perspective, since the consensus model is based upon collating the perspectives and opinion of all discussing, nearly everything on Wikipedia is subjective : )

So for me in XfD discussions (and really any discussion) I guess I would just would like to see more to a person's input than IWANTIT. - jc37 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet so few people appreciate this.

So would I, it's the point I was trying to make. I would also rather see people prepared to move on an issue. Too many times it's simply here's my thoughts, see ya. That kind of negates the idea that it's a discussion. Hiding T 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just 2¢ from the yutz that kicked this off... (an FYI, sorta)

I've been trying to work through a genre hierarchy/ref set-up here for cobbling through the title templates. When I went to pull up the comics category list yesterday I found it spread over 2 parents. I went to Jc 1) because of the spate of comics related CfDs and 2) the edit histories of the 2 cats.

L&S: I wasn't aware of an issue with the move, just that it looked like some of the lead pipe cinch ones weren't moved.

Beyond that... there are some "fringe" cats under genre — classes like "Underground" and settings like "Office" - that need a look. The latter especially with regard to the non-Japanese Asian and/or manga titles. - J Greb (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd advise that rather than mirroring other genre lists, we source our own. One day when I have time I'll get to this. Underground Comix is a genre of comics, a very important one. It probably doesn't fit into your list although it might be possible to squeeze it near satire. Comics genres would also include Fumetti, Wordless and I think there's a good case for Black and White comics as a genre. I'll have to dig out old Comics Journals because there may actually be a paper/book here. I am unsure that anthology comics are a genre. Probably the only person to create an anthology comic is Alan Moore, although I am open to correction. Pat Mills may have done in the seventies, but I'm not sure I would ascribe it as a genre. Office Comics would likely be a sub-cat of domestic comics, of which I think there is a grand tradition in comic strips; Hogan's Alley, Giles, Blondie and so on and so forth. In comic books, maybe Eisner's stuff is closest? It would go under family saga at a guess. But I think this borders on OR. Hiding T 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm working from the literary since comics are, by and large a for of literature. beyond that, there is a lot of "flow through" — the broad genres exists in all media with "specialty" types ("underground", "game show", "animated", etc) pepper in.

Ideally, there are "comics only" and "oddball" ones that will be slotted in, but I want to deal with what I've already put into the 'box templates first, then build up. So "Fumetti" would wind up under "Erotic" and "Underground" would be its own little separate branch.

And along the line of "specialty", it would also be my intention to look at what should go with what template. For example "Fumetti" wouldn't fit the Asian one, and "Wuxia" wouldn't fit "comic book titles".

On "Anthologies"... as I understand the term, it's a book or magazine that collects multiple stories in one volume or issue. Action Comics, Detective Comics, 2000AD, and the like all fit that criteria at some point in their publication history.

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fumetti under erotic? Are we talking about the same thing? Comics using photographs rather than drawings?

With anthology I was coming at it from a material or setting definition, not a form position. Apologies. Probably need a humorous-anthology, an action-anthology and superhero-anthology as sub-cats. Don't forget Spirou and Tintin either. Most European comics were anthologies. Hiding T 10:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<Homer>D'oh</Homer>

Somehow I got the term linked in my mind with a variety of European erotica... my bad.

And with anthologies... that really depends on how large the base anthology category gets, and if the books really are tightly "themed"

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You removed Category:Series of comic books from The Adventures of Tintin and subsequently deleted it. I'm not sure I agree with that, nor understand where it is coming from, nor, putting my process wonk hat on, am I sure I understand the timescale. What's your thinking? Hiding T 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(Numbering for clarity, hopefully : )

1.) See User talk:Hiding/X7 (easier to ask you to search the page for every instance of :series than to try to find the exact diff : )

2.) Due to the recent deletion of Category:Comic book titles, Category:Comics publications has become a "catch-all" category due to cattegorisation due to one or more templates. (See User talk:J Greb for some additional information.) As such, I merged tintin and the rest of the members of the "series" cat to the "publications" cat. There is a catdiffuse template at the top, which may hopefully inspire help : )

3.) User:Fayenatic london asked me about this as well. And after clarifying, asked if they would help with the diffusion. (See User talk:Fayenatic london for the discussion.)

4.) One thing I like about C1 is that it isn't considered a "recreation" if someone recreates a C1-deleted category. If it was deleted due to being empty, then all that needs doing is boldly making it "not empty". (Though, unless there is something further I am missing, I don't envision this one being recreated.)

I hope this clarifies. If not, please feel free to ask. - jc37 06:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1.) Okay, I must have missed the implications of what was being discussed, probably due to the various different meanings, I was equating series with title I think. My bad

2.) Yeah, I caught this. It was the deletion that got me.

3.) I take it from that conversation you don't want a Comics by series category? Hmm.

4.) C1 I think has a four day wait? That's all I'm thinking on. Hiding T 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Comics by series" would be rather large, and, if created, would need to be split along some lines - likely by company, or by country. And since we already have such...

Yes, that's the technical guideline. However, AFAIK, it's rarely followed, except due to a placement of a CSD template. (Here's a fun diversion: Find an empty category. Then try to determine when it was emptied.) And yes, since I merged the (6?) items to the publications cat, I know when it was emptied. That said, I didn't/don't think it's controversial (per the other points above). However, if you have any concerns, I don't oppose recreation for CfD discussion. - jc37 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Comics by series" can mean different things in different countries is my only issue. But I'm starting to be convinced that not every work deserves an article anyway, nor every character, which probably will solve a lot of the category issues.

(From memory) When Radiant! proposed this, it was specifically to stop people emptying a category and then deleting it. The way to work out whether a category has been empty is to tag it for deletion as empty. If it is still tagged and empty after the specified period, delete it. We used to require 24 hours, I don't know who upped it to four days. And we used to require it be listed at CFD under speedy. We felt that was open and transparent. I believe Wikipedia has lost a lot if that's no longer required. Hiding T 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't entirely disagree with you. In practice, the 4 day rule only seems to work well with tagging (which is probably when it came into being), since by tagging, an actual "date" of "empty" then exists in a edit history, and can be noted. 24 hours for non-tagged, (presumably non-contentious) personal action, for "empty" categories makes a fair amount of sense. Perhaps we should see about codifying this somehow, somewhere. - jc37 19:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. It already is codified. There's a four day rule. Since two people challenged your deletion of a category, I'm unclear how it would be thought of as uncontentious. I don't disagree with the deletion, so I'm disputing on process wonkery, which I'm not going to take too far. If the other person who objects would like the category to be retained, I'm not sure. Having reviewed the thread at User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Series_of_comic_books I'm not seeing a similar offer to restore, repopulate and relist at CFD. I guess at this point I am making this an issue. Do you think it is the right thing to do to empty a category and then delete it? Hiding T 09:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In looking over the discussion, I don't see anywhere where I said I opposed recreation, and I'm not sure I even see an objection to the deletion, but rather a question as to why I did what I did and would I object to x, y, and z. I merely explained/clarified, based on the request. And then offered suggestions as to how they could help.

Incidentally, I might note that my response to the editor was actually unnecessary. They had removed the post from my talk page prior to my initial response. But I decided to respond anyway.

However, if you feel that you see something different, please let me know. - jc37 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be miscommunicating a little here. I'm still not understanding you, and since I respect your opinion and trust your judgement, I owe it both you and myself to try and clear this point up here and now. Do you think it is acceptable to empty a category and then immediately delete it? Hiding T 11:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At times? Under certain circumstances? Yes. - jc37 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What would those be? At the minute all that is going through my head is that it is like removing an image from an article and then deleting it as unused. I'm sure there's something I'm missing, but I can't see it. Hiding T 11:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(De-dent) - I understand. I'm trying to think of how to concisely explain my thoughts, but I'm not certain that that's possible.

As someone who has seen quite a bit of "fait accompli" (and been not thrilled by it), I assure you that that is not what is intended.

That said, the shortest answer would be (winces): WP:IAR, and more specifically WP:BOLD. Another way to look at it might be WP:CSD#G6, housekeeping. For me the dividing line is contention. Just like it is at WP:RM. That's part of why I like using the C1 drop down rationale. That way, I'm not claiming anything more than "empty", and so (hopefully) those with concerns can state them. And there is presumably nothing preventing "recreation" when using C1 as a rationale. (In which case, if I objected to the recreation, it would be time for a CFD.)

I do not believe that I'm violating "the rules" in this interpretation of policy.

And so to treat this specific case: If you object to the deletion of the category, I'm happy to list it at CfD, since, at that point, it becomes contentious. (Not unlike a user removing a WP:PROD.) In addition, this was proposed, and mildly discussed at your /X7 page, so I didn't do it unilaterally, and I honestly did not expect this discussion to result from it : )

But since this discussion has occurred, this is why I have (several times, I think) offered to list at CfD. Which I think is appropriate to offer in such situations.

Does that better explain/clarify? - jc37 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. The reason I didn't really want to go through a cfd is because if we get it cleared up there's no reason to. I'm debating on a process level. I'm looking at it from the point of view of WP:BITE. I'm a newbie, I see an admin remove articles from a category and delete it, and the reason stated doesn't match. At least we agree as to what it looks like. I guess I may lean further on WP:BITE over WP:IAR. Hiding T 11:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. And I wasn't saying you had to, merely that I should offer : ) - jc37 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman is one of the most iconic, recognizable characters in all of comics. He has been around since 1939 and has had numerous adaptions made about him (via animation, live-action television and film, and video games). It would do the character more good (in terms of serving as a relatively important history lesson) than you could imagine to showcase a "career timeline" through all of the important eras/ages in the comics. Besides, if you're going to delete this article about Batman's career timeline and more importantly, his evolution as a superhero/crime fighter, then you might as well do the same about the article entitled "History of Superman". TMC1982 (talk) 7:24 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the difference between History of Superman and Batman's career timeline has been detailed at the deletion debate, but it is one of approach. A bulleted list cribbed mainly from primary sources doesn't fit into the scope of what Wikipedia is about. This article may be more suited to a different project, and if you want help in moving all of the work somewhere I will gladly export it for you. I'm well aware of the history of the fictional character of Batman, and the impact it has had upon the world, but the purpose of the list is very hard to fit into our approach. Batman hasn't had a career, for starters, because he isn't real. Our work on Wikipedia is encyclopedic, and so we have to examine the character from the outside, and see how he affects our world, not to inhabit his world and see how he has lived. I apologise that my nomination has offended you. I find that can be one of the most frustrating aspects of Wikipedia, to have all your hard work mean nothing. It's something that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia at times enforces upon us. I would imagine if you asked for the article to be userfied then the closing admin would consider that request. Hiding T 09:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, my own response to this is here.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I hadn't realised it was a cut and paste job. I think you've pretty much summed up my feelings too, to be honest. Hiding T 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(First, let me just say that I'm not a fan of the header to this thread...)

That said, this is a request to please convince me of your (Hiding's) position. Right now I wholly disagree. But perhaps I'm missing something. - jc37 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me. I don;t think this is whithin Wikipedia's remit. I may be wrong, but I've outlined my reasoning. You don;t have to agree and I can't convince you until I know why you don't agree. But I hope you'll agree this is best discussed at the afd, because that's where the outcome, for the article's sake, rather than yours or mine, matters. Hiding T 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my intention was to give you the benefit of the doubt, since I respect your opinion (regardless of whether, at times, I may disagree). Because I honestly think that something like this may be larger than just this particular article. So I was hoping to understand your thinking on this.

In looking over the article, it looks like something that would definitely be "encyclopedic". And primary sources should be "just fine", presuming they are used within policy.

And, for the most part (there are some exceptions on the page which need cleaning up), the page seemed to stay within policy on that count.

But anyway, since that seems to be your preference, I suppose I'll go check out the AfD and comment there. - jc37 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I thought it best to do it at the afd debate was because, if I turned out to be wrong, it was better to do that at the afd debate for the purposes of the debate and the article and the closing admin. I'm not happy with the outcome of the afd, I'm not sure one person saying copyvio is enough to delete. However, Postdlf managed to point out the blinkers I was wearing, so I am happy to concede I was wrong. I may even write this up somewhere as the start of something, because I don't want to fall into the same trap again. Hiding T 10:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. And I wasn't thrilled that Fram closed it. (On one hand, User:Doug and I had a similar situation (copy-vio), and we waited for another admin to close, for transparency. However, I've also closed XfD discussions I've commented in, for various reasons). So anyway, I'm willing to at least give the benefit of the doubt, though I really would have liked to hear further. (And perhaps I was misunderstanding what they were saying about "search options"?) - jc37 11:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you use the search box at the link provided to search for specific text you get search results on whether it appears in the book. For example, searching for "DETECTIVE COMICS #60" returns, amongst others, the following text on page 134, a page which is titled "Batman Timeline" in a chapter "Batman's Career": 1942 February: The Bat-Signal summons Batman. (DETECTIVE COMICS #60). I think the gun may have started smoking... That's perhaps the main issue with doing something like this. If it has been done before, there's copyright implications. I guess I'm more right on the copyright issues than the self-selecting issues. Hiding T 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that out. - jc37 11:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You must know me well enough by now to know I have to be sure. Even when I'm wrong, I have to be sure I'm wrong. ;) Hiding T 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I was starting to wonder if we should have: Category:Comics by protagonist. (Or some similar name.) Asterix the Gaul and Tintin are just two of many such categories (potential and extant) - Superman and Batman, for example. There should be a way to categorise these, but it would need to be clear. And due to comics being preiodicals, use of "series" in the name can present problems. Any ideas? - jc37 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, what's this about Category:Comics by protagonist? I mentioned this myself, but also mentioned that it's a bugger to work out how to do properly. Lately I've been musing on merging all the Asterix and Tintin works into a list to get around the issue. I took that approach with Superman, see, um, where did they move it to...List of Superman comics. That's not a bad article, either. Hiding T 11:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the lists. (And I'll admit that the potential for category bloat scares me : )

What I've been doing thus far is to drop the categories under "by country" and "by company" when possible. So perhaps this is another possible solution. (Not that they are mutually exclusive, obviously.) - jc37 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think country and company are probably the best way forwards. The thought occurs to me that Category:Comics by protagonist would be unlikely to appear in the article space, so I wonder if that therefore means it isn't a category heirarchy worth having. I realise this has implications. Hiding T 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll have some kind of 0.7 sweeps guidelines available by late next week. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:COMICS Announcements/World comics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I speedied it as author request to save everyone's time. Hiding T 09:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. FICT has been on this debate for months now, and the consensus clearly opposes the idea. The ones who support it are just trying to stall until they find someone else to support it, then close it once the supports outweigh the oppose, which ISN'T gonna happen. The fact that they're doing this alone, and that users like Collectonian are reverting it despite it CLEARLY being based on consensus is a violation of the rules. Can you help us out with this issue. I would greatly appreciate it. ZeroGiga (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea what this refers to. Can you link me to the RFC you mention? Hiding T 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, that discussion was specifically about categories. You're quite right that use of the word 'district' in London templates is perhaps misleading. Do feel free to bring it up at WP:London. Its not my intention to limit what you can discuss, only to direct it to the appropriate place and I am sorry for any misunderstanding. Kbthompson (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I spent waaay too much time yesterday and this morning wading through the Category:Works based on works/Category:Media based on media categories. (I did some other category clean up as I went along.)

The categories, the list pages, and the articles have not much of a naming convention. (And were quite a mess.)

I created several "based on" categories, to try to clarify several sections.

That said, I think that every "...based on..." category should be renamed to "...adapted from...".

Do you have any thoughts/concerns before I ask someone to help tag these for CfD? - jc37 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Media based on media needs to be deleted. It's a complete misnomer. The only things that should be in there are things like "televsion broadcasters based on newspapers" and so on. I guess, given Kerrang have a radio station, there's small scope for "radio stations based on magazines", but anything which is media based on or media adapted from is wrong, wrong, wrong. What I believe is meant is "Works based on" or "Works adapted from". Those are initial thoughts. I have some concerns about "Works based on works" as well. Is there a problem with Category:Adaptations? Hiding T 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the intent of Media based on media was: "works in media based on works in media", as a way to cut down on the potential size of Works based on works, and to allow it to be a subcat of Category:Mass media.

That said, if we rename all the "media based on x", and "x based on media" to substitute "works" for "media" (in several cases, upmerging), it would definitely simplify the hierarchy.

And while we're at it, standardising to adapted from (as I proposed above), and possibly deling with the series vs. programs naming issue. (AFAICT, every one of the cats and lists and articles in question deal with series, not with non-series programs.) - jc37 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<rhetorical, in part> Why would one want to place media by media in Mass media? I'll have to peruse "Works based on works" to understand this fear of potential bloat.</rhetorical, in part> Why not just put adaptations in there, if it indeed belongs? Or, here's a thought, "Mass media adaptations"?

Why not "adaptations by source" and um, ah. "Adaptations by adaptation"? "Source by adaptation". Or leave them in Adaptations.

If you say so. Might be worth sticking the series convention in WP:NCCAT if it isn't in there. Although maybe not right now. Hiding T 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This would lend itself thus:

• "Comics adaptations"
  • "Comics adapted from (film(s?))"
  • "Comics adapted in (film)"

You could house those in "Comics adapted by other works" and "Comics adaptations of other works". Just some initial thoughts. Hiding T 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm wondering what "adapted in" would include.

And the latter "house" would be "Works adapted from comics", if we follow the current scheme. (Which I think may be clearer than "x adaptions of other works", and more clearly prevent well-meant miscategorisation. But then I just spent over 9 hours wading through it, I may be a bit biased : ) - jc37 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Comics adapted in prose", like The Death of Superman. "Comics adapted by films/books/television series" may have to be used due to philistines in the system. ;) Although, "adapted to"? adapted to prose, adapted to film adapted to television, adapted to radio, adapted to music? Because that's what you're doing. You're adapting the "thing" to another format.

The former would be "Works adapted from comics", the latter would be "Works adapted by comics" Hiding T 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should try to stay with one preposition, to reduce confusion (and duplication). "Comics adapted in prose" is roughly the same as "Comics adapted from prose". (It's not exactly the same, but it should be enough for categorisation.) And any of the cats can be done using "to" or "from". "to/fro(m)" being a reciprical construct, obviously.

The difference would be that I think that "to" has more of a possibility of confusion. "From" indicates the target more clearly. Also, I think that using the "to" construct will open these cats up to popculture memberships. ("In the Simpsons episode x, Homer said something related to Hamlet. So Hamlet was adapted to that episode of the Simpsons, right? Adapted by the Simpsons, right?" - Probably not what we're looking for here.) - jc37 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to this late - I mentioned it on my talk page but "adapted from" or "adapted by" really only fit for works (yes not media!! I agree that it needs to go) that are actual adaptations and these tend not to have their own articles. Usually the ones that have the articles are based on the character and fictional world (there seems to be a distinct trend for prequels and sequels from other media appearing in comics, for example - most obviously Buffy season 8) for example nearly all the Aliens (comics) and others in the the franchise have no clear connection with the films and even when it went the other direction (the AvP film being inspired by the comics) they haven't adapted any stories just taken the basic concept and produced something new (and worse!!) based on it. Just my fourpenneth anyway. (Emperor (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I think it depends on your definition of "adapted". If you use the basic concept, then you've adapted it. But likely you're right, it will be too easily misunderstoof. We shall have to think on. "Media" is not the answer, at least we all agree on that. Hiding T 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've asked User:Black Falcon if he can generate a list of these articles and categories, so that we can have a list to work from. - jc37 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily asking for anything with this post but perhaps just some sympathy (from someone who rather smartly reminded me recently of why he stays clear of dispute resolution). Have a look at my recent edit history and logs. You and I no sooner finish discussing the various aspects of categories (to a point where I was intendeing on proposing some new ideas and continuing discussion at /X7), and icicles began glistening in Surtr's firely realm, with a sort of Ragnarok in miniature, bursting the gates.

Mind if I just stay under here for awhile? (I know I can't, but please tell me I can anyway : ) - jc37 08:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Of course you can. Am I seen as having locked myself in my bedroom then? ;) Hiding T 09:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Great answer : ) - jc37 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I may ask you about a few things on a day or so, when things look to have more settled, if you wouldn't mind giving some feedback. - jc37 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I don;t mind giving feedback. Just ask User:Jerry [19]. Hiding T 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well... It looks like you both were in rare form there. - jc37 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Quite probably. I certainly set myself up for it. Hiding T 23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...with Akira, ask if you have questions. Nice article. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's okay, I've listed Akira (manga) at WP:1C with WP:COMIC as the requesting wikiproject ... you didn't ask for help, but you said you were struggling, and I'd like to get several successed listed at WP:1C so that people have an idea what's going on and how it works. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't quite finished with it, I've still got a bit of material to source and add, but your copy edits are pretty much on the spot. I'll probably hit Doctor Doom tomorrow. The other three you mentioned look out of my comfort zone, I was never a manga fan. I'll have a bash, though, but I'm not much of an expert in those areas. Hiding T 23:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy who tagged robotics articles didn't, as far as I know, know anything about comics. I'll ask the anime folks if they want to look at those 3 manga/anime ones; are there other articles in WP:COMIC that are already good, or that you'd like to collaborate on, that might be appropriate for WP:ROBO too? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please reply over at my place; I tried watchlisting this page, but it's burning my eyes. You must be popular. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

... has been blocked.

However, the block seems inappropriate on two counts. That said, I'd like you to check it out before I state my concerns. (Perhaps I'm missing something.) - jc37 18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For further developments, please also see User talk:Daniel Case.

I still would like your (and other admin's if they're interested) opinion concerning the use of tools in the initial block. - jc37 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Nightscream a couple of questions, I'd like to hear the answers because I feel at the minute I am missing something here. Hiding T 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Asgardian repeatedly deleted content from articles without a valid reason, used inappropriate Edit Summaries, and when attempts were made to politely explain to him that this is a violation of WP policy, he reacted dismissively. He explained, in one example, that the passages were badly written. I responded that this is not a valid reason for deletion, that he should instead rewrite the passage, not delete it. He claimed he was going to rewrite a certain passage, but by the time I came across it, it had been eleven hours since he deleted it. He claimed that the same passage was unsourced. In fact, it had a source. When issued warnings, he would respond that such warnings were "silly threats", "ultimatums", and so forth. Our exchanges on our Talk Pages detail this, as seen on his Talk Page and mine. This has been going on for some time, but his most recent such deletions were to the Ultron, Bi-Beast, and Vision articles, and were the subject of our most recent exchanges this month in the aforementioned section on his Talk Page. His personal attacks in appealing the block further illustrates his tendency to dismiss administrators' concerns. If you need further details or clarification, just let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this is an ongoing thing, then you have become involved and should not be the blocking admin. If this is a recent thing, the older instances cannot be taken into account, since blocks are not punitive. You'll have to explain to me exactly what issues you have with the edits to Ultron, Bi-Beast and Vision articles and how they relate to policy and Asgardian's arb-com restrictions. Because I still feel like I am missing something. The incivility is a separate issue, and I have left a comment for Asgardian regarding that, I think there is agreement that's out of order. However, there are wider points involved. I'm a firm believer in avoiding warnings for established users; they tend to inflame situations. I think we all get hacked off even with the numerous speedy deletion of x image templates after a while; they are so impersonal. Civil dialogue is better than templates, in my opinion. Also, I find that part of being an admin is learning not to bite when you get a face full of invective. It's hard, which is why I insert myself into such situations as rarely as possible, I do not want to end up burnt out or a hostile admin everyone launches an rfc against. I find it best to engage in honest dialogue and if it all goes tits up posting a note to the admin noticeboard and walking away. Yes, it is passing the buck, but at that point you know what really matters. If I want to be involved in the resolution, I've crossed the line; if my input is needed, I can give it freely. Appreciate your answers and look forwards to reaching a resolution on this. Hiding T 10:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  I appreciate Hiding looking into this.

  And while I see some "interesting" edits by Asgardian and you (Nightscream), I also note that you are (and have been) currently "involved" in a dispute with Asgardian (as you note above). I agree with Hiding in also wondering (hoping) if there is something inobvious to be seen, else I have concerns about what might seem obvious. - jc37 09:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The three articles. Asgardian removed valid material from the Ultron article, saying that he was "tidying up", a euphemism that he uses frequently in his Edit Summaries. He claims it was poorly written, vacillated between in-universe and out-universe, and even claimed that some of it was unsourced. As aforementioned, poor writing, including changing the universe reference, is not a valid basis for deletion. It is a valid basis for a rewrite. As for being unsourced, in fact, there is a newsarama source in that material that he deleted along with that material. As for the Bi-Beast deletion, he claimed that the character's encounter with She-Hulk was an "unsubstantiated claim". In fact, the encounter did occur in an issue of Peter David's run on The Incredible Hulk. I know this because I read that issue, and have it. The original author of that passage should've sourced it, but the fact that he/she failed to do so calls for a fact-tag, not an outright deletion, without discussion. (I added the source.) As for the Vision edit, Asgardian deleted information from the Animated Film section, for no apparent reason, aside from his explanation of "tidying it up". A small modicum of detail on that version of Vision is perfectly appropriate. It should be pointed out that Asgardian's edits are mostly rock-solid. He is adept at removing unsourced and POV material, providing sources, copyediting, etc., and in fact, the areas of his editing habits appear to be very similar to mine. He is an asset to WP, and could potentially be a greater one. But he seems to have trouble reining in his tendency to react to material that does not conform to his personal tastes, and to react badly when others try to talk to him about it. Given how frustrated I get when I myself see badly written material from anonymous IP's who apparently can't string together a coherent sentence, I sympathize with him. But he needs to understand that deleting material that doesn't conform to his whims, and personally attacking or condescending to other users and administrators when they try to talk to him about this is not the way to resolve these issues.

Arb-com restrictions. I never mentioned Asgardian's Arb-com restrictions. Exactly what restrictions have been placed on him?

Templates I don't know that using templates with an established user is improper; I've tried to using civil diagloue with Asgardian, but it does not seem to work. You can see this on our Talk Pages. At one point, Asgardian responded to an original message by me by saying that I was issuing "ultimatums", and that my "tone" was improper. Although neither was true, in my opinion, I figured that using templates eliminated even the appearance of this, since there's a reason those templates exist.

Involvement I do not know offhand of any Wikipedia guideline or policy that states that previous conflict between an admin and user precludes a block of that user by that admin, though I could be wrong. What I understand is that an admin should not block the user over a content dispute where both parties have an editing history in that article, but that this does not apply to things like vandalism or clear policy violations like blanking. I asked User:Daniel Case about this, and he verified this, making no mention about previous conflicts, but perhaps I should've specified this. I'll ask him again to clarify this point. Nightscream (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm getting confused. What was the block of Asgardian for in the first place? The stated reason is persistently removing material, but if the only examples we have are the three edits you gave me, that's not persistent and it isn't a breach of policy; he's allowed to remove unsourced material. You're right, it doesn't mean he should, but he shouldn't get blocked for it. Whether a previous involvement with a user precludes you from making a block is a hard one. I had this issue a while ago at Pat Lee, and because I'd edited the article, even though it was to revert BLP violating edits, it meant I had become involved. I don't really know how it works, but I think a rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that you don't block someone who makes personal attacks against you. Did you check with Daniel Case before or after the block? With regards tem[;ates. no, there are certainly two ways of looking at it. All I know is they wind me up when they appear on my talk page; I then put myself in the shoes of the other person and try and avoid them if I can. Asgardian is a tricky customer to handle, I'll grant you that. If you're unaware of his arbitration parole, it doesn't matter, because he hasn't breached it here anyway. He has to make edit summaries and discuss reverts, which he appears to be doing. Tell truth, it may have expired. But look, down to the nitty gritty, is this the first contact you have with Asgardian over the issues which led to the block? [20]. I think I'm seeing light at the end of the tunnel here. Hiding T 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I detailed the reasons for Asgardian's block in my prior post, and it was not for removing unsourced material, at least not in two of the three instances. He claimed in one of those two instances that it was unsourced, but as I mentioned earlier, this was not true, as there was indeed a source in it, and this is visible in the edit I linked to, and in the current version of the article. In the third instance, in which the passage was technically unsourced, he referred to this as an "unsubstantiated claim". Why give this rationale, rather than saying it was "unsourced"? If not being sourced was the issue, then why not fact-tag it, or ask someone to find a source for it? If this was indeed the reason, then why did he not remove other unsourced information in the article? Is it not possible, given his reaction to that passage that he reacted on an aesthetic level, given the odd (but true) claim in that passage? If not, then we would've expected to see other such material deleted. But even if you are not convinced by this, we can dispense with that instance, and focus on the other two. Nightscream (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. It looks to me like an editorial dispute. Looking at Ultron, he's removed a ref to Annihilation Conquest #1, is that still needed in his rewrite? He's removed something sourced from an interview at newsarama, again that's allowed under policy, and he has generally tidied up various instances of plot summary. What policy is he breaching here? Looking at Vision he's removed speculation and moved what he feels is too much detail, again not against any specific policy. And looking at Bi-Beast, he removed an unsubstantiated claim, which means exactly the same thing as unsourced, and per policy the onus is not on Asgardian to substantiate it. Per policy, Asgardian can remove it, it says so at WP:V. You're right in that he doesn;t have to, and that to some it is preferable to add a fact tag, but there is no policy which says removing unsourced or unsubstantiated material is wrong. That's a violation of policy. And again, he tweaked and copy-edited. He's allowed to do all of that. And then all I can see happen next is that you post this message on his talk page, [21].

Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, it just looks to me like it could have been handled better. If your dispute with Asgardian is on an editorial level, which it looks to me like it was, then I don't feel you should have blocked Asgardian. He hasn't committed vandalism, which is the reason posted to his talk page, he isn't "persistently" removing "valid material", because the stuff he is doing falls under editorial remit and if he is reacting in a non-constructive manner, you should generally get another admin to wade in. Look, I'm only here because Jc asked me to look into it. I don't feel it was the best block in the world, but these things happen. I recall I made a bit of an idiot of myself with you once a long time ago. I've pretty much pledged not to block Asgardian again after events in April and before. If I feel he needs blocking, my thinking is I'll go post at WP:AN and get a second opinion. Maybe that's a path you need to take. I don't know. It's your call. Looking at your block log, it is mostly ip's and new accounts, so I think this is the first time you've blocked an established user. I'm not going to sit here and say Asgardian is perfect, but I think we all agree he has come a long way since he started. Mind, so have all of us. I don't doubt you were doing what you thought was the right thing to do. All anyone can ask is that we each do our best. Hiding T 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I neglected to answer your question regarding whether I consulted Daniel Case before the block. Sorry about that. No, I did not consult him before, but I have spoken to him since, and he clarified to me that a prior history between the blocking admin and the blocked user should not preclude a block, as long as the issue is one of blatant content removal. Obviously, you feel the situation is editorial, so yes, that would make a difference, but part of the problem is that Asgardian does not engage with me or others who attempt to speak with him over these matters. If he did not respond in such a dismissive or condescending manner, acting as if admin warnings were some form of amusement or harassment, then it would've gone a long way to providing the appearance of an editorial point of view on his part, instead of just blatant content removal. Removing material for not good reason is not allowed under policy. Policy requires valid reasons in Edit Summaries. Removing material because it is "badly written" is not allowed under policy. Calling something "unsourced" when it is indeed sourced (as with the Vision article) can be construed as either an error on one's part, or dishonesty, and without discussing such things up front, giving the benefit of the doubt becomes harder. Since articles are supposed to be written in a way that is not lopsidedly in-universe, putting sourced material in which writers offer insight into a character in his role in a story is perfectly valid. His removing it from the Ultron article, therefore, seemed like an aesthetic whim. The material from the Animated Film section of the Vision article contained no speculation. As for Bi-Beast, again, if the reason was that it was unsourced, why did he not remove other unsourced material from that article? Is it because the passage in question referred to Bi-Beast being compromised in a fight by his attraction to She-Hulk, and Asgardian, simply didn't like that passage? Yes, he doesn't have to fact-tag it, and I never said he had to substantiate it. Under the letter of WP policy, he was technically right. In its spirit, he could've been more constructive in what he did with it. There are many different WP policies, some of which conflict with one another, and one recommends that certain edits be discussed on the article's Talk Page. But again, if you want to dispense with the Bi-Beast article, we can instead focus on the other two. Vandalism is not the reason posted on his Talk Page, the reason was content removal. I even did a check on his page, and the word "vandal" only shows up twice--both in reference to his false accusations of vandalism against others.

And don't worry, I don't think you're trying to bust my chops. You have every right to talk to me about this, and I believe that I have every obligation to respond, since transparency and open discussion is necessary for this project. It is precisely that Asgardian does not uphold this idea that contributes to the situation with him. As long as someone approaches me in good faith and civility, I feel it is my duty to respond. In retrospect, yes, perhaps getting another admin would've been good, and I will do this from now one if I see this behavior continue. I do not recall you ever making an "idiot" of yourself (when was this?), but your attempt to be self-deprecating in order to project humility is respected, and your civil and friendly input is much appreciated. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Asgardian again removed the material in question during his rewrite of the Ultron article. I restored it, though in a more brief form, and tried to incorporate it more smoothly into the passage. I thought I'd let you know before/rather than confronting him myself, but if he keeps this up, deleting material that does not conform to his aesthetic whims, without even trying to do what I did himself, or solicit discussion from others, then the problems with him are going to continue. Nightscream (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A "new day"? I'd like to think so. But it looks like the same old day to me. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Only for half an hour or a little more. Then it will be another new day. You've got to try, after all. At least it isn't April. Or last year. Hiding T 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been positive steps, though there are still some concerns (which I don't think anyone here is disputing). - jc37 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this [22] does like a new day. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The first step is awareness there is a problem and (as I suspect with BBiA, as seen recently, and another spat that blew up on... the Hulk article?) taking the time to explain/discuss things could help avoid a lot of these issues before they get out of hand. We'll see how it goes but it is a promising start. (Emperor (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

You recently contributed to a poll on date formats.[23] The option you supported won the poll but is now an option in a final poll to test support against the current version.[24] The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of this poll, you may follow this link. - User:Skyring 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posting)

I have started a new page to help keep track of the articles which have been selected. If you wish, we could move discussion to that talk page, or we could just direct people there? I forgot to add the articles which appear only on workgroup pages, so I'll get to that now. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but it has always struck me as odd when you revert to a prior version of a page before protecting it. I've never really picked you up on it, which is probably my bad and done you no favors, but it isn't the done thing to do per WP:PROTECT; When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute. Sorry. Hiding T 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a "pile on", nor do you need to apologise. As I said at AN/I, I appreciate feedback (when done positively), regardless of whether I may agree or disagree.

As for the above, I still stand by my nost recent statement there. Though I will admit that I should have looked more at WP:PROTECT when writing it.

If a page isn't common practice, but yet may or may not be a good idea, what is there to do? Conform one editor (or in this case admin) at a time? WP:IAR based on experience of "common practice"? Go through process and have an RfC to find out if the perceived "common practice" is actual common practice? Merely be bold and change the page to reflect what is the presumed common practice?

Probably any of the above (and there are probably innumerable other options).

I think my next step would be to see when that was added to the page. Depending on the type of edit and "climate" during the time it was added, plus noting the timestamp and checking the talk page, all might be helpful to find out the intent.

As for this situation, as it involved images, I think I may default to what I typically do when editors are fighting over images: remove whatever one is currently displaying and ask them to discuss before re-adding anything. Images tend to be questions about fair use, and "what is better", and so on, and since it's (directly or indirectly) a licensing question, it's probably better to err on the side of caution.

Anyway, thanks again for your note. Your further thoughts are welcome. - jc37 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I found what I was looking for.

On one hand, I think I'm going to have to (once again) learn to enjoy the taste of crow. You appear to be correct about WP:PROTECT. (Though, for whatever it's worth, I do see the word "normally" used several times.)

On the other, it would appear that I was right, it's just that consensus may (or may not) have moved on since I became an admin : )

This is what the page looked like, the edit before 1 Jan. 2007.

The edit which removed the information (the very next edit) claimed: "Update and cleanup. Removing redundancies and info specific to semi-protection, general rephrasing, etc"

Looks like a bit more than that may have been done.

And in looking over the talk page at that time, this looks like a bold edit.

Again, welcoming your thoughts on this. - jc37 08:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this statement from the older version is pretty clear, Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy. Now I've read it I do recall it, so I'll withdraw my objection. I have always found it odd that you link to the wrong version rather than our protection policy though, but I've tended to put it down to a quirk. I'll have a look at the page and probably be bold. Hiding T 10:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bold. Hiding T 10:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I first read m:The Wrong Version, I seem to recall that it conveyed the reverse psychology more clearly. I'm not sure it is now as effective as I once thought it was. - jc37 11:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's just a matter of interpretation isn't it. I certainly don't think you did anything overly wrong with the dispute; you may just have given the impression that you may have done. It's a very nuanced place, Wikipedia. It's an easy system to game. I'm sure there are admins who wait during an edit war until a page is in the version they would "prefer" to protect before they do so. It's a bit like Nightscream and Asgardian. Doing the right thing but maybe not in the "bestest" of possible ways by everyone. Hiding T 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "bit", but you'll please pardon me if I'm a bit dubious in regards to that last comparison. (I'm still waiting on the outcome of that discussion, for one thing.) - jc37 03:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dick Grayson#Sept 2008 revist

Nutshell is that CmdrClow is looking to change the image. As far as I can tell, even with the tangential issue, the isn't a consensus for change. But then, I'm involved in the discussion. And CC has just dropped the unilateral "If there are no further objections to this then I will add the image to the article within 24 hours."

I'm not sure, but I think it's going sideways.

- J Greb (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just spotted the "good luck" you posted last month. I've been keeping away from Wikipedia so I only now discovered that, so here's my belated thanks for your belated well wishes. Our webcomic's audience has been growing steadily and is actually making a little money already. Scott Kurtz told us not to worry about the money for the first year, but this is really, really promising. We're having a great time.

Adios. Wryspy (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of your work at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), please feel free to comment at the National parks category name DRV. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 01:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I get your input here: User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian. (Emperor (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

As you were the bearer of tact last time, I'd also appreciate it if you would offer your opinion as well. - jc37 22:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This] must be read to be believed. I'm not sure if I even want to guess what this is a sign of. - jc37 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been meticulously avoiding doing anything that might be construed at spamming anyone, but I'm more than happy to share the news when asked about it outright. Our webcomic is The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama at http://www.rocketllama.com. Some animal comic fans already created a Wikipedia article on it. So far, the article seems to be sufficiently documented that other furry comic fans apparently think it's notable enough to keep and to cross-reference with other animal webcomics. (I need to get past my discomfort over calling them "furry." I've just always associated that term with something else.)

This has been a great week too. We're right on the verge of edging into the top 3% of comics tracked at thewebcomiclist.com. I think we're at 3.01% today.[25] I know there are so many different things which affect those rankings, but it was still awesome to watch our rank work its way over the last couple of months from being two thousand-somethingth out of 12,000 comics tracked to number 374. Although our ad values are lower today than they had been for the past week, it's cool to see any money coming in when we'd braced ourselves to make nothing for the first year. We're in the process of rearranging our ads now that we know how to position them to generate more nickels with fewer ads.

In November I'll get to participate on a convention panel with guys like Phil Hester, Ben Templesmith, and Ethan Van Sciver. I've done convention panels before, but not with guys like that.

I really do appreciate your asking.

Thanks! Wryspy (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian

We've been having an ongoing discussion. (And there is, as I've been accused of in the past, a possibility that I am presuming too much good faith. But I'm still hopeful.)

If you would be willing, I would like you to look over my comments and please let me know if any of the suggestions, advice, or interpretations were inaccurate, or contrary to Wikipedia policy/guidelines/common practice, etc.

(And that request is open to any other admin's set of eyes who may be lurking here on this talk page.)

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted to Nightscream's page about the issue as I see it. Regarding your comments, personally I think you're putting Nightscream on the back foot a little. Nightscream has some valid points about Asgardian's behaviour, and you seem to agree that there are issues with Asgardian's respect of BRD, but I think the debate centres on differing interpretations of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPT. I think Nightscream's view is that Asgardian doesn't engage in consensus, or at least doesn't appear to here, and that his/her actions are disruptive. Your view seems to differ. You are probably better off working out that issue than any of the others, which appear to be side issues. Hiding T 13:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiding, thank you for your thoughtful and helpful post, as it demonstrates a clarity and sensibility that's been largely lacking from this dispute. I appreciate your suggestions, and if you think templates are not the way to go, I will implement that suggestion, much as I've followed other indications by you and the others. Yes, it is true that I am not attempting to use admin powers to make the edits go in my favor; I simply want a discussion to take place, and uncivil behavior to cease. The fact that you and others frowned upon my being the one who blocked Asgardian the last time is precisely why I decided to instead alert you this time. And if you look on Asgardian's page, you'll see that I happily conceded to him on a couple of points, simply because he correctly cited policy to me. However, I respectfully disagree that behavior is not an issue. When a user accuses a writer of vandalism, simply because their prose is badly written, that needs to be pointed out. When a user calls another user "emotional", that is itself commenting on a user, and it is correct to admonish one for that, as JC did. Ignoring attempts at discussion complicates such attempts, and needs to be pointed out. As for the ComicsProject, the last time I tried posting there, my post went unanswered. As for the onus being on Asgardian to respond in discussions, I appreciate that we're in agreement on that, as JC insists that Asgardian is under no obligation to discuss their edits, when in fact, this is precisely what WP requires in lieu of edit warring. Your continued participation is appreciated. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You say we shouldn't make behavior an issue, then you say you agree that we should try and correct behaviour and that after the content issue is resolved we can review the behavior issue. This is a contradiction. In fact, this problem encompasses both a content issue and a behavioral issue, and I've been quite clear in drawing a distinction between the two. Refusing to engage in discussion, ignoring counterarguments, falsely accusing newbies of vandalism, and making personal commments, reverting during a discussion, etc., are all things that WP frowns upon, and therefore, it is valid to address them. Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your verse here, [26], the line of most importance is the fifth line, delete per Wikipedia:User categories. This builds on the tension established in the first three lines and echoes with greater clarity the meaning of the fourth line, which both notes the passage of time and the end of all things but also asks, obliquely and perhaps technically incorrectly that the electron flow in this area of the database be ended. However the actual nature of my opinion was in fact a purposeful omission, in that it was non-essential and could be determined by the admin closing the debate, as stated in the last three lines, given the overall theme and thrust of the poem, which was, in part, that ultimately all will be deleted; therefore the debate itself is of little import. It was also on the theme of admin closure and the impartiality there-in and the nature of deletion debates themselves. Hope that helps. Hiding T 10:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(smile)

And here I wrote some stream-of-consciousness semi-poetic text in the nom, never thinking of how it would affect those commenting : )

Incidentally, I had accidentally left two words out of my query to your comments. See here. (Sometimes happens when my brain is moving faster than my fingers : )

In any case, it seems moot as it was closed as "no consensus".

Anyway, thanks for your clarification : ) - jc37 15:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Next time I'll just say delete. It might make a difference. Hiding T 08:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"You know what, if you like, you can change the sigs on half Kbdank's closes to my sig if it makes you feel any better." --Kbdank71 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Glad to be of service. I thought it was the best way of making my point, to be honest. If the close is valid, does it really matter whose name is at the end? Hiding T 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TheLeftorium 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've had a bit of a break from it, but are you up for delving into User talk:Hiding/X7 again? : )

We're (mostly) done with the more "top-level" cats, so now I guess it's a question of spelunking : ) - jc37 01:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan. Hiding T 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  *Ping* - jc37 08:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• [27]

I disagree with the sentiment in the edit summary, and my next step was to start a talk page discussion, but since you tend to be the resident expert on such (smile), I thought I'd ask your opinion first. - jc37 09:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not a resident expert, but the removal is unjustified given the other listings on the page and WP:MOS:DABRL MOS:DABRL (appears the manual of style have their own shortcut system, curious). Have re-instated on that basis. Hiding T 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 09:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you are an administrator able to modify secured templates. Given that a portal dedicated to Bande Dessinée exists, I think it would be a good idea to include a link to this portal in the talk pages of the article related to the subject. The portal has a related work group WikiProject Comics/European comics work group, which is part of the WikiProject Comics. I suggest that the link to the BD portal appears only when the article is part of the European comics work group: in the Comicsproj banner, when one adds Euro=yes, there is a link to the work group that appears. So it would be useful that a link to the portal appears at the same time. If you can modify the banner, thanks. And if possible, could you include the image FrancoBelgianballoon.svg (question of aesthetics) ? --Pah777 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it would be easier to change the template. But the comicsproj banner already offers the possibility to add portal1-name=Bande Dessinée, which displays: "This article has been selected for use on the Bande Dessinée Portal", as in the Asterix talk page. I think it is sufficiant (although the image related to the BD genre does not appears), it is not worth working too much on it. My concern is that this link is hidden.

Consequently I have another suggestion about the comicsproj banner: it is a pity that some important content of the banner is automatically hidden. Only the importance and the class of the articles are displayed, so that the B-class criteria, for example, are constantly neglected and not filled, whereas they are important. The works groups are also hidden. I suggest displaying all the information. Would it be a good idea ? (Maybe it can take muck time also, sorry for that). --Pah777 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here, and would be interested in your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I thought you should know that Asgardian has continued his deletion of material in a number of edits:

• In this edit he removed an entire section, but in his Edit Summary, he claims that he "reworked" it. I have restored it.
• In this edit, despite the fact there is currently an ongoing discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page regarding the use of comic book titles in articles, Asgardian deleted a reference to the title in which an event took place. I restored it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted most of a section, calling it "fancruft". I started the discussion on that Talk Page because I think there's room to argue over this, and have not reverted it for this reason. I explained why I believe it's not "fancruft", but think we need a consensus on it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted two thirds of a section, claiming in his Edit Summary, "Not well written - just the facts." First of all, I explained to Asgardian some time ago that poor writing is not a valid rationale to delete material, in lieu of a rewrite. Second, by saying "just the facts", he implying that there was non-factual material in that section. As one of the editors who participated in the writing/editing of that section, I assure you, having read the books, that it is indeed facts. In addition, by deleting mention of Yellowjacket by name, Asgardian is deleting mention of the only appearance of someone under that identity in the Ultimate universe. I pointed this out to Asgardian on his Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK done - I gave it a quick once over.

I can't say I'm overly familiar with the character (although that in itself is an angle on the whole thing) but it is shaping up very nicely. What I'd like to see is more on his various adventures (yeah I know, asking for more plot - so sue me!!) and then split off most of what I put in the provisional FCB into a "reception" section. Jam in a picture and you have a solid B. Good work - it is easy enough to bang out an article on a title/character from the Big Two (except you can also run into too much plot and often too many cooks) but things like this always strike me as the kind of article we need more of. (Emperor (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Just thought I'd make some comments on your comments on the summary editing - and they're asides, really, so I didn't want to take up space at the 'proper' discussion. :o)

Surely Manhattan kills Rorschach at Rorschach's behest. It's R's only 'out' - he won't/can't compromise his position, but ultimately realises that he also can't/mustn't oppose humanity's one chance at peace. He's done all he can (mailed his diary, made his position clear, solved the crime), and there's hope for the world: but it's not now a world he can live in. Manhattan almost does him a favour, so there's no contradiction between not condoning Veidt's actions and killing Rorschach. Veidt even makes it clear that he wouldn't mind Rorschach trying to reveal everything; it's Manhattan doing what must be done to allow Rorscach to, heh, 'live' with himself. But that's interpretative, of course.

I didn't see a discrepancy between the police investigating a possible murder while paranoid/conspiracy-theory-nut Rorschach decided that it clearly was - but it is probably clearer without the two positions being stated.

Veidt clearly wants closure (of which reassurance and approval go hand-in-hand): he wants Manhattan to agree that this was the final move needed to save the world from the brink of destruction and usher in the new era. He's after confirmation that he achieved the right result - I imagine he'd like to have approval of his methodology, but just agreement that the result was right would do. That's why Manhattan's point about the cyclical nature of things is so shattering to him - he wants to ignore the obvious likelihood that things will degenerate again, and be confirmed that his intellect has fixed everything. The post-Manhattan world, though.. you're right "open" is the wrong word, but "nicer" didn't cut it. :o) Even the colours are more upbeat. And the "cracks appearing" was my vague attempt at alluding towards the final scene without giving it away. Didn't work. ;o) ntnon (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to discuss the whys and wherefores in a Wikipedia article, since it is speculation. We can discuss it as readers, but we can't do definitive takes in an article, you need sourced opinion for that. And I don't agree that Manhattan kills Rorschach at Rorschach's behest, that's very much one possible interpretation. I would point out Manhattan already knows he is going to kill someone in the snow. That may influence events too. I'm too much in agreement with Moore on this point; Rorschach had to die for the story to work in the way it does. There are many possible endings in which Rorschach may not have needed to die; however for this ending, he had to. As to Veidt, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Manhattan very clearly in the text answers a different question to the one he was asked. I don't know what was in Moore's mind for that decision, but I have a feeling it relates to Alexander cutting the knot. But I would say one reading of the text would aver that Manhattan has already endorsed the result as a good thing, so from that reading your viewpoint would be rejected. It isn't perhaps my preferred reading, but it is a possible reading. My preferred reading is that there are no answers. As to "open", I think I'd probably have used "optimistic", but the constraints of policy prevent it. Apologies, the edits weren't meant to be a slight on your writing, but rather at better complying with policy. I also think it is very much in the readers hands as to whether cracks appear or not, or are inevitable. Hope that better clarifies. I'm not rejecting your reading of the book either, it just isn't my preferred one. I tend to line up with the idea that the book is a mediation on both civic responsibility and narrative structure, utilising genre for better depth. Hiding T 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's all fine and above-board. :o) I just wanted to offer some comments somewhere, so I thought I'd bore you with them...! I'd say that by this point Manhattan has realised that he does have some say over events, and that his determinist outlook has been somewhat tainted/mellowed by his inability to accurately foresee everything. So it's not just a case of him having to kill someone. And Rorschach definitely has a death wish. I'm not convinced there's a need for him to die - even though, as you say, it's Moore's own opinion, and therefore logically "more right" than another interpretation. But I can't see it quite that clearly - is it that he has to be silenced; or that he simply couldn't/wouldn't adjust..? Veidt clearly isnt' overly fussed with the former, and Rorschach doesn't need to adjust - he can continue to rail against humanity. So what am I missing...?!

I think Manhattan is relieved. It takes the burden off his shoulders - he is no longer the lynchpin of the world, standing in-between with implicit threats of superiority as deus ex machina. He'd never endorse the plan or result as positive, but might be somewhat glad that peace removes the need for him to stay and watch over humanity. He watches the watchmen, so removing that need, by giving the power back to the people makes him happily redundant and able to persue other agendas.

"Optimistic" is definitely better - and I would say rooted in the work and therefore valid. But no slight taken or implied; or clarification really requested or required - just a dialogue/comment..! It's absolutely a political rant disguised as a superhero comic, inviting - no, forcing - the reader to read deeper and interpret a dozen different things about how the world is, how the world could be, and how the world should (not) be/end/grow. It has lessons to impart on many different subjects, and they are important lessons, too. I'm firmly of the belief that there are six-ten 'comics' that would benefit everyone to read and consider ("understand" may be pushing it). Watchmen and Promethea are two of the top ones. ntnon (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think two experienced admins like us could just close it and implement the redirect? Hiding T 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm undoing your conversion to a dab, because as you've made it now, you've made a dab that points to nowhere, which goes against what dabs are supposed to be for. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Note that the following is based upon my interpretation of your comments, and considering our previous discussions, I'm wondering if I am misunderstanding...)

This is a point where I might agree with Otto. I don't think that we should necessarily upmerge fictional characters to a cat that is focused on topics concerning X in fiction. Essentially we'd be swapping one cat for another, and consider how many categories based on characteristics of a character could be created. (Just to continue the oft-used examples: Blondes in fiction : )

I note it here because that alone may de-rail the noms into no-consensus territory, when (I am guessing) you would seem to agree with most of the premise of the noms.

(Though obvously, your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, and as such, your obviously welcome to voice your thoughts.) - jc37 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone can write a sourced article on blondes in fiction, a category may make sense. Hiding T 13:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that if an article covering the topic of Blondes in fiction were written, that a cat grouping articles which also cover the topic of blondes in fiction may be appropriate. What I think he is saying (which I agree with) is that we shouldn't include in that category such characters which we may deem to be examples of blondes in fiction. It's category-bloat, and would likely present the same problems of WP:OR (among other things). It's similar to the problem we run into in articles where we have long lists of examples. (I recently cleaned up Secret identity which had an ever-growing list of examples.) - jc37 15:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but your argument would appear to apply to any category. We shouldn't place any article which we deem to be such and such in any category. We should maintain encyclopedic rigour throughout. Any category can bloat. We should include in the category Blondes in fiction any articles which have reliable sources which note their importance to the theories on blondes in fiction. We likely wouldn't need one because the article would do it, but I don't know as of yet. However, I think it is quite clear I disagree with you and Otto on certain aspects of categorisation. I'm certainly not that enamoured of arguments which seem to me to be, but we shouldn't do y, or we shouldn't do y because x might happen. Imagine if, when Larry Sanger proposed Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales replied, but we shouldn;t do that because it would just get continuously vandalised and bloat. All that said, I'm not especially sure as to how far our policies apply to category space. Hiding T 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here, but I'm honestly not sure where it lies.

Your response essentially seems to be one which states that you don't like WP:OC (which, I suppose, is a valid enough opinion - though one I disagree with for various reasons). Except that I'm not sure that's what you're trying to convey, and further, I'm not sure how that applies to what I was noting above.

So I guess, colour me confused : ) - jc37 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I predate OCAT. It's just something Radiant! wrote one day based on his experience of CFD, that grew legs. But I think we are talking across each other with different concepts of the perceived hypotheticals. I think the way to look at it would be that if you had enough material for an article on hunchback portayal in fiction, I'd be inclined to categorise Quasimodo in there, and likely Richard the III too, but not the other articles on hunchback characters which we have. So I'd be categorising by relevance to the concept established through reference to reliable sources rather than observation of the primary source. Another example; Watchmen could be categorised in a category on symmetry within fiction. But there is teh argument that the articles negate the need for a category, so who knows. Hiding T 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So do I. And he didn't just write it one day. There was quite a bit of prior consensus for the core of it, which had "grown legs", and was why the page began. If he hadn't written it, others (possibly even I) would have. I had already begun some preliminary discussions regarding several concepts. That said, I'm not sure if you said whether you disagree with it?

As for categories, I just mentioned to someone else what my opinion on categories is (which doesn't sound like it's far different than yours): Essentially, categories are a tool to help the encyclopedia. they shouldn't substitute for development of the encyclopedia. And in fact, the whole structure should be able to be entirely removed, and a fully useful encyclopedia should remain. Categories are a user interface, and should not be used solely for content. As such, to maximise their effectiveness, they should be should be focused in scope, and limited in breadth.

Therefore, I agree whole-heartedly that an article (or even a list) should exist on any topic. (Though not necessarily on every topic intersection.)

So, in your example, unless "X in fiction" is potential for an article, we probably shouldn't have a list. However, the problem is the "X". In most cases, there are a lot of fictional character pages. And if we suddenly flood the main cats with them, it greatly reduces navigability. So the automatic thing to do would be to "split" to a subcat. And that would be fine. However, we also run into the problem that we're talking about fictional characters, the grouping of which is rather often WP:OR. Having a character subcat which is related to the main topic, is not unlike when we have lists of "example" characters in an article. Sometimes it's appropriate, though often not. Who determines that a character is an example of the label being applied to them? We allow primary sources, but often characters are grouped based on an interpretation of setting, clothing, or action, which is rather clearly WP:OR.

For example, if the character is female, and uses "magic", should we automatically presume that the character is a witch? How about if another character calls that character a witch? Should we then presume that it's "true"? What if none of the characters presented (including the character being called a witch) know the circumstances of the magic use? Or if they don't know how the character accesses the magic use? (All I know is that if I say the magic word, I have magic powers, and when I say it again, I don't.") Does that make them a witch because they themself call themself one? How do we define a witch? Now look back over this section and see all the rife presumptions, interpretations, syntheses, and so on. Quite a few violations of the narrow rules for allowing primary sources.

And (as you've noted) that's the problem with most examples of categories which use "in-universe" information as a basis for inclusion criteria.

And as far as "hunchbacks" and such - did the author call the character that while using third-person omniscient voice? (Typically the voice of the author or narrator - presuming that that person isn't also an in-universe character: "Call me Ishmael"). Is there only one author, with a single vision, who is not likely to overturn basic concepts in the universe, and not likely to see such things overturned by another author later? If so, then maybe I might support category inclusion based upon the "in-universe" information. Else, any time we assign a "label" to a character, there must be sources to confirm it. (While noting that often those same sources don't have follow the rigor of having such sources themselves...) Otherwise, we simply shouldn't categorise the character.

Perhaps this better clarifies? - jc37 01:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat random: do you have access to material from findarticles.com? I found a review of the trade by The Nation from 1987 or so there, but I'm not a member so i can't read the entire thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm doing tons of work on the body of the article, feel free to take a stab at reworking the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading a WP:WAF and a bunch of articles on fiction, I've decided I am as confused as ever about how "in-universe" is too "in-universe" for Wikipedia. It's an important question, and one that some people work on every day; I rarely do. I'm sorry we haven't had anyone else jump in so far to help out with copyediting at WT:1C; we did get the word out. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your changes to that essay way back in January, which actually the way I've always thought of it, and what I usually mean when I say WP:TIND. Nice work! -- Kendrick7^talk 23:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on this would be welcome if you have the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&oldid=247883656 Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Hiding, I'm really happy to see you are still around and I really respect you for your recent post at WT:NOT. I was going to send you a message a while ago urging you to "do the right thing" and "make this right", but I didn't since I noticed you had not edited since October 8. You have done the right thing with your plea to remove PLOT from policy, and you have my respect.

When you contacted me in early July about my timeline of notability guidelines, I apologize for not replying on my talk page. I really appreciate the information you provided. I went 3 weeks without making an edit, and after that, just under 8 weeks without making an edit. I think it was a good thing for me to take some time off. When I came back though, I would look at various talk pages and it was like I had stumbled on some cult meeting.

I know you had the best intentions by adding PLOT to policy. I don't think you could have ever predicted you would create a religion in the process. Have you ever seen Life of Brian by chance, or is that a silly question? :) --Pixelface (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there are tag that can be used to note non-notable items on a list. There's a page on significant character changes on TV shows but any or every character change that has ever happened is being added. Now, personally, I can't remove them all because I don't know ever show in existence well enough to judge, so is there a way to note that you want some proof or confirmation that a specific addition is notable. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

I think the journal should be mentioned, explained why on the bottom of "Need a vote on the contents of Rorschach's Journal" on Talk:Watchmen. regards --Erlend Aakre (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had been involved in discussions prior to his Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clark-Kent.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) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiding, since you're the one who closed the straw poll at WP:WAF and noted that 16 people supported it, and since you added the guideline tag to WP:WAF, I am contacting you about a request for comment I've made about that pages's current designation as a guideline. If you could comment, I would appreciate it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what you think the chances of getting a page about Foamy the squirrel up on wikipedia is...in case you dont now what this is...[28] I think foamy is something that should be included on wikipedia. He is very well known, but not talked about in the media. If he cant have his own page, I was thinking about using him as an example on the webtoon page. Please let me know what you think. OverSeer (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Someone moved the band to this new title, I think without discussion, and I was trying to move it back (and create the necessary hatlinks), but appear to need an admin to move My Bloody Valentine (band) over the redirect at My Bloody Valentine. Would you have a moment to do that? Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)