User talk:Emperor/Archive 2007

1718:

Knowledge isn't a formal bureaucracy that operates by precedent. Sorry to keep dragging this on every time I say I'm done, but I think it's better to clear that misconception up. I think pretty much everything has been tried on Knowledge. If you want a huge discussion about how WP:FICT is meant to work, there was a massive one regarding Pokemon years back which pretty much established what I proposed. I'm sorry you don't see them, but as I have asserted, there is one. It is far easier to demonstrate in such an article that 2000AD has reacted to cultural shifts and commissioned strips accordingly than it is to say in each strip, this is 2000AD doing the X-Files. You can source it better and you don't end up being repetitive and bordering on original research. I think if there wasn't a theme running through this, you wouldn't even be able to mention all the strips in the 2000AD article. Perhaps you reject this as a theme, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, nor that it can't be commented upon. My exception to the Hellboy comment was where you suggested merging everything back to Hellboy, which I thought was taking everything to a logical extreme and wasn't something I was interested in debating. As to the issues, I don't really know which way Knowledge is going to pull in the next few years, but I think there is a real possibility it pulls behind the four content policies,

1703:

know. I don't know how things are eventually going to shake down, but to me it makes sense to circle the wagons, work out the best way to tackle the problems and move from there. At the minute I'm just looking at a lot of stubby articles on strips which have appeared in 2000AD, none of which have sources, and which to me are better suited being merged. Our guidance on stubs presents that as a good method for dealing with stubs, and I don't really want to get bogged down into the technical aspects of what our policies do and don't say. I'd rather just work out what's the best way to present information to the reader. But like I said, there's not really any point me performing such a merge if it's going to step on people's toes. I can't see any value in taking this any further, since you seem to be rejecting my approach entirely. I can't work out if that's because I'm not explaining myself very well, which I hope it is because I don't see that my approach is so unworkable, or that you do understand and simply disagree. I can't see why you would be proposing a merge back into Hellboy if you were getting my gist, but then I'm not sure if you're taking it to an ultimate extreme to demonstrate a point. If it's all the same to you, like I suggested above, we just consider this done for now, and maybe when I get in a position of working up what I mean in a sandbox, we can revisit.

1249:

information is redundant under Wiki not being a list. However, by adding the miniature models, the articles on rules from white dwarf, the added rpg stats provided by Black Library, and the tie in articles between the miniatures game and the stories, you create a page that isn't redundant and it makes sure that the pages whose topic is the book is not cluttered with tie ins between the book and the games. Only official armies and official canon miniatures are allowed to have either an army page or be on an established army page. While they are "official" rules, they are limited edition/discontinued models and do not count as canon to be put on those pages.

7734:. I don't have time to undo them, so if you can find the time it would be appreciated if it's something you feel you can do. From my point of view I don't think the articles meet current consensus, and I'd gladly take them to afd, but I think at some point there's merit in the information and it can be used somewhere. I'd rather have it around than deleted, but I'm not interested in getting caught up in discussions across ten or twenty pages. The consensus was established, to my mind, in four key policy and guideline pages as to what we expect from Knowledge articles. It seems I've misread that consensus. Good luck with the admin run, 6393:

and a Google search or something similar indicates at first glance that there is indeed no notability for these articles, then a speedy, ProD or AfD can immediately be placed on the article. We don't have to wait a few months before we delet articles on obscure webcomics, that only encourages more people to make an article for their webcomic with 50 readers since its creation 1 week ago (a bit ecaggerated, but we have such articles). Of course, when a webcomic could make claims to notabiltiy, or it is unclear from a Google search if it is notable or not, then a "notability" tag is the way to go, as was done on e.g.

1684:

appeared in 2000AD. I mean, it's quite a lumpy association that you write a book on comics produced in Britain or by British creators, but Gravett wrote a book on it. In fact it isn't as lumpy as you claim. All strips have been chosen to run in the magazine, they are indicative of editorial fiat and of market pressures. For me it's far easier to build an article with that theme than to build smaller articles on individual strips, attempting to discuss editorial and publishing details given the paucity of information available. And if it was that odd an association, we wouldn't have a

7776:

another article period? Because I'm not suggesting the former as the ultimate solution, nor am I using it as such. I'm simply using it as a clean up tool. As you can see, I've categorised all the articles, and the intent was, once all the articles had been identified, to start the work of merging and transwiking and so on. I figured doing it this way would, whilst being problematic, avoid certain other problems. It'd help me if you let me know why you think I'm proposing this as an ultimate solution, so I don't hit this problem again.

7839:, and add all the articles I would have redirected to that page, so that we can centralise efforts and discussion and build a consensus on what best to do, working out whether to merge or redirect, where to merge to and scope out similar articles and group them together. It's worth bearing in mind we have 4000 unassessed articles, based on what I've done now, it could be a quarter of them are naff, a quarter need merging to lists, a quarter need cleanup and a quarter need merging somewhere. Any thoughts? 3116: 3043: 2970: 2897: 2824: 2751: 2678: 31: 879:

good, and assuming it survies the AfD, we'll propose a move next. I usually spend most of my editing trying to keep pop-culture items OUT of articles, but I have little experience in what makes a good pop-culture page. I appreciate your advice on how to improve this, and look forward to working to improve it in the future. I also think the page could use a good lead paragraph summarizing the popularity of The A-Team, and introducing the page as a whole. THanks again for your help. -

5214:, using either the unfinished design appearing on dccomics.com's catalog or the final cover scanned from a copy of the issue, with logos and bar-codes all over it. His claim is that the image needs to be provide a source beyond the copyright holder, DC Comics (i.e., a link to a specific website must be produced). I disagree, and I suspect his true motive is that he seems to have a evndetta against every edit I make ever since the controversy surrounding the 2101: 4645: 6989: 1738:. Yes, you are quite correct, stubs are a good thing. But stubs can be merged into a better article until they are ready to be split, that's one of the very tenets of Knowledge, that the most important thing is the information, not where it sits. But you have me convinced now that the only way to go forward is to write the article and take the debate to the whole community. Appreciate your input, and I'm sorry we disagree on this matter, 5163:, and character/cast lists for film FAs. I feel this section could be a template on how to appraoch other team articles; there's no need for details of the stories, particularly if the characters themselves have their own pages. I've referenced that section appropriately, so there shouldn't be further need to work on that. I'll try and track down more on the publishing history, and I've got to rewrite and format the "other media" section. 1734:. I've been very wary of extending notability to the comics field, because I'm aware of the issues it causes in other fields, and having had a hand in a few I know how far they can be misinterpreted, so I'd rather look to working out a solution without coming up with some over-arching guidance. I would suggest that a lot of the articles we are discussing have enough issues there before we start looking at stubs, for instance consider 1128:? Also, excuse the overhaul, if you have any issues with what's been removed, let me know. I plan to try to incorporate information like the trivia, filming location, and themes in a cited and encyclopedic manner. Also, I think it would be more appropriate to report the noted differences or noted deleted/extended scenes because the lists would otherwise be trivial and not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. — 400:

to contact you ASAP. I was about 5 minutes away from finishing my edit and BOOM, a half hour of changes were gone. I knew you were online, so I left you a message here. I also knew you would not see it until you saved your next change. I had to hurry. In the end, we got a much better article - my stylistic improvements, and your upgrades to the substance, which you are obviously much more informed about.

427:"I think we actually did decide it would be a good idea to have some pictures on that article, but then we just never got around to actually doing it... I don't have access to most of my comics at the moment since I've moved house, but if you want to start putting some pictures up then I'm certain it would improve the article. Lots of other lists like this one have them. Thanks in advance for helping." 1801:. I do a lot of removing redlinks from disambig pages, generally when they are clearly vanity, links to deleted articles or there is not enough information besides the redlink to determine if the subject is worth disambiguation. Since you're part of the comics project, I'm happy to leave the comics entry to your discretion, as you know more about the notability of the subject than I. Cheers. 717:

printed is that a number of fans have told me they really want something physical of mine they can own. But I really prefer the free digital distribution approach, as I can release what I want whenever I want. And even though the music is free to download, it's still arranged and mixed professionally in lengths that are designed for people to burn their own cds.

1669:

lot there. A lot of these articles are just full of plot, which should be reduced to a minimum. Once that happens, they'll all be stubs, and until they get expanded it makes more sense to have them in a list. A list would at any rate be a useful article, since it would include strips for which we do not and ultimately will not include articles on.

7498:) has to do with differentiating content, not medium; that's all fine and well within comic enthusiasts' circles, but it's not really appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedic lists like these, especially since the lists are about transformations between media, regardless of content. No matter what the content is, they're still comic 1026: 892:'s section on pc items). We toe the line pretty strictly, but we do allow the items that pass that standard. I don't think the standard is quite that high for entertainment aritcles, which is why their pop-culture sections tend to get so big. THis one could use some trimming, and sorces also, and hopefully we'll get the chance to do so. 124:

I'd certainly be invovled with that as (as I've said many times before) non-US comics don't get as big a representation as they should just purely from a market penetration front and if we can spot obvious gaps in the coverage and try and get them covered then that is A Good Thing. Keep me updated on progress and sign me up. (

490:, they have to do that to be placed in the article -- even if they are already used in a different article with a valid fair use rationale) it might be a better idea to place the gallery in the section covering that point. Appended at the article's end, the gallery seems very much purely decorative and unencylopedic. -- 4846: 1824:. Do you have any ideas on how to get people interested in the project, maybe a drive to create episode articles (a major fallacy in the project at the moment), something like that? I deliberately didn't post on the project talk page in order to avoid stepping on any toes, but we could make a list of ideas there. 2206:- Fan site giving synopses and credits for each issue. Because the page is composed as frames, there's no way to put a direct link to the Saint Sinner page without losing the navigation bar. And anyway, the nav bar has all four Razorline logos large and in full color. One just clicks on "Saint Sinner" and voilà. 823: 102:

setting up the comics wikiproject with taskforces, and you seem to be one of the people to ask about whether there would be interest in a British comics task force. Although I'm British and I love comics, I'm not the greatest British comics reader or article editor. Anyway, a few things to chew over.

6941:

Oh, I agree/ I just didn't want to do it unilaterally since I think such lists appear on other pages and I wanted to be consistent. Do you know of any precedent or policy for removing one of these things? If we can't find any, I was thinking of bringing this up on the Vertigo talk page. So, what is

6669:

work, but most of the articles don't split them out, see Justice League, Teen Titans, and the Justice Society for examples. Hellboy may be a good counter example though. Arc is the best place for n/p to be used, but it implies that the arcs are in and of themselves notable and have separate articles.

6664:

episodes)... I honestly don't know. I can only really see three places where it would work with comics articles: Series flow, Arc flow, and Issue flow. Issue is a non-starter since most issues don't meet Wiki notability standards and, IIRC, one of the standing NOTs is that Wiki is not an issue index.

6531:

I went ahead and tagged much of the article. I also added some sourced material to the Marston section, though much of it is from elsewhere. It's about the best I could come up with at this point. Please feel free to edit what I have put there - this is not my area of expertise so it's about the best

6366:

and scroll to the bottom. There, you'll see the category redlinked that I'm talking about. Right now it's a non-category with articles in it; I suspect that Steve would want to set up a category placeholder or whatnot for that. It's not an issue or anything as far as I'm concerned, just an anomaly

5860:

I'm hoping I've got all the bugs sorted, it's been a happy week of ifs and {{|}}, but I think I have it sorted. That said, keep an eye on what you get after you tag a page, especially any red category links, and let me know. At the minute I'm leaving the importance side of it off, because I can see

5076:

Just work out what the name is going to be, either a workgroup or a taskforce and move it. I'm not averse to being involved with the comics project, when I said project I meant the Knowledge project, I just don't want to become the referee or go to guy to the extent I was before. I'll potter about,

3201:

Consistancy in terms of spelling is a concern for me. I will at least edit in that way, so that there is just one spelling of mini-series/mini series in each article. I don't want you to get the impression that I was actively seeking out every instance of the term I could find in order to change them

1928:

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not

1452:

I'll have a bash in a minute, I can just as easily pull it apart if people suddenly change their mind. I think a month is long enough to object, personally. I'll move your user page too and history merge, so you get the history credit for the edits you made, whilst the logs will show I did the grunt

1362:

Sounds good. A pity with Tachi. I was hoping the block might be enough to convince him to rethink his position, but that went horribly awry. There's enough information present to get good articles going, though, and I'm not convinced Tachi will just drop this after his block expires. Even if it isn't

692:

Yeah the problem is that my friend who is doing the film only has a myspace profile for his production company. he also hasn't made any announcements about the soundtrack yet. Maybe I should just include the info for the game for the time being? Do you think the source for the game soundtrack is good

675:

My work is actually going to be featured in an upcoming indie film adaptation of Faust, and a new indie PC game called "Shades of Violet". But neither projects have been announced anywhere yet. I will go ahead and drop a line to some of the people who were involved in my prior deletion review. Thanks

399:

Sorry we got off to a rough start. I am NOT one of those who believes that reverts are "only for vandalism", and I realize that some people take it to heart. In this case, I used it because it is a quick way to finish the edit. I myself was astonished that anyone would "revert" my edits, and I wanted

237:

I think that just clutters the top of the page. I think it works fine the way you have. I just had not realized that there were two other films in 2005, I thought it was just the '53 version and the Spielberg version. Rather funny to think that there were 3 versions in one year. Anyways, going to the

72:

with the extra comment that there was no discussion. Just to clarify there was discussion (on the [[Talk:Fictional universe#Proposed merge with Canon (fiction)|fictional universe talk page) - there wasn't much discussion and it was against a merge, although something needed doing with the canon entry

7660:

is something other than the one given on the article page: "a magazine or book containing sequential art in the form of a narrative". I understand that within certain circles, the distinction between the terms might be made, but that doesn't invalidate common usage outside those circles. A general

7436:

This really doesn't clarify anything though. "A lot of the comics aren't comic books" - then what are they? "Granted comics can include comic strips but these are usually dealt with in their own sections" - Why?, and why are they the only subgenre of comics that are? A longer lead would help, but

7079:

Everything "sara sidle" is in that article (except whatever is in those books), i really milked the internet when i was trying to make it GA... Someone will probably comment about the lack of references, but because of the GA review i won't re-add them (just yet). I really think this will become FA,

6516:

Hi Emperor! Yes (sigh) I noticed the same thing about this article and (as I normally do when encountering an article that is virtually unreferenced) felt a bit overwhelmed by it. I'll see what I can do with regard to at least the Marston section of the article - I'll also flag the other sections to

6035:

a bit about her claim to having created the first graphic novel, although i agree with him that "firsts" are hard to quantify and matter little. That Gemma Bovery redlinks is again a sign of systemic bias, me thinks. I'm not sure how much fuss we'd get at Private Eye, it's currently tagged with the

5890:

What do ladies know! Anything which is rated B-Class, Stub-class or start-class should get one of those, it's to let people know how to bring the article up to B-Class, and is a good tool for us working out what is and isn't B-Class. Yes, the bots would be a damn good idea. I've never found anyone

5523:

Oh yes, and you mentioned my previous list from last month. Well, most of that was taken care of either by you or myself, so rather than taking your time out to go over through a bunch of stuff that doesn't need your attention anymore, I pared it down to what remains, and you can get at any of that

2615:

to have all these cover images, but it isn't necessary for the article. I kept the main image that's used at the top, but I had to remove the galleries. The cover images might be usable in article about those individual issues, but not in the article about the series. Sorry. I nominated the rest for

2015:

Be glad to tag; I didn't want you to feel I was "picking on you" or anything; some editors see conspiracies where none exist, and I'm glad to see us discussing this. I still believe there's misunderstanding about general references. Footnotes take you to a specific part of a site or a page of a book

1668:

works, I'd be a lot happier, but for me they aren't. They're just strips which have appeared in 2000AD. Do we have an article on every strip to have appeared in The Eagle, Tiger, Beezer, and so on and so forth? As to previous mergers, have a look at television episodes and series, its happening a

1422:

article, is that it? Or would it be better if I just do the delete and move, and then you handle the merge and the wrapper? Do you know how to pull a merge per GFDL? Silly question, you've probably done thousands, but it's been a hot topic the last week or so at the admin's noticeboard. Just use

1184:

issues. I will be removing those links. This needs to be done anyway as the links are broken due to a site move. I don't have the updated links to hand but can dig them out if anyone wants as there is no problems with unconnected people adding the links back in if they add to the article and don't

916:

to sign up if you're interested in helping. The long term aim is to impose a fixed template for characters, episodes and cast members across all three shows, and expand the number and depth of articles on the other parts of the franchise. I noticed that you've contributed to the article on the comic

635:

Ok I updated the references. I wasn't sure about the podcast links though? Will those really help with credibility. Also wasn't sure how to reference the AP statement (check the link I used) because Robert never expressley stated being influenced, just that my project was the first Steampunk band he

205:

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there were two separate disamb. pages in existence. I just saw the "film" and thought you were just linking to the 50's film. I actually didn't realize there were 2 films in 2005 that were made. But, I checked out everything and understand now. Sometimes things are decided

123:

One the British comics taskforce: That is a good idea and well worth pursuing. I can't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of the whole field but I have been reaidng British comics for a long time (I bought the first issue of 2000 AD when it came out - although largely for the space spinner) and

7948:

This is great thanks to everyone for their help. I'm just shaking off an infection and then I'll get to grips with my admin tools (hey lookie there!! New buttons at the top of the page!!) and get those brown envelopes stuffed with used bank notes in the post (and yes that is a wise-ass remark too -

7473:

The problem is you've still got one list that focuses on medium ("comic strips") and the other than focuses on content ("comics"). From a media standpoint, the differences you point out don't exist. Even the article on graphic novels opens with the line: "A graphic novel is a type of comic book."

7462:

usually have their own entries because they are a distinct easily identified form whereas there is a lot of crossover between comic books and graphic novels. If there were enough films based on graphic novels they would also have their own section but there weren't (3 I believe) and the article was

6810:

Thank you for your work on the Ashley Wood wikipage - your edits have neatened the page considerably and made the article more comprehensive. You left a message asking for a photo, I have uploaded the photo needed and completed the GNU agreement on Knowledge but as you may have already guessed I am

6648:

replacing "Series" 'box for minis or "events". "Knightfall" is an arc, without a separate self-titled mini. "Emerald Dawn" is a self contained series, and the "Series" 'box fits it best. "Crisis on Infinite Earths" is an event with a self-titled series, again the "series" 'box fits best, especially

6633:

The goad that got me to create this was I ran across the "No Man's Land" article during image clean up and "Relatively important arc, should have a nutshell 'box". The comic book 'box wouldn't work, even though there had been trades, so I cannibalized that to allow for the multiple titles where the

6577:

The article now has a fact tag, which is immediate GA fail criteria. Also, this sentence is now incomplete: "His relationship with Warrick Brown had aspects of a mentor/student bond, but out of all the CSIs (Catherine included), whose career Grissom saved in the second episode". If I complete the

6459:

This feels so weird. I've thought about it before, actually. Unfortunately, based on what I know of adminship, one has to commit to doing some sort of admin like functions, and right now I want to finish certain tasks I've set for myself first. Maybe it sounds strange to say that I think I might be

6392:

While I agree that the speedy tagging of many webcomics articles was not the way to go, I think that your advice was a bit too far in the other direction. There is no need to tag articles for notability and wait a few months, if an article makes no (often absolutely no) claims to notability at all,

6181:

Even some of the intrinsic links for DC and Marvel make sense, Lee for Marvel or Kane for DC, but those are at the edge of an area I worry about. While there are creators that have that linked, or only worked for one company, most have wider connotations. Gaiman is a good example with his work with

5954:

You never know round these parts. I noticed after I said that that it was already tagged, but given the amount of semantic debates that seem to occur within the project, one can never be too careful. I think I had a hand in the carton article a long time ago, before tags existed. I'd certainly tag

3187:

Having said that, its not the main reason I was making those edits. I feel that terms like limited series should be used consistantly across the board for all articles. It cuts down on the possibility of confusion when it comes to non-comics readers who might read the articles. Mini-series and mini

1856:

Well, I did try and clarify somewhat when I said above that "I can quite imagine someone producing a book or an essay or an article on the subject of strips that have appeared in 2000AD", but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I did have a feeling I wasn't reaching you at some level, but couldn't work

1702:

I can quite imagine a book detailing the comics published by Wildstorm, or even a book about comics published by DC. Come to that, I think I have one of those on my shelves. ;) Yes, I'm not going to disagree, doing this could mean all those things. Perhaps we should do all those things, I don't

1553:

You are probably right. I examined a number of his edits after reverting the first one, and a number of them were quite plausible, and difficult to prove false. I had a hard time finding a listing of Fireman Sam episodes that seemed definitive, for instance - but when I did, it was obvious his edit

1248:

Meh, okay, this is my last comment. Why its redundant: If the information is just about the comics, and nothing new, then there are already individual pages on each of the comics (or most of them, and if there arent, then they havent gotten around to them yet). To create a generic page with generic

1103:

Hi, you have removed some material from the above article under the assumption that it is a copyvio from another website - linked in the article talkpage by you. However, the website under question clearly mentions the Knowledge article as the reference and is also licensed under GFDL. Hence, it is

878:

Thanks for your contributions on the cultural effenct talk page to improve the article. EdG explained the rationale for creating the article from the A-Team, but we just used the section heading title as the article title without condsidering other options. I think your suggestions for renaming are

620:

Here's a rough idea for the page (the bio is still pretty short), and I don't know if the list of influences fits in on a wiki band page or not? Let me know if you have any suggestions? Also how should I go about mentioning the projects that I'm working on for various media (none of which have been

117:

Thanks for the suggestion but I had a look at the requirements for adminship when someone else was nominated a while back and I don't feel I qualify as I do little on the backend knd of thing and don't really have a pessing desire to get too involved beyond the things that touch on the entries I've

7775:

When you say you don't believe redirection is the answer can you clarify a touch? Do you mean that simply coming along, finding a suitable target to redirect to and then blanking the whole page and redirecting is not the ultimate solution? Or do you mean that the article should never redirect to

7708:

Understood, but clearly "comics" includes "comic strips", while the list itself specifically does not. Right there, that makes use of the general term incorrect. If you have a separate list for "comic strips", you must use a term that reflects that exclusion from the main list; "comics" does not,

6687:

I agree, to a point. There is definitely enough from the stand point of notability and secondary sources to justify a set of articles for that series. The way Gaiman wrote it is also geared to breaking it down by story arc. Yes, those arcs were later collected into trade paperback format, but they

6096:

describe these sections, but fairly flexibly describe a framework with the understanding that footnotes and references can be sensibly combined. I certainly didn't invent this type of combination, but while remaining comprehensive, it's the most compact and least obtrusive solution I've seen used,

4893:

Thanks for the offer, but it's not where my head is at these days. I think we used to have a collaboration page on the project somewhere, might be as easy to just restart that is all the input I can come up with. I'm not sure how solid my return is, and there are certain areas where I just don't

3250:

Thanks for the heads up on cats - only being a recent convert to wikipedia I'm still getting the hang of things - I just thought that in some other areas there are some categories that hold three items it would make sense to try and group all those guys together. i've already discovered that some

2337:

Thanks for cleaning up the footnote/reference structure. I'm trying to find some more corroboration but I don't think finding an ISSN or bipad number alone is going to do it as far as notability goes. Sintauro is MIA but I don't think the page should disappear it was a great underground comic. Any

403:

Something happened to my Internet connection, so I was unable to actually save another edit to the page. I've taken a fresh look at it, and will tidy up a bit more. I think your further input would be valuable, particularly in regard to the comments I inserted into the text. There was one sentence

7865:

I noticed the Cleanup page appeared on Category:Comics along with another page and they should probably be tidied away somewhere else but the categories aren't specifically on that page which would suggest they are coming in from one (or more) of the templates. I can (and will) go digging through

6409:

I agree with you in general, but it could come across, certainly for someone a bit trigger happy, as if all articles should be kept and tagged for months before some action is possible. This is clearly not your opinion (or mine) as a general rule (but may be the best approach for some articles of

2558:

Good call. It's simply an educated guess, based on his creating the page, with hype phrases like "It will be spearheaded by...", and his doing so for an upcoming project of limited interest. The "educated" part of "educated guess" comes from seeing so many small-press people, often but not always

2071:

Per that example, not everything phrase or sentence has to be footnoted — that's why a "References" section exists — and in the specific case of the Razorline titles, I'm telling you honestly, I used those cited references. In strict point of fact, they are primary sources for the writing of the

1237:

page. There are already individual pages on the comics of Warhammer. Thus, your entry would have to be deleted for being redundant. Also, you cannot just tack miniatures that aren't a part of the official codex army onto an army page. Only current miniatures are allowed, which was why there was a

7425:

Its technically incorrect because a lot of the comics aren't comic books. Granted comics can include comic strips but these are usually dealt with in their own sections, hence the hatnote (although technically if things looked too thin one could be merged into the other). I suspect a longer lead

5840:

Aw, shucks. ;) Just trying to help is all! I want these articles to be the best that they can be, just like anyone else. I do have sympathy with Asgardian regarding edit summaries - I know I'm often enough breezing through things to bother with it myself, which is something I need to work on as

5131:

Basically merge the Batman and Superman projects into the DC one, would be my way to go. If there's the will to do this and set it all up, I'll happily bash the template into shape to accommodate. And if that's the way to go, it's just a simple page move on the comic strip project rather than a

1542:

Just a comment: Some of this guy's edits are hoaxes, but some actually just seem to be very sloppy. For instance, he created templates for "Geroge Murray" and "Queengate Productions" that are actually supposed to be for "Gordon Murray" and "Queensgate Productions" (leaving aside the question of

101:

Have you ever thought of running? Looking at your contributions, it may not be an easy ride, but I'd be willing to give you a strong nomination if you fancied it. Also, got round to moving the Action and Crisis talk pages, apologies it took so blinking long. And another thing, I'm thinking of

7998:

It closed already. You're still bothering me? Damn, it's too late to retract my aye? Oh well. Congratulations. You may have had a play with the buttons already, but there are prompts checking you want to do the actions. I was fearful when I was promoted of pushing the block user button by

6886:

For your first question, no, we won't have to set up any archiving at all. A year's page becomes an archive when all the discussions on it are closed. (Though there may be 2 pages transcluded to the noticeboard at the end/beginning of the year, while things are still being resolved.) I think it

6541:

Thanks! And thanks for the tweaks - they improve the overall article. I did look around a bit but these seem like the best and most reliable sources to use. If I come across anything else in the future I'll add it. And yes, I hope other editors will develop the rest of the article with sources.

5811:

I've put back the Bib in SS, albeit with some changes as there were mistakes and not date on an entry. Kept the slight change to referencing and moved the Info box to where the last image went (which I originally added). And sock puppets? I don't think so. But computers do time out and lose the

3432:

As for "over-disambiguating" - I guess that's something one doesn't realize one is doing until it is pointed out! :) What I do (or try to do, at least), is to see if a character from another universe even exists (whether or not they have an article anywhere) before I give an article a certain

1683:

I'm not going to push it much further, but my problem is your only objection seems to be that any unifying theme would be lumpy or something like that. I'm afraid I can't understand that. I can quite imagine someone producing a book or an essay or an article on the subject of strips that have

716:

I had a quick question... do you think I should mention somewhere that my project was created with the intention of providing music to fans for free? That way the issue of not having published CDs could be addressed intelligently? Because honestly the only reason I am even pursuing getting cd's

7402:

article; or the comics article needs to have its scope clarified; or separate articles should remain for "comic strips", "comic books", and whatever subset of "comics" remains after comic strips and comic books are removed. Saying the move from comics to comic books is 'technically incorrect'

6777:

You are right, there are zillions of articles and stuff regarding LH, we'll work something out. Another thing, how do you feel about nominating Sidle and Grissom for FA? They are very different because of their reviewers (Sidle's reviewer made us remove a lot of references while Grissom's said

2559:

under their own names, creating promotional articles that read startlingly similarly. The other clue is the way people promoting their projects employ spin, as he seems to be doing here in trying to call it a single series when it is, in objective fact, a series of anthological single issues.

1796:

I don't feel super strongly about my removal of the two entries in this article (though I think the companies really ought to go, disambig pages are magnets for spam, and if every business with Revere in its name needs to be there, the page will become the Revere phone book), but I did want to

2565:

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize for the misimpression, but continue to keep the promotional hype out. People shouldn't use Knowledge for free advertising. Thanks for your diligence; it's always good to have responsible editors like yourself watching for when even experienced editors might make a

2350:

should be reduced to stubs? Trouble with them is they're real underground comics, I'm having trouble finding mentions and reviews outside of the independent 'zine world. I'm contacting the author again, but he's not been much help as far as clippings & references go (he fancies himself an

1840:

Like you say, this was what I was aiming at in the first place, and was the reason I kept pointing to a misunderstanding somewhere. However, I do object to the word title, as the strips or stories which run in British comics are not separate titles in the manner that American comic books are

1717:

There's certainly precedent, if nothing else. Individual books have been folded back into series articles, it happens all the time. I'm sure I've folded back some of the Tiger strip articles to Tiger itself, so I don't agree that there is no precedent. But I disregard the argument anyway.

895:

Btw, maybe there needs to be a project or task force on pop-culture to promote the legitimacy of the mere existance of pop-culture articles, and also to help standardize some guidelines for those pages. If one doesn't already exist, it might be helpful. I'd expect a LOT of opposition from the

3377:

Fair point. I'm just concerned that a reasonable alternate reference source may be getting shucked out. And, no, I'm not saying that it's a useful tool in adding information to the articles here, but it is a source of greater information, all be it more fan-slanted, for readers who want more

3381:

The funny thing is, that if those became very, very good at presenting what is considered the FCB here, we could possibly off load large chunks of some of the Wiki articles there. Something like Superman or Spider-Man, the iconics, sure, we'd still have a character sketch style FCB, but for

138:

I see where you are coming from, I thought about it myself, but you are precisely the sort of person who should have access to the tools even though you would rarely use them. Still, I agree it'd be a tough run. You can always hassle me, yes. I'll keep you posted on the taskforce status.

4745:

I've responded on the notice board and linked to my subpages of potentially useful resources. Feel free to ransack at will. :) I generally focus on films since they're isolated projects, so that's why I was looking at the miniseries as my foray into other subjects. Tackling a comic book

7761:, although I came on too strong to start with. I just don't see articles like this surviving given the mood at afd, and I think it's better to round up our articles and ring-fence them rather than see them driven off one by one like in other areas. Maybe you can chuck in some thoughts. 5891:

willing to teach me bot coding, which is a bummer because I always felt the comics project needs a pet bot. I'll mention it at the relevant page at some point, maybe after the Superman merge discussion closes, as if that merger goes through that's another one that could be automated. ;)

653:

Hmmm.. Don't think there is any way to cite the NV remix, short of linking to an actual mp3, or info from my own sites (they left in comment in my myspace thanking me for it, but it was never blogged by the band I don't think). I did just remember another interview I can post though (with

6210:

I try to steer clear of putting the art in with the biblio. I know that in this case it creates a "bowling ally" effect, but I look at it as "Example of the artist's style goes in to the bio". Putting it in the biblio move towards "decoration" since it's only one of many listed products.

5037: 4690: 6918:

Oh, no, all I meant was that I'm in the middle of an overhaul, and I've had at least 3 people suggest more things to overhaul. Which is fine, and I don't mind at all. I just would like to finish one of the several tasks I'm currently working on before taking on several dozen more :

1955:

Specific, particular statements being cited are footnoted. General references, the kind you describe as needing "digging into," are listed under the general reference category, "References." Knowledge has had a "References" section for years specifically for that. If you want to go

1212:

I responded to your concerns on the talk page. This is why its called Graphic Novels, as the page deals only with Graphic Novels discussed there (Black Library doesn't produce comics, and the page is not about the Warhammer magazine, and only about works produced by Black Library).

7274:

Do you think the thing was done properly. I was afraid I messed up on it. If it's looking good and he's ready, we can transclude whenever he's ready. I nominated wrong, and had an admin look at it. They fixed a few things and said it looked ok, so it should be good to go now.

7788:

are red now. That's what I want to avoid. I don't want people looking for info on Battalion and being met by a does not exist page. I'd rather they get redirected where they can get whatever coverage we can provide in line with policies and guidance. I'd also point you to

7783:

and you've seen the Justice Battalion one and the Terrible Three one. What I'm intrigued about is you suggest redirect at the Justice Battalion afd. Now all I can see that that article lacks compared to Battalion is a lot more plot summary. Also, I note all the links in

6486:

and ran the replace tool to change the work group name, and as can be seen, the unassessed one had the s left off from a cut and paste most likely. They're all fixed, I've kicked the bot through Marvel Comics and the unassessed articles now show up in the stats as seen at

5935:

Caution is my watch word. That said, I'm in the school of thought that thinks comic strips are strip cartoons and that we all evolved from one cartoon, and so I'd tend to go woth editorial cartoons and panel gags falling under our rubicon. I'm not a McCloudian, I believe

6791:, a GA article that has over 40 refs ("Lost" has been on the air for like 3 years!) but whatever, i hate when other editors question my reviews, so i try not to question others. Ok, So you think GG and SS are not quite FA yet, then i shall keep not studying and editing. 8074:

On a completely separate note, as two editors who have worked together with mutual respect, it seems that the Arbitration I'm involved in now appears to be open to all crazies with an axe to grind. I'm hoping you can weigh in with some reasoned and mature thoughts at

3313:

hi there again! you have noted on my talk page that you can provide a fair use rational for the image i have loaded to Yildiray's page, but i have to first resize the image, cause a smaller size is required. I couldn't find any policy concerning the height of in fact

4491:

looking for pages that need to be disambiguated, but that's a big project and I'm not entirely sure I want to get that involved right now. :) I invite you to make use of anything I posted above, or to continue on as you see fit. But as for me, I'm done for now!

5751:

If you haven't noticed, I work mostly on Marvel characters… and there are quite a few disambiguated to "Character (Marvel Comics)" or something else often without an obvious answer. I'll try to fix them when I can, and when I can't I'll bring them up to you. :)

2151:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 2656:

definitely has potential. The "Satan under U.S. law" section is a gem. There are sure to be lots of reliable sources that can be used, and IMHO your ideas on the talk page are good. I'll try to add some information to the article over the weekend, if that's OK.

2529:

Hi Emperor - Thanks for the tip. I thought i was correcting the entry so it wasn't a candidate for deletion, but i obviously have no clue what i'm doing. lol. Anyway now i've started it off i'm content to let other interested parties add to The Twelve. Cheers -

360:

I'll put back the link fixes that you caught and I missed. However, I think it's not good writing to break the sentences. This is probably why the article was tagged for copyediting in the first place. The formatting works fine if each paragraph goes like this:

7593:

The format is comics. In the UK this tends to be A4 comics anthologies. I'm afraid we use comics as short hand for sequential art but it is also the name other countries use as the name for their equivalent of the American comic book (although they tend to be

6688:

were first published, and should be handled as issues of a periodical. That structure would see the 'box providing when and where the arc was originally published. The particulars of the TPBs would follow in the article, just as with other comic book articles.

3188:

series are spelling that are interchangeable -- sometimes both versions appearing in the same article. As a result limited series seems like the better term to go with, having just one form of spelling and being the title of the official wikipedia article.

1768:

Thanks for the note. I'm trying my best not to reduce the quality of such articles... I was expecting some backlash from my searching. I tried to work my around the truly-implemented DVD Times links and removed it where it seemed placed indiscriminately.

7919:

I would make some smart-aleck comment about expecting my bribe money soon, but someone might think I was serious, and I don't want that to happen. Anyway, glad to see you won!! I can't imagine that you won't be an excellent addition to the admin corps. --

3363:

The reason I ask is that I can see the DCAU pages being link, or de-linked as the case may be, to the corresponding Wiki pages on their own merit without having to get a thumbs up or down on the whole wiki. At least that's my read of the points intent.

6829:

Thanks again. Alas he doesn't like being photographed... Full birth date is also a no-go. Do you have any other suggestions as to what we could do to get rid of the banner at the top of the article? Other career details are fine and can be provided:)

2341:

Hey Emperor, thanks for the pointers, it's greatly appreciated, I stopped asking questions after some fairly rude responses when I first started on wikipedia last year, so I really appreciate you taking the time to give me some direction. I see that

7793:, because I know we're thinking of transwiki and it looks like some people object to Knowledge "advertising" wikia. Frankly Knowledge is getting far too vast. I've mentioned in the past to J Greb and to Jc that we revise our guidance to editors. 2351:

animator/filmmaker now). I'll do what I can, but Sintauro who updated most of the stuff on those pages hasn't been heard from either (we used to be in the very same office, found out we were both fans). Thanks! Isisitrix 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

5824:

Noted. I am getting better. I sometimes don't put everything in the Summary in the course of a Tidy Up. That's why I appreciate reminders and a little help sometimes. The user BOZ has been quite good at performing little edits after I've done big

538:

Thanks for the pointers! I have started roughing out a page and it has become obvious that this is going to be a pretty tricky subject from a NPOV standpoint (given the number of times spirit photographers have been accused or exposed as frauds).

4589:

I tried to find a discussion (or whatever it's officially called) about me being accused of being Freak104's sockpuppet. I can't find any, so does that mean I've been cleared of the charges? If yes, can I remove the accusation from my talk page?

1663:

Whether they can be expanded or not isn't really the case, since merging doesn't preclude that. I can't really understand your argument that there is no common theme, when there quite clearly is, as you agree. If you can show me how these are

1299:"(I suspect you must be on 5 or 6)" I have reverted broken links, broken wiki links, wrong citations and deletions/changes to verifiably and sourced information. That all falls under fixing of vandalism, which is permissible under the Reverts. 7140:. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. 386:

Okay, I'm done. You caught a couple of good broken or weirded links that I missed. Good work. I put them all back. I left a couple of comments in the text - can you take a look and see if you can fix the stuff I did not understand? Thanks.

5120: 7559:

comic books, even according to their article on Knowledge. I think what's unclear is the insistence of defining "comic book" only as "American comic book" instead of simply "a magazine or book containing sequential art in the form of a

7147:

I think you will make it. You have been here a long time, have tons of rewards (showing that people appreciate your work), a really good edit history. And it doesn't seem as if you have ever been blocked, or really broken the rules.

7656:, which isn't appropriate and isn't common usage outside of comic enthusiasts, and certainly isn't supported by the Knowledge article on comic books. You're going to have to find sources that state the commonly accepted definition of 6036:

comedy tag, so I'd be inclined to have a go. There's form for these sorts of debates over tagging and ownership, and the consensus has often been that tagging articles of relevance is fine and that we all share Knowledge at any rate.

7521:

with dance remixes. Either the second list needs to include the first (because 7" records are still vinyl), or it needs to be clarified as 12" records (because LPs still really are 12" records, regardless of other uses of the term).

1910:. However, I had confirmed the Panini site is indeed a Reference and not an External link since a) it's the official site, and b) it establishes the existence of the article subject, confirms spelling of title, name of publisher, etc. 6568:) talk page, but she is on a wikibreak. Not wanting the GA Hold to expire, I thought I'd notify you, too, so you or others might jump in during her absence. Please advise if I can be of any assistance whatsoever. Have a wiki day! 4881:(discussion continues on the Notice Board talk page) - it could prove interesting and even out the quality of some of the important articles as well as bumping some others up a bit too. Obviously your input is always appreciated ;) ( 813: 5351:

is not another comic book editor, he merely works in the children's books area. If you can find another artist who deals in comics then feel free to add them to the dab, but please do not revert since I have a guideline at my side.

1589:

That's what I thought. I was just concerned that, without it being blatantly clear in the ES that you were targeting the OR, someone might come along, say "The cite is right there", and remove the tag without fixing the problem. -

5105: 5100: 2362:

artists so maybe I'll find something in there. I'll also try the user groups in here again and I'll try not to be so thin-skinned about it. Thanks for all the mentoring and advice. Take care Isisitrix 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

5090: 5524:

whenever you feel like. I've learned a lot about disambiguation pages (from you, thanks!) in the last month or so, so in future I'll just create/edit my own pages; if I'm not sure how to handle something, I'll let you know.

5115: 5916:

HEH. Um, I'll look at the GA thing, I think there's issues with where GA sits in the FA, A , B, Start, Stub tree, it sort of got shoe-horned in after the event, but I'll maybe tweak that. Just discovered no-one ever tagged

5055:

for little edits and big -- for great efforts in generally improving a variety of comics-related articles and for outstanding work striving to boost the number of articles of the highest quality. Keep up the fantastic work!

3318:

says that images uploaded can be as big as 20 megabytes.. and i have found some pretty pictures too in featured pictures too, which were waay bigger in size anyways.. so what's the deal on the required image size reduction?

5125: 5085: 3276:

hey by the way, i have some of yildiray's pictures, but they have been published in interwies in several sites, nothing original. i guess they are considered violation of copyright, eh? what about his picture on the blog?

7780: 6214:

As long as the images are kept to a minimum, and here one is pretty much all the current article warrants, it isn't a big thing. But as/if other editors add more, it breeds a gallery and can get all of them killed (see

993:

but admin work always got in the way, that and my magpie nature. :) The categories certainly look tidier, although there are a few categories I'm not sure about, but that might just be me. I see you're talking about a

6182:

Marvel in addition to DC. And there are better "high profile" examples: Kirby, Gurber, Miller, Jim Lee, Larson, etc. They can legitimately be lumped into all three work groups, and that sets a bad precedent to include

2037:

According to what I seem to hear you say, if there's any digging in involved, then it's not usable. I don't believe that's so, and I'll give you an example: If I write that a certain comic-book artist had long runs on

5110: 5095: 6861:

as the page is vast and difficult to navigate and edit. Removing the content to our own want list would make it easier for us to monitor and edit. Would it be workable? Would you be interested in implementing it? ;)

2425:

Another UK pop-culture related page that needs some work and is under threat of deletion. It's not comcis related but it seems like the kind of thing you might be interested in or know of someone else interested in.

1006:, that would be an alternative to comics forms. Those redundant cats you spotted on terminology were the result of a miscommunication/misunderstanding between me and Chris I think. Anything else you want help with? 238:

other "film" disambig, and then going to the general disambig from there is just fine. Obviously if someone just types in "War of the Worlds" or "The"..then they'll get the book and the disambig page for everything.

7098: 3258:

I'll keep going on the Dr Who comics stuff where I can - I was considering whether they warranted their own articles for each story in the same way that the books do although it'd be a lot of work to get that done.

1210: 6460:

rather less effective than an admin, but right now I personally think that might be the case. If and when I get done what I hope to get done, though, I will certainly consider it. Thank you for the generous offer.

5173:

I went to the library today and read two books: a book about artists of the Silver Age (published in 2004, I think), and Les Daniels' history of Marvel Comics (from 1991). I'll go back tomorrow and cite from them.

6488: 6323:

OK, I found some free time, so I'm starting to tag all the articles I listed on the MWG talk page for assessment. You might want to create "Category:Unassessed-Class Marvel Comics articles" to contain them. ;)

5222:

Thankyou. Your help is greatly appreciated...except that won't satisfy DrBat, as it portrays the unfinished version of the image, lacing the photoshopped red sepia tone. He will likely try to upload that version

7836: 6903:

Anyway didn't want to make your head spin ;) I was just flagging a discussion on a similar idea. In theory someone else could do it but your idea/thoughts would be appreciated as you've done a similar overhaul.

6691:

As for Hellboy... As I said, I don't see the "Arc" 'box being used to replace "Series" for minis. "Series" fills the job wonderfully unless there is a case of an arc that runs through multiple minis (Morrison's

1523:

hi yesterday I changed links on the csi episodes page so that they linked to the actual, existing pages of those episodes - you changed them back to links that lead nowhere. i don't see the point of that. best,

6177:

I can see your reasoning, especially withe the nationality overlap. In general the project is a slightly skewed to the American companies, titles, and creators, so double tagging Gaiman or Bolland makes sense.

5861:

that creating divisions within the project and it's best to avoid divisiveness, you ask me. Anyway, happy tagging. I've added functionality for a few new tags as well, based on all the categories listed in

745:

Okey-doke, and I appreciate your going to the time and trouble to clarify it for me; I hadn't seen the "People" section, and I guess the line that I'd cited I'd read in a way different from what was meant.

339: 6641:

be included in the article for the series, or the PH for a character or arc. The TPBs are reprints, giving them a 'box, and arguably articles, is a repetition. The Sandman TPBs are a good example of this.

2125:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found 749:

I very much appreciate your great patience and your explaining things. A year-and-a-half or so I've been editing Wikepedia, and I still learn new things all the time! Thanks again, and Happy Wiki'ing! --

8003:

somewhere, and probably something leaking somewhere else. Although I'd ease myself in gently, maybe close the odd fifty deletion debates and delete all prods due for deletion today, and then rest up. :)

7536:). So in American the main forms of comics are comic books and graphic novels, in British comics the forms of comics are comics and graphic novels. I assume the confusion is arising from this dual usage. 1960:

and create a petition to remove that section and only use footnotes, you, like anyone, have the right to do that — that's how Knowledge works. In the meantime, the "References" section exists and can be

7553:"So in American the main forms of comics are comic books and graphic novels, in British comics the forms of comics are comics and graphic novels. I assume the confusion is arising from this dual usage." 7531:

The problem is that while comic book is the name of specific format/type, comics refer to both a form and a format (the latter usually being short for something like "comic paper" and these are usually

4578:

Thanks for your comments about not being a vandal. I did open a sock puppet complaint on Freak104 but only after I posted the warning on the page. I was unsure how to let people know of the issue. --

4545:, it was tagged as not citing references. There are references listed in the references section. What kind of other references would make this article ok, or is it already ok? --- Stephen Goldmeier | 2147:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

6787:

I think i'm gonna buy ""CSI" Companion", it's only 2 quid at amazon.co.uk. About Sidle, it annoyed the hell out of me Zeus1234's request to eliminate some references, specially after taking a look at

5399:

However, such hatnotes may sometimes be used when it is not entirely clear for the reader which disambiguation is used for which article (for example Matt Smith (illustrator) and Matt Smith (comics)).

6249: 3333:

Thanks for putting The Order reviews back in that didn't come from that one editor's personal blog. He'd linkspammed so much and I was fixing so many pages, I erased these by accident. Good catch. --

1238:

page dealing with the works with their companion miniatures. Tanith is special in the fact that the "First and Only" became Codex approved, which means that you could field an army using the models.

611:

Ah thanks for bringing this up! I was actually thinking of redoing the page in a few weeks. I think that the appearance at Convergence should certainly help with the credibility issue. Thanks again!

3303:

sorry for forgetting to sign, heh. i'm quite new at this. i'm quite confused about the image use thing but i guess i should drop a line in my talk page, eh? maybe that will tidy up the conversation.

1392:

I looked at the rules again and again, and what I cited was correct. Deletion of legal accusations, other accusations, and cussing is permissible in talk pages of articles, but it is controversial.

7900:

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the

8386:

Hi! Thanks for stopping by my DA page, really really appreciate it. Although I dunno how you discovered my comicspace? (since its not mentioned in my userpage). And yes, the people at CBI are not

6740:

I'm just happy I figured out the coding to get it to work :) And it shouldn't be that hard to 'port it over to the "Series" 'box... lord knows it would help with things like the Titans and JLA. -

5512:

I was implying that I've been busy with the comics disambiguation pages, yes. :) Look how many more there are now... and I'll probably add some more before too long. But not any more this week!

3191:

In the end though, I didn't think that the edits were of a big enough nature that anyone would object. If you want me to stop, I'll stop. Its not a big enough deal to me to want to fight over. :)

2562:

In any case, my first edit summary was a general statement, not necessarily directed at him. When he didn't respond or comment, my gut feeling was that he was personally involved in the project.

5425:" is obviously not looking for any other since "Matt Smith" or "Matthew Smith" does not target said page. I allowed hats that linked Matt Smith (comics) to Matthew Dow Smith together because the 862:

article is basically a stub, and as such has attracted a deletion request. It would probably help immensely if the article could be beefed up by someone with some knowledge in the fortean field.

7318: 5973:. So it goes. As for the Bayeaux Tapestry, my Penguin Book of Comics from the sixties places it within the tradition, but I wouldn't dream of tagging it. I would be inclined to tag people like 5001:

Thanks for the concurrence — and for pointing me to another Wiki guideline I hadn't seen! I feel like I'm in one of those adventure games, where you keep finding new clues to the big picture! --

6146:

Either "imprint" of "DC Comics" is cool with me. I also would lean toward "imprint". Do you think this rises to a level necessitating a WikiProject NoticeBoard posting, or is it non-controv? --

5077:

but I find a lot of times we discussed a lot of stuff and then never actually implement what we discussed, and that used to drive me nuts. I'd like to see the project set up along the lines of

7345:

Thanks for the note - I wasn't really sure what was going on there but, not having nominated someone, I wasn't sure what the procedures were and someone was helping fix things at some point. (

6118:

Don't know why you couldn't move it, but I have done it. Couldn't see anything in the edit history that would prevent a move, but maybe there was something that meant admin power was needed.

4926:. Yeah, thanks for the nudge, but right now my dipping of the toe is feeling like a mistake. I am perhaps at odds with where the project is right now. But then again, maybe it was ever thus. 171:. Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone. If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced," (emphasis in original). It also needlessly clutters the talk page.-- 8230: 1154: 846: 6637:

Ideally, I can see us winding up with 3 'boxes: "Series", "Arc", and "Graphic novel". The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of a TPB specific 'box. In almost all cases the TPB

4704:

For your extraordinary work in the field of comics and the WikiProject Comics, I want to make sure that your work is noted. It's nice to see that we have some real heroes here at wikipedia.

8309: 2144:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1820:

I have noticed that after a few weeks of relatively lukewarm enthusiasm, the amount of activity at WP CSI has fallen off quite a bit. I am only aware of 3 regular contributors: you, me and

1735: 1003: 8229:

I also disagreed with SOME of what Phil Sandifer had to say about the review, but it was mostly his tone in his criticism. I've made a few improvements with both his and your suggestions.

8237:

are now their own articles with links in the Barbara Gordon article. I thank you for your time and your opinions on how to improve the article. I hope you are having a wonderful holiday!

6851:

Thanks for the work on the noticeboard it should make things a lot more flexible - I was wondering if it'd be an idea to set up automatic archiving of some of those set to say 6 months?

1608: 4765:

No problem about the resources; let me know if you'd like a hand digging up resources for anything else! I like to think I know my way around the Internets and libraries to an extent. —

1233:

This is my last and only comment on the issue to you: Your proposal defeats the whole purpose and creates a list when there is already a list of the comics of Warhammer 40,0000, see the

8151: 4856:

I award you this for your thoughtful, responsible editing, your diligence against vandalism, and your articulate comments in talk-page disputes. Congratulations from my humble self. --

896:

anti-pop-cultue-page people (note I don't call them "editors"!), but having standards might help to cut down on the indiscriminate AfDing of every pop-culture page these people find. -

783:

Sorry about my edits, I saw you reverted them. Did I do something wrong? I am still a bit new to the Knowledge way of things... What should I do concerning red links? Please advise!

3441:

for the Marvel character, I moved it - but I guess I should have made that into a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. I'll try to be more conscientious of that in the future.

2500:

And if it is, why state "another DC reprint series" since Omnibus is a Marvel reprint series? Why not include Essential since that is a Marvel reprint series equivalent to Showcase?

7458:, etc. comic book is usually used for American comics (or at least one form of American comics) and refers to a rather specific form of comic - hence the more general term was used. 3154:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3081:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3008:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2935:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2862:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2789:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2716:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2544:

Thanks, for the rest of the week I will try to continue beefing up/creating more comic pages, school is starting Monday so after that I will be too busy to contribute all that much.

1901:

Having personally contributed to some of the articles you mention, I can state without equivocation that whatever I placed under References are sources I used to write the article.

7798: 6341:

It does put them into a category per-se, but it is redlinked. I don't know whether any further work is necessary. I'm fine either way, actually, just figured I'd bring that up.

1161:

at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough.

2277: 2251: 411: 394: 355: 7407:

it's technically incorrect. What's left over in the category of "comics" if you remove "comic strips" and "comic books"? (Honest question, I'm not just trying to be a dick.)

3150: