Misplaced Pages

• {{Riddler}} - started September 18
• {{Two-Face}} - started September 18
• {{Penguin (comics)}} - started September 22
• {{Mr. Freeze}} - started September 22

For reasons noted in the discussion directly above, these templates should be deleted.

(On the fence concerning Template:Catwoman, which should probably be a separate discussion.) - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as nominator. - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all. They serve insufficient navigational purpose relative to the potential precedent for clogging every villain's article with these boxes. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all (including Catwoman), however, is this being listed as a TfD? If so we might as well wait for that and do it properly. Have the creators been informed this is happening here? Has it been flagged on those templates? (Emperor (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

• Delete all per nom Anakinjmt (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Other templates

I ran across this today: {{NYX (comics)}} but don't know enough about the series to know if it is worthwhile. (Emperor (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Another one: {{WildCATs}} it is skimpy and I'm unsure if it is needed (all those links are covered just fine in the main article). See my suggestion below about asking people to propose making templates before they start them. (Emperor (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Referencing Who's Who and OHotMU

I know that actual content (images, etc.) from those is inappropriate due to previous concensus, but are they disallowed as primary/tertiary sources? - jc37 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context and content... My understanding is that the "Don't use" bar extends to quantification of powers. That is, we shouldn't be sourcing "Runs at speeds of X", "Can lift X", etc from them since these are fluid based on story, writer, and editor.

The same argument has been applied to the character history points that are only brought up in them. I'm a bit leery of that since all backstory elements are open to being ignored or retconned based on story needs or writer/editorial whim. If we're going for a "canon" history, then we're going to constantly be looking and asking "Does this point fit the characters most recent appearance?" of anything drawn from all primary sources.

All of that said, there are some items that could be worked into the articles if the sections were pulled out of an "in story" POV. Spider-Man's ability to stick to walls comes to mind. Marvel didn't really give an in-story explanation of how the power worked prior to 1985. They created a very detailed on for the OHOTMU which, IIRC, was never really repeated afterwards. When the first movie came out, the explanation changed. If the power section's tone were changed, then using the OHOTMU material could be incorporated, ie "Writers have described the mechanics of his 'wall crawling' as...".

- J Greb (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone ever manage to dig out the old discussion on this..? I think I remember asking last time round, and it not being easy to find... mind you, since I last asked about it, I've read the Hulk material in the Prelude to WWH TPB, and the power levels seem so utterly arbitrary as to definitely be pointless, because they simply don't make sense.

But, it would never have occurred to me to use the Official Handbooks and Who's Whos for that kind of information. So, under J Greb's extrapolations, can I reasonably assume that OH and WW are acceptable sources - just not for comparative drivel, speeds, weights and eye coloring..? Certainly the character history summaries are helpful summations, and do include "behind the scenes" information (as evidenced above). Plus, if 'canon' is ever to be discussed (and it probably shouldn't be, but...), the official histories can definitely help arbitrate. ntnon (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify:

• Power benchmarks should not be referenced from the Handbook or Who's Who any more than "Character X is faster/stronger/smarter than character Y" comparisons should be supported from the primary sources. The benchmarks are mutable to the needs of the story and whim of the writer.
• Character histories may have elements that were first, or only, mentioned in the Handbook or Who's Who. In writing an in-story POV history (read "plot summary"), the primary sources should be used as cites/refs over the Handbook or Who's Who.
• Canon is a deadly topic since it can change on an editorial whim ("Brand New Day" or Crisis). The material in the Handbook and Who's Who may be decades out of date and no longer "correct" based on current stories. That alone makes them suspect as a standard for "canon".
• At best, the Handbook or Who's Who can be used to cite attempts by the publishers to have characters fleshed out. That's real world context and should be presented in that manner. So, a minor character that got a large write up in one would have that reflected in their publication history — "Marvel highlighted the character in 1988 with a listing in they Handbook which added details to the character's origin and laid the ground work for his appearance in Whatever the following year." Or a power that they finally "explained" would either go into the PH or force the "Powers & abilities" section in to a real world formation.

- J Greb (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good explanations, J Greb; your last paragraph gives a good example of proper treatment. It's all a matter of resisting the urge to treat the Handbook as documenting what is "true" about the character. The Handbook is itself a work of fiction, which just uses the conceit of an encyclopedia format to feign factuality. Such entries are really just depictions of the characters no less than the narrative comic book stories. Postdlf (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ntnon asked about previous discussion - there is quite a bit on using images from the OHOTMU (which should remain verbotten) but here is the more general discussion when this has cropped up (oldest first - I can't guarantee it is comprehensive as I just scooped these up from the "what links to" page): , , , , , and . Enjoy.

I think J Greb sums it up well though: We don't want things like stats but there are times it could help verify something and there are sometimes clarifications of the status of characters (see e.g. the fifth link above which about the names of the Nasty Boys) - I have just been noddling on Black Knight (comics)-related areas and was unsure where to fit in the Black Knight construct and if the comments are right (that the OHTMU says it is the earliest in-universe appearance of Merlin) then that could be useful. I am also unure about the status of the Black Knight shown in the Otherworld Saga (which ran in Marvel UK's Hulk Comic) - it is currently mentioned under Black Knight (Dane Whitman) but I am unsure if it was explicitly stated (I am missing quite a few issues - although he is listed separately here) and I suspect if it is ever to be clarified it may have to be done outside of the comics, presumably in the OHOTMU. So it could have its uses although we should be careful. (Emperor (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Category:Marvel Comics serial killers

Umm... 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this category really exist? Seems like a potential CfD candidate to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I say place a {{popcat}} on it for expansion. Or are you folks thinking the cat is better off deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was made earlier today: Category:Marvel Comics serial killers. Haven't we already killed this or something similar (like Serial killers in comics)? (Emperor (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Can't say I remember. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The user even created a Category:Fictional security guards. I say we let this person know about these kinds of things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as a non-fictional security guard, I think a category recognizing significant appearances of my fictional brethren is really helpful.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a similar category that was deleted. This one should be deleted to. It's too hard to define what a serial killer is. Most villains have killed repeatedly, but they don't fit what we think of as a serial killer. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, it is overcategorization afterall. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like the "mass murderer" category that I keep seeing. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone besides me think that Category:Fictional virgins is downright ridiculous? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not least because of the lack of them... ntnon (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lose it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So can someone delete the following:

• Category:Marvel Comics serial killers
• Category:Fictional security guards
• Category:Fictional virgins
• Category:Fictional misanthropes

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominated them at CfD. Ford MF (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please everyone become more involved

• Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) - main section for us
• Category:AfD debates (Web or internet) - includes web comics/cartoons
• Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) - includes video games (comics/cartoon adaptations)

It's slowly beocming my experience that things are being nominated for deletion simply because someone has personally decided that the article(s) inquestion don't meet some personal demarcation line of "notability".

I've found accusations of WP:OR simply due to (often accurately) citing primary sources. Or claims that since they couldn't find anything but what they deemed to be "trivia" in their google search, the thing likely doesn't assert "notability".

As should be needless to say, this is really a problem.

For one thing, just because someone may not be writing online about something, doesn't mean that something is not worthy of inclusion.

The links at the top are the main ones, but there obviously are others which may be of interest.

Look at it this way, but joining in on these discussions, you can learn better how to write effective articles, if only by noting what others find problematic in articles. And also, these are great places to help edit to improve existing articles. (You will often receive great cheers for "saving" an article through development.)

So again, I implore everyone to please get involved in these discussions. - jc37 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also if you see anything relevant add it in here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation. (Emperor (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

It can be hard to find sources. I think Don Markstein's Toonopedia might be a reilable source that we can use. If it is, it would give us one of the two required sources for WP:NOTE for about 1400 articles! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd go with using the Toonopedia but the first priority would be be to use some of those resources to improve the main article because it could be the target of an AfD (ah the irony). (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

In contrast there are also articles that should be deleted but aren't because situations where most of the people speaking in the AfDs might be the primary editors of the articles in questions, and thus think the articles should stay. Either way, greater input in AfD discussions would be a positive thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to other areas - put the splits, merges, new articles areas of the noticeboard on your watchlist and throw in your opinion as it keeps things moving along and helps avoid results we have to go back and fix again (and this also relies on people listing things there). Some of the AfDs listed on the delsort have to be relisted from lack of input and I've had no interest in my split suggestion for Image Comics (despite flagging it here too - I'll just assume that means tacit support for it and go ahead and do it). (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Speaking of deletions

Speaking of deletions... 67.173.11.90 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-deleted and the editor warned. - jc37 08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish Comics

The Irish Comics Wiki needs contributors! --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethan Van Sciver

How is this guy's last name pronounced? Van Skeever? Sky-ver? Siver like the sci in science? I know how it should be pronounced in the original German, but his family might have Anglocized or otherwise Americanized it along the way. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As per the truant synonym, apparantly: Skive/er.. (or, yes "Sky-ver"). Are you adding pronunciation bits, or just curious..? ntnon (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worth adding pronunciation in if it isn't clear or they prefer something that isn't obvious (like Hyacinth Bucket). I find it helps when reading something and it could save someone from queuing for quarter of an hour only to walk away feeling like a proper bell end (not that it has even happened to me but it is the kind of thing I'd do given the opportunity). (Emperor (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Reply to Ntnon's question: For myself, I need to pronounce his name correctly when introducing him. For Misplaced Pages, it would be good to clarify the pronunciation when it' isn't clear. That way, Misplaced Pages can be a good source for the next person who needs to know how to pronounce it. What I hate is that I've been telling a family member that he's probably saying it wrong; if that article is right (thanks for that source!), he gets to nyah-nyah at me over it.Doczilla _STOMP! 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't do an Eddie Campbell whatever you do. He reportedly spent so long practising Bill Sienkiewicz's surname that when the time came to introduce him he blanked on his first name. ;) Hiding T 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Catiana and Set (serpent god) seem to have been moved without prior discussion? Just wondering what others thought about this. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The former might work if what they say in the edit summary is true (that she only used that name as a joke once in the first issue) but I don't read the series so... The latter is more mysterious, I suppose they might be right but it isn't a name mentioned anywhere in the article so I think that'd need some proof. (Emperor (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Interesting. Do we know which is the correct standard to be used for each? Any sources to point towards? 67.173.11.90 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no cast iron rule that can be applied to every case and things like that come down to the names they are best known as.

• With Catiana, if the editor is right in their summary "She only called herself Catiana as a joke, revealed in the final issue when she judges herself. Should she stick with it, then we revert" then it seems they are correct.
• Set (serpent god) is even trickier. The Appendix (which is usually pretty good on such things) gives Set's aliases as "Apep, Apocalypse, Father Set, the Great Serpent, Lotan, Leviathan, Ophion, Serpent God, Serpent Emperor of the Waters, Tiamat, Flood" so the actually name is up for grabs I suppose. However, the article makes it clear he is often called variations on Set the demon god which makes it clear we should be aiming for some kind of Set (X) name - serpent god doesn't seem unreasonable (Father Set seems like some kind of honorific like His Holiness the Pope). I doubt we are going to find a title that suits everyone. The only alternative to the one we have is "Set (Conan)." (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Set (Marvel Comics)? :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Set is originally a Robert E. Howard creation that found its way into the Marvel Universe through the Marvel adaptations of the Conan stories so I don't think that would be an acceptable solution - the redirect is there because Set eventually became a Marvel character but it isn't a reflection of the characters creation and early history. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't know about Set, but I can at least say definitively that Catiana should in fact have been moved to Tatiana Caban. Ford MF (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Emperor) which is why it was at Set (serpent god) in the first place, I imagine. Hmm, interesting. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although her was mentioned in a REH story, the article is about the comics version of set almost exclusively. Unless DC or someone has a Set, we should use Set (Comics), else use Set (Marvel Comics). Per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions it should be what's most recognizable to readers. Using Serpent God sounds like it would link to Set (mythology), although I guess he wasn't as snake like as I thought. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it working - it is a character who appeared first in fiction and later appeared in comics and I think we should avoid disambiguating with a class based on either medium. I still don't see what is wrong with Set (serpent god) - it is accurate and flexible, if for some reason that isn't acceptable then... "Set (character)" perhaps? (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

His only "appearance" in fiction as far as I can tell from the article was that Thoth-Amon was a follower of "the serpent god Set". I've read it, but not in a while. It sounds like Set doesn't appear in any REH books. It sounds like his first appearance is as a comic book villain unrelated to Conan. They then retconned the comic villain into a conan comic villain with the same name as mentioned in a REH book. It seems like he's a comics character all the way. Maybe Set did stuff the article doesn't mention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting that information from - he appeared in a Conan story (this was in the days of pulp fantasy/sci fi anthologies so a lot of stories appeared in that form first) and then was introduced into the Marvel Universe via the Conan comics: "The "god" was later extensively used in Marvel Comics' various Conan series starting in the 1970s." (Emperor (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Authors in comics categories

Is there any guideline about adding or removing authors from categories about their main works? E.g. Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel are not placed in any Superman related categories, meaning that when going through the Superman categories, you will not find their main creators (they are in the navbox, so it's not like people reading about Superman will not find them, but still...). Similarly, Edgar P. Jacobs is not in the Category:Blake and Mortimer. On the other hand, Bob Kane is in the Category:Batman and Hergé is in the Category:Tintin. I would support having main authors in either the main category for their creations, or in a dedicated subcategory (Superman authors or whatvere you would prefer), but some consistency would be good, and I'll rather not start adding lots of authors to categories only to hear afterwards that they should all be removed. Fram (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bone of contention, but there's nothing concrete in writing. I would prefer to have the main authors listed in the categories, certainly the creators, but other people feel that isn't what categories are for, and that the article or a navbox should suffice. It's complicated. You get into questions as to which creators should be listed, and why, and what the category structure is ultimately for. Hiding T 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

The consensus that came out of multiple CfDs was to not categorize "preformers by preformance" or "by employer" since the general trend for both is that there will be multiple categories attached to the bio articles. This leads to clutter in the category sections. This has gotten a broad interpritation, so categories like "Batman writers" and "Action Comics artists" are non-starters.

Hergé is a good example of an exception — it's unlikely that he'll be catted outside of Tintin, or that others will be included there. Kane, Shuster, and Segel could be seen as pushing it. Their inclusion can be seen as opening up the Batman and Superman categories to the inclusion of other writers and artists. And look at Stan Lee and Jack Kirby for examples of just how many categories could wind up being added to the bio articles (count the navboxes).

- J Greb (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So basically only add it if the series is a major aspect of someone's life and series and author are closely associated with each other? It's basically what I had in mind, to add Jacobs to Blake and Mortimer but not to Tintin (he collaborated on it, so it would not be too farfetched, but they are not a major aspect of one another). Fram (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to support the inclusion of important people in categories - a good guide for companies might be seeing who is in the founder or important people fields. I think it would be odd having a Marvel category without Stan Lee but think it would be distintly pushing it to include Bendis. (Emperor (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Comics characters debut-year categories

A recent talk I had with User:Sesshomaru has had me questioning the way I've been adding these categories, so I thought I'd open up a question to other members of the project and see what they think.

Multiple-character entries

This is especially pertinent with DC Comics, which has so many legacy characters that re-use the same names over and over again, and for which we often combine into one entry for simplicity's sake and because they share histories. Take for example Bulletman and Bulletgirl. He debuted in 1940, she, the year after, in 1941. Solution 1 is to merely add both 1940 and 1941 debut categories to the same article. This is what I've been doing. I think the potential for confusion here is low, although it exists. The bonus to this solution is that it is simple and uncomplicated and requires no work other than the addition of the category to the article. The problem with this solution is that it is somewhat vague and unspecific. Solution 2 (which I think Sesshomaru leaned towards) is to add, in this case, the redirects Bulletman and Bulletgirl to the categories instead. This seems like not a terrible solution (in this case), but can potentially get very messy with, for example, characters like Clayface, which would require several new redirects to be created (e.g. Clayface (Basil Karlo)) to add to the category. (Basil Karlo is already a redirect, but if you saw that in a category with no context, who the hell would know who that was?) This solution is very specific, but means these categories would be filled with an uncommonly high percentage of redirects instead of actual articles. And the redirects would just send you to the same article you would have wound up at in the first place, with the same ultimate problem of having to read the entry to figure out which debut was meant.

Also--and I think this is the reason that puts the nail in the coffin of this solution--if the categories were on the redirects it would prevent access to the categories to people actually at the article. No good.

I, obviously, think solution 1 is the wiser course, but I don't think it's impossible to argue in favor of the second option, or an option I had not previously imagined.

I suppose I'd tend towards the first option if it was just this issue, as the infobox/PH would quickly clarify who it refers to but there are other issues where you have a range of characters with their own categories. See e.g. Electro (comics) which has fictional robots and fictional communists, Timely Comics characters, etc. and you'd have to read through the article carefully to find out which is being referred to. I think we should consider such articles as if they were something like Ant Man, all of which have their own articles so the main article is kept stripped down (with an alias infobox rather than the full comic character one). In which case you could flag the categories that apply to the overall character (so the first appearance of the name for example) and establish redirects which could then hold the specific categories. So the article would still be categorised but with a more stripped down set of categories. The fact that you can categorise redirects is often overlooked but it is a useful tool that could help refine some of the categorisation. (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Some thoughts...

I can see the positive to the redirect solution, but it really is just a half step. So id just linking the articles with multiple versions. Ideally both would have the links. Using Clayface as an example:

• The article would be catted into 1940, 1961, 1978, 1987, and 2003
• Clayface {Basil Karlo} would cat to 1940 and point to the Basil Karlo section
• Clayface {Matt Hagen} would cat to 1961 and point to the Matt Hagen section
• Clayface {Preston Payne} would cat to 1978 and point to the Preston Payne section
• Clayface {Sondra Fuller} would cat to 1987 and point to the Sondra Fuller section
• Clayface {Johnny Williams} would cat to 1940 and point to the Johnny Williams section

It may wind up with a few double appearances in the cats, but it allows the best functionality. And the sorting should wind up with the redirect under the article.

And as Emperor points out, is a character is split off into its own article, the cat should be removed from the "hub" article, so articles like Atom (comics) would have some but not all and those like Huntress (comic) would have none, or at best one.

- J Greb (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting approach, and even though it creates some extra steps, it probably is the best fix from a functionality standpoint. Ford MF (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good example - it shows how it can be very handy for two characters of the same name in one year. It also makes linking much simpler and when linking to sections it makes it easier to update the single redirect rather than trying to hunt down links (worth placing a comment in the section too so that editors know they should update the redirect and that there is a redirect they can use). Also remember it is worth adding a redirect reason (I have a little list of the common ones I use) so in the case above you might also add {{R to section}}.

This could also be used for different series (handy if they are in different formats - graphic novels, one-shots, limited series, ongoing) although we'd need to come up with a system for the naming (based on films or TV series going by the starting year: "Justice League of America (1987 comics" or something similar. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Debateable first appearances

And what about those rare characters who are mentioned before they're actually in the comic? Take, for example, Foxglove (DC Comics), who is spoken of as early as 1989, but isn't on-panel until 1991. In this case I'm inclined to take "first appearance" to literally mean just that: the first time the character is, in some sense "there", that is, present in some way on panel. (I don't want to say "the first time we see the character" because this could trip up in the case characters normally invisible, or, say, cosmic entities that don't ordinarily or at first have physical form.

So...thoughts? Ford MF (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have to go with actual appearance as just being mentioned in the text could be vague and open to interpretation - I suppose some first appearances might (for example if they appeared in the background in a scene) but they will be rare and is something you could either find a source on or thrash out on the talk page and come to a consensus. As in the foxglove article it is worth flagging this issue in place that allow more flexibility. (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I tend to agree with that... and care should be take with "behind the scenes" comments from annotators or writers.

There are also two other categories that will cause problems:

• Last page/one panel cameos
• Obscured appearances

Personally, I take the last page cameos as the "first appearance", period. That's when the character is first revealed or "put into play".

The other though is harder. Some characters are presented as "teasers" leading up to the reveal — only a shoulder or hand shown, always in shadows, only a voice over a phone, and so on. More often than not, I'd say those "count" when trying to pin down the first appearance, but there's always the "How do we know that really was the character?" hanging over them.

- J Greb (talk)

I asked for comments on a related/identical issue here a little while ago, but it got sidelined because I was also asking about the multiverses... Simply: some characters "debuted" in comics that were not printed, distributed or generally ever seen - so should those count? Does the proto-Captain Marvel (which alternate name, secret identity, etc.) from Whiz #1 - which barely exists anyway - matter? Does Motion Picture Funnies Weekly "count" for Namor? Surely not. ntnon (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 0.7

Hey there! :) It's not too late to put some work into discussing getting things done for the Misplaced Pages 0.7 release. Check out the articles that have been selected so far from the comics project. BOZ (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Come join the fun - you know you want to. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm - good article?

Hey, I was wondering... on the talk page for Storm (Marvel Comics), it is listed as an A-class article for the comics project, fine. However, there is also a note about it being a GA for Language and literature - so, should we have it rated as an A or a GA? BOZ (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well A is better than GA but I am not 100% sure if the A class review has been done properly and I think someone who is more experienced in these should look it over. It went for FA but failed and it seems some of the comments have been taken on board it is just the actual review process that I am unsure about.

Seems it could be one that could be polished up to FA standard fairly easily though - might be worth another shot. (Emperor (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm always confused on that one - so A is better than GA, or the other way around? :) I'm have other plans, as mentioned here, but yeah getting more FAs would also be nice for our project. 10 is good, but we have plenty of potential for more! :) BOZ (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A-class is above GA class. Speaking of more comics FAs, if when I'm done with the Watchmen FAR anyone wants to work on The Dark Knight Returns, I'm game. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Great - the more, the merrier. :) I'm going to try to get as many comics articles up to GA as I can manage, and we can work on getting more to FA from the other end. BOZ (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you (Wesley) put up with me helping out again..?! ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Superman's dad is dead...again"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/08/supermans.dad.ap/index.html

Just thought this would be amusing to the project members, and helpful to trot out in the next inevitable debate about why fictional deaths should not be categorized or why "canon" is ephemeral. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man Bibliographies

According to one of article's talk pages, the issue has come up before, but unfortunately there is no link to the discussion. So, do we really need both a List of Spider-Man comics and a Bibliography of Spider-Man titles? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

These cover the exact same ground, and have probably 90% the same text; someone should do a careful merge. I would expect list of Spider-Man comics is the preferred title? Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

James Robinson (comics)

An editor has removed the personal information from James Robinson (comics) claiming to be James Robinson (although confusingly using the user name Terrysloan) the first one being reverted by another SPA named Robinsonfamily. For example: . Note also that other WP:BLP-violating material was added earlier by an anon IP which was removed (they also corrected some other details which might be treated as suspect too).

I have dropped them a note on their talk page (although I'd appreciate someone double checking to make sure I've covered the bases) and while it is being sorted out what is really needed are more eyes on the page to make sure the version is kept to the one that lacks the personal details until this is resolved. (Emperor (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Proposed renaming of indie comics categories

See Categories for discussion entries here, pertaining to Category:Indie comic characters, Category:Indie comic creators, and Category:Indie comics. Postdlf (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A new way forward

• List of Batman Family enemies

There are several such lists. The problem is that while we can use the primary sources to determine that the characters were adversaries to the hero(es) in question, in most cases, we can't use primary sources to determine "main", "major", or "minor", as that would be WP:OR.

And so splitting the lists of adversaries up by any of those three terms would also be WP:OR.

We need to find another way to present these characters.

Appearance in only one comic or even one story arc? But what if we consider the lifespan of the Bat-universe a single over-reaching story arc?

One thing is clearm however, the constant editorial reversions for which editor has what preference to whether their favourite character may be a main, major, or minor "villain", needs to stop.

And I think that the fault is ours for not nipping this presentation issue in the bud.

So right now, I'm looking for "outside the box" ideas and suggestions for how to present these lists. - jc37 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Incidentally, this is the edit where I split the list from its related article. Over time the article has apparently been shredded, to the point that it was redirected to the list. (How's that for irony? : ) - jc37 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short observations:

• I agree, the constant "my fave" shuffling in the list articles and navboxes and any where a list of characters happens to be needs to stop. the same with "padding" the navboxes and "examples" lists.
• If we are going to go with "major", the sourcing should avoid both the "poll driven" and "fan pandering" lists.
• The same goes for "fundamental", "primary" and/or "pivotal".
• "Recurring" and "one-shot" have inherent problems: There will be movement out of the "one-shot" list and it can wind up including "pivotal" foes — Spider-Man's Burglar for example.
• Sorting also needs to be set, either alphabetical or chronological. Both remove the POV arguments, though they may be hard sells...

- J Greb (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside the box solutions? Delete the lists (with a transwiki to the relevant Wikia entries)? Important foes will be mentioned in the relevant articles but these lists have unclear inclusion criteria: Do we include every enemy from every Bat comic? What about the ones who pop up fighting various heroes and have happened to cross paths with one of the Batman family? How few appearances count? There have been numerous Bat Family titles running in parallel for decades and often had a new villain pop up never to appear again and to try and include all of them is the road to madness. So there appear to be two criteria at work: exclusively Batman and number of appearances but I am unsure how strictly these are being applied.

Let's look at Flash: His Rogues (comics) are a reasonably well-defined "group" but List of Flash enemies seems to be... some others.

I'm sure I could dig out my Bat comics and find some villain in there who isn't on the list and I'm not clear why we include those we have and not some other enemy.

I'm not saying we should but it is an option to put on the table. (Emperor (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Sort lists alphabetically chronologically, that way you are establishing a narrative. How to split the list is a little more problematic. My first thought is to use summary style, but that may be hard to implement. Basically, you have a top level list which summarises foes for which a number of sources exists, in chronological order. This list is supported by a further alphabetical list of all foes. Basically we then just need to keep tabs that any given foes entry is given its due weight. And if there is no name in the comic, then there's no list entry, so someone who snapped the aerial on the Batmobile isn;t counted. Someone who stole the tyres from the Batmobile is a little more interesting... Of course, to open a can of worms, define "foe". Batman versus Superman? But then with a good lead to the list, you'd explicitly state that: while superheroes are often pitted against each other, the purpose of this list is to... and footnote entries like Azrael or Anarky if we include them. Hiding T 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should think about listifying based upon a publication rather than by protagonist? So List of characters appearing in Detective Comics?

Or the broader: List of characters appearing in Batman Family-related comics.

The problem is that several characters (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) have been the main protagonist in a lot of titles. How do we say that concisely in a list name? (In order to prevent multiple mostly duplicative lists of characters - between Batman, and Detective Comics, for example.) - jc37 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another option might be to take a page from Dick Tracy. As Emperor notes above, The Flash has a "Rogues gallery". So do several other heores.

The problem becomes, obviously, defining the rogues gallery for each character, without straying into WP:OR. - jc37 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine something official has defined the rogues (see discussion above for things like the OHTMU) and googling Batman and rogues I see there has been a Batman Rogues action figure line so somewhere someone must have a list. There is a list at UGO and that is pretty much the list I'd come up with for Batman's rogue. Worth noting that the DC Database Project page is better than the one we have (IMHO naturally) and if we could trim it down to just the Rogues I'd not have a problem with linking on to that if people want more. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Why is this still an issue? The shuffling a while back into 'mob', 'vital' 'semi-important' and 'other' (not the best terms, probably not the used terms, but effectively the correct terms) should have put this to rest. There will always be people pushing their favorites and making the case for moving up, down and sideways, but... so what? There's always well-meaning innacuracies put all over the place; Points of view pushed with or without tangible logic; rampant vandalism and stupidity. That's (unfortunately) what happens.

The template should have been locked down ages ago. It's not original research; it's common sense. It's obvious. The only slight bones of contention are whether Bane, Harley, Croc, Hatter and Clayface have any business approaching Joker, Catwoman, Screcrow, Riddler, Two-Face, Penguin, Ivy, Ra's and Freeze. And the ultimate answer is: no. Those nine are known by everyone - comics fans, TV fans, film-fans, (some) non-comics fans. Joker and Catwoman streets ahead. Ivy, Ra's and Freeze pulling up the rear. Catwoman is a foe (and sometimes a friend/antihero/hero). Azrael isn't Batman, and BETTY KANE (Batgirl) HAS NEVER BEEN FLAMEBIRD! They're two different iterations. Fix it up; lock it down. End of problem.

If other editors want to complain and argue for, say, Black Mask, they're welcome to - here, or on the discussion page of the Template. Any consensus can see an admin-person unlock, add and re-lock. Is that not reasonable...? With very few exceptions, I don't see that most people have any business editing the templates - the pages are fair game, but (most) templates shouldn't change much, or have new sources shed new light on things, or be seriously lacking in any areas.

...and that's only very slightly a sarcastic suggestion. ;o)

As for the villains page - chronological or alphabetical might seem sensible, but are actually going to cause horrendous difficulties. For chronological, you'll be left with a list wherein you won't be able to find anyone unless you know their date of orign - or unless each has a separate section, and then the navigation box will allow them to be found more easily (barely). That would be unworkable, because the page would be impossibly cramped. In order to find the 'main' villains/foes (and they are the MAIN villains/foes), they'd need to be bolded or underlined - and that would put it back in the same situation of OR accusations.

Alphabetical is even less workable. THE RIDDLER - R, (t), N or E? TWEEDLEDUM & TWEEDLEDEE - T or D? KILLER CROC - K, C, W or J? And whichever you pick, you'll need: a) Exceptions, and b) A lengthy explanation of how it might possibly be possible to find whomever you're looking for. Now, even the recent Batman Encyclopedia ran into this problem: TALIA was not under "T". Neither was she under "A"(Al Ghul) or "G"(Al Ghul). She was under "H". For "Talia Head". Ridiculous. And without even any notes or redirects... (Incidentally, the template is fouled up alphabetically-wise for the "supporting" folk - a bizarre hybrid of forenames and surnames combining to make the order seem, perhaps, importance-related. And even then, highly dubious...)

(And based on publication would be an entirely different kind of farce - debut or most appearances? Most appearances in 'real time' or in flashback/insertion? Weighted publications, with Batman and Detective vying for precedence while Legends of the Dark Knight and Batman: Confidential appearances play second string? Unworkable.)

I did piece together a complex algorithm for calculating notability, but it didn't go anywhere, and is probably open to as many challenges as the pages themselves. But it's not really difficult: longevity; cross-media (comic, TV, film.... (cartoons)) appearances; total appearances; key roles in major stories; 3rd party lists and references. Surprise, surprise you wind up with the main nine; a quandry over whether Clayface and the Hatter are high enough above the rest to move up, a major headache with Harley, and very few other issues.

Also, ultimately - it doesn't matter that much. These pages serve a particular purpose - and the page as is does serve that purpose admirably, being basically a hybrid of what's been suggested be done to improve it. That people push their favorite or disagree is only natural - and in some cases admirable. But challenges of bias or original research should not detract from the FACT that there are "MAIN" villains/foes for Batman, and their names are known. There are "Minor" villains/foes (and, in most senses, of course, their names are lesser known). Everyone else is in limbo between the two. Three tiers. Very little contest over who goes where. No originality of thought involved, just basic common sense. ntnon (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A few things in there make some sense...

I'm a fair way from being sold, but there is a good start for arguing that the navboxes should be treated as some heavily contentious article space templates and locked. But such a step should be taken either when the templates are stable or a stable version is fairly obvious. Batman is close to that, but there are still sticking points. And frankly, it sets up the admins as arbiters for inclusion, and that could kick off uglier arguments.

As for the lists... I honestly think that for the "bigger" names should have secondary sources that point to "pivotal" foes. Those cites should be used to point to splitting out of the "wheat from the chaff". Lacking either such a source, or a desire of editors to find one, the enemies do get run into one long list.

Chronological order... Yes, there is the problem of finding characters in a list article using this. There is also a couple of other problems: "Legacy" characters (Clayfaces) and the potiential of "post-Event-reboot" versions (Catwoman). Alphabetic eliminates this problem. Again, it has its limitation since the context of who entered the series when isn't obvious. But then I'd prefer to have to work that out rather than hunt for a character in the list.

As for "How do you alphabetize them?" — in the simplest way possible: Treat the names as titles, period.

- J Greb (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies. The others are Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."

ntnon - most of your comments though would seem to suggest that we should employ WP:OR. As J Greb notes, we really should shy from any of us being arbiters of inclusion. The criteria is already laid out for us. We should be relying heavily on verifiable reliable sources, not what each of us (even if it's by consensus) may decide is "true". I've transcluded the quote from WP:V above, for reference. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So anyway, as far as the supporting characters (and other types of information related to fictional characters) are concerned, it would seem that we all agree that we should follow/apply Misplaced Pages policy and require sources for determination of sections/terms like: "main", "major", "minor", "fundamental", "primary", "secondary", "pivotal", and other words on this list. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Although I do have fundamental points of disagreement regarding what can be constituted OR, why it is inherently bad, how far things can/should be demonised/deleted/{{fact}}ed/etc. I disagree with some of the guidelines and definitions of tolerable, reasonable and 'good' sources. I mistrust the occasionally petty-minded diligence with which the spirit of some guidelines is ignored in favour of personal intreptation of the "letter of the law". However, that said and out of the way, I'm not pushing for original research. If anything, I'm counselling a hardline of using sources! Check the Template Talk page for Batman - I dug out some printed sources which point to five/six "main," "major" and "crucially important" Bat-villains. (Almost) every other source is a vague list, which are based on polls, questions and original research - and to allow, say, a Channel 4 poll of idiots "the general public" but to disallow a poll of comics-bloggers; to OK the New York Times espousing comic-speak but to ignore the comic-geeks; to think that a list of 100 Fictional Villains is inherently less biased than an open shows a narrow-minded interpretation of what can be classed reasonable sources. The lines of logic ("if it's cited, it's OK, until then it's spurious...") over what is an allowable source are garbled in the extreme. BUT. They're there, they're guidelines (guidelines, not laws) to be worked with. So, logic dicates that Killer Croc be dropped. Mad Hatter and Clayface. Harley, Man-Bat, and...

Relying on an interpretation of the guidelines at WP:V, one can read much into this line:

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."

So who is challenging that the Joker is the main villain? That Catwoman, the Penguin, the Riddler, Two-Face and the Scarecrow are palpably obviously next in line? Even if there weren't sound sources saying this, it's unchallengable by any logical degree. The next few may be challenged - and, because of the nature of most lists, sources will be VERY thin on the ground for anyone beyond those six. It's not OR, though, to point out that those six feature in the films. That all-bar the Scarecrow were in the first wave of films. That all-bar the Scarecrow and Two-Face were in the TV series. Similarly, it's not original thought or personal inpretation to say that, after Joker, Catwoman and Penguin; Riddler and Two-Face, the powers-that-be - the suits, producers, executives, polls, canvassing, scriptwriters and film-makers - settled on Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy for the generally-despised, but hyped and confident Batman and Robin.

There's no personal preference involved in pointing out that it is the films that most older "normal" people think of when thinking of Batman, or sometimes the TV series. There's no original straw-poll that notes that Ra's and the Scarecrow and Two-Face and the Joker were the villains chosen to relaunch the film series. There is considerable debate over how much stock and credit to give to the cartoons. Award-winning, but not culture-permeating; popular, but larger among comics fans and animation-buffs.

I've rambled; it's late. But hopefully there's another kernal of mild common sense hidden somewhere above... ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Navbox poll

One thing that I think we should also (somewhat) take into consideration is that every time one of our higher used templates in edited it now does affect Misplaced Pages performance. The job queue has been staying fairly high lately. And our use of article templates would seem to be rather prolific.

Should we (at least) semi-protect protagonist-related navboxes, in order to help facilitate talk page discussion concerning sources for inclusion? (As an option, full protection by navbox section can be done through sub-page transclusion.)

See Template:Batman and Template talk:Batman for some lengthy discussion, and some possible solutions, including the usage of a /doc page. (And also see User:J Greb/Docs, which is a rough draft for some basic information to be included in all such /docs.)

I personally like the /doc page idea. It helps prevent bite, and should help provide well-meaning/enthusiastic editors some quick guidance for inclusion (since the talk page is often not seen prior to editing/reversion).

Whatever we do, we really need to find positive ways to "help" our editors use talk page discussion more, and edit-warring less. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support general semi-protection of such templates, full protection as necessary, and especially the usage of /doc pages. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I think we should aim for most of these to remain stable barring page moves, new things coming out, etc. - mainly to avoid advance dicking around with them. Could I make a supplementary suggestion? People should propose the creation of any nvaboxes footers. It doesn't have to be overly formal - just post a note here with an idea of the size and scope (possibly knock one up in your sandbox?) and see what the consensus is. There seems to have been an awful lot of these popping up (usually depending on the editor's enthusiasm rather than any need) and this would help put a brake on this. (Emperor (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Disruption question

So the next question is: What do we do when faced with a (presumably) well-meaning editor who is consistantly adding names to such sections without sources. It (by definition) effectively makes them a POV pusher.

I shy away from blocking, but if they repeatedly ignore requests to "take it to the talk page", or "please do not re-add without a reference", should they be blocked? And further, what about situations where those requesting that they "take it to the talk page", are also reverting?

We've had several contentions of late concerning whether admins (and others) are "involved" in the discussions, even if all they were doing was reverting, and suggesting talk page discussion, per WP:BRD. Though Civility was abundant, and I think that the issues have now been (mostly) resolved, it was only through lengthy discussion, and pride/feeling apparently have been hurt, with editor congeniality strained. Yes, some of that is unavoidable, but I'm wondering if we should have a quick-list page here at the comics-project, to help lessen some of the bite, to even some not-so-new editors? Something that isn't massively long, but something that we could link to on a talk page to help guide well-meaning editors.

So I guess I'm asking several questions:

• At what point do we feel that editors should be blocked? Or rather, how egregious do we define POV pushing on something like the placing of the names (or other information) of fictional characters? Including the usage of terms or suections which use these terms?
• Should we create a bullet-point "quick guidance" page for such incidents? (And do we have something like that already?)

In my opinion this is rather important and I especially would like to hear from all the Project's admins on this, since we have the ability to act upon this by blocking, or page protection, among other things (such as "closing" talk page discussions). - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We should require a reference for each villain included. Here's one for the top 30 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before (and I'm pretty sure we have done it before) but I think we can define boundaries to force recalcitrant editors into engaging with others. If they constantly try and force their view on the page then it moves beyond WP:BRD and is infringing WP:CONSENSUS and must be pushing on WP:OWN. We have had cases where neither side would talk to the other which leads to pages being protected to force them to discuss this on the talk page, which seems rather a crude tool. We should be able to say "If you keep trying to force your preferred version into the article and not addressing concerns on the talk page you will be violating WP:CONSENSUS - please read WP:BRD. Further editing of X on these lines will lead to you being blocked for 24 hours." I'd much rather we forced editors to discuss this with such a warning rather than having to actual protect that page (which ended up in even more a mess last time we did this and ended making the situation even more convoluted, as well as obviously causing problems for ordinary editors who just want to try and get on with actually improving the article, rather than arguing over the wording or content of some specific section)

The key though is that this has to done by an uninvolved editor and if the complaining party hasn't made any actual efforts to sort this out themselves then they should be made aware of the fact that this can cut both ways. (Emperor (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Have I misunderstood the topic of this section? My reply to the original post seems to have no connection with anyone else's and I fear I have got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry about that if I have. I'll have a read through later and try and find out where I went wrong. (Emperor (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Short ones...

• "Pivotal" is something that should crop up in critical commentary, secondary source material. Lacking that, the only other criteria would be "recognizable".
• "Recognizable" can be something that is either arrived at by consensus, through secondary sources, or polls of JQ Public. The last might make a fans skin crawl, but remember the articles are aimed at JQ, not the converted.
• Batman honestly breaks down to 4 primary, recognizable villains (Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, any order) about a dozen "secondaries" (that list varies depending on who you talk to, what you're looking at, and your particular "faves"), and a few score of those that the "converted" can rattle off. Superman is the same, as is Spider-Man, Cap, and so on.
• List articles may very well need to just go to straight lists. From there it may be possible on a case by case basis, to sell a built consensus for a "highlight" group.
• Navboxes... I'm more of a mind to say "If someone honestly thinks Jerry shouldn't be in the 'box, pull the character and give it an airing on the talk page." Yes, that means coming down on pointy arguments of "If Jerry can't be there, pull 'em all."

One last though... and if I catch up on the end of FairBots images tags I'll try to cobble up an example... it is possible to rework a template like {{Batman}} into a "targeted" format. That way the one template would have say, a generic, a "foes" content, and a "protagonist cast" content versions. - J Greb (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics supporting characters categories nominated for merging

Category:DC Comics supporting characters and Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters; see CFD here. Postdlf (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Note that we have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board#Deletion_discussions. (I'll freely admit to being lax lately about adding.) - jc37 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statistics Issue

There's been a discussion going on for a while over at the Powers and abilities of the Hulk page regarding the use of statistics. A few months ago, and later a few weeks ago, I removed stats taken from an old Marvel RPG from the article and User:David A is obviously an advocate of them. I believe he is the one the posted them to begin with. His most recent post on the article's discussion page suggests that he's trying to play word games with the policy. statistics rule He's trying to claim that since the rule uses the word "discourage" rather than "forbidden" that it should be circumvented. I know that nothing is set in stone here, but it seems to me that the project obviously doesn't want them included, otherwise that particular rule wouldn't exist in the first place. Now, while he hasn't placed any of the stats into the article yet, I just have a feeling that it's a matter of time before he does. I can't say for certain that he will or if he's just trying to make a point. However, he strikes me as an editor that wants things the way he wants them regardless of policy or consensus. Maybe I'm being too rough on the guy but I've tried reasoning with him but his responses tend to become these excrutiatingly long rants about whatever he thinks is wrong with Misplaced Pages.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

....why is there a "powers and abilities" page? That surely flies in the face of the guidance against using statistics and 'facts' and the like. However, if it serves a valid purpose, then surely that is one of the few cases where RPG and OHOTMU stats should actually have a viable home. Perhaps. ntnon (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer? I believe it was to get the edit warring over a major "fansite"-esque section moved away from the main article. It worked to a degree, but... - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the discussion on the wording of those guidelines (as far as I can recall anyway) and my interpretation is that we shouldn't use them. The reason it doesn't say "forbidden" is that there may some unforeseen exception to this that wasn't envisioned when those guidelines were drawn up so I assume they didn't want to hinder legitimate use if someone ever came up with one. I don't see this being an exception an they shouldn't be used here.

Powers and abilities are a real pain as they are kind of assumed to be common knowledge so are unreferenced but adding in stats isn't the answer. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

That page shouldn't exist - it's a really long winded way of saying "the hulk is really strong and hard to kill" supported by cherry-picking the examples that support that reading. Should be merged. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)