User talk:Ntnon

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Star Trek (Gold Key Comics) Vol. 3 (Checker).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the input:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welllllllllllll where to start ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User:Ntnon/Batman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely right. Hence, relegate Harley! :oP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vertigo (DC Comics). For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And encyclopedias have to be held to even higher standards.

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

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

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

Well ... thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arthur Ranson[edit]

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

FIRST CREDIT IN 2000AD

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

Featuring: Orlok the Assassin

and:

FIRST CREDIT IN THE MEGAZINE

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

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

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

Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging from the noise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bojeffries[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia 0.7[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've probably seen this but it seemed relevant:

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

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

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

Hellblazer[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for that - it helped resolve things quickly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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