User talk:Emperor

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Emperor/Archive 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Ultron

I've started a discussion here, and would be interested in your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I thought you should know that Asgardian has continued his deletion of material in a number of edits:

• In this edit he removed an entire section, but in his Edit Summary, he claims that he "reworked" it. I have restored it.
• In this edit, despite the fact there is currently an ongoing discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page regarding the use of comic book titles in articles, Asgardian deleted a reference to the title in which an event took place. I restored it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted most of a section, calling it "fancruft". I started the discussion on that Talk Page because I think there's room to argue over this, and have not reverted it for this reason. I explained why I believe it's not "fancruft", but think we need a consensus on it.
• In this edit, Asgardian deleted two thirds of a section, claiming in his Edit Summary, "Not well written - just the facts." First of all, I explained to Asgardian some time ago that poor writing is not a valid rationale to delete material, in lieu of a rewrite. Second, by saying "just the facts", he implying that there was non-factual material in that section. As one of the editors who participated in the writing/editing of that section, I assure you, having read the books, that it is indeed facts. In addition, by deleting mention of Yellowjacket by name, Asgardian is deleting mention of the only appearance of someone under that identity in the Ultimate universe. I pointed this out to Asgardian on his Talk Page. Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I sense that you're in agreement with on all my points, albeit expressed in more provisional language. If that's the case, then perhaps you need to be more forceful in asserting this with Asgardian. I really would prefer to not have to review his contributions periodically, as some kind of second Watchlist, and if he continues to delete material without valid (or with misleading) rationale, you might want to consider that he needs to be blocked. I mean, how much walking on eggshells should be done around one editor out of thousands who refuses to follow policy and work with others? However, I have to agree with him regarding the Branagh issue. Lots of "in-development" movie info is from reliable trades, but I believe that WP:CRYSTAL prefers that development has reached the point of signed contracts and actual filming before material is added. Negotiations can simply be another part of "development hell". Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are another editor. And what's more, you seem to be one that he responds to, and even agreed to mentor him. This is why you need to weigh in in situations like this, as you have been doing occasionally. As for blocking (not "banning"), I think a pattern of behavior on his part has indeed been illustrated. Regarding discussion, I'm also wondering what's going on with the Black Bolt discussion. He told me on my Talk Page that he was going to get another opinion, and that was several days ago, with no word from him. Nightscream (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the legitimacy of Jc37's approach to this situation to be mixed. Yes, he's made some admonishments to Asgardian, but I find his statements during discussion on my Talk Page to be less constructive than they could be. Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved admin

Per this comment which Nightscream copied to me, I would like to let you know that, soon, I will impose the block discussed. Giving you a little time to respond if your opinion's changed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week and the action logged at the RFAR page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Bolt and Living Laser

Hi. Regarding Black Bolt, do you have an idea of when we will get this "other opinion" on Black Bolt that Asgardian said he would get back on September 30th? I posted a message on October 4 on the Black Bolt Talk Page and on Asgardian's Talk Page asking about this, but haven't gotten a response.

Regarding Living Laser, Asgardian deleted nearly an entire section of material, replacing it with a single line of information, and claiming in his Edit Summary that this is a "reworking", and that he retained the Lead section "through consensus". I'm not sure if that "through consensus" point was a reference only to the Lead, which I don't dispute, or the deleted section, but I asked him about where this consensus was, and on October 6, he said on my Talk Page, "I just have to backtrack and find it. I think I know where it is." That was seven days ago. And still no word from him, despite the fact that he has indeed been editing during all that time, up until now.

Please advise. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• When you say, "you've made reasonable efforts on the Black Bolt front and just ignoring requests for comments and explanation", I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you mean to write "Asgardian is" before the phrase "just ignoring"? If so, fine, but what do you think we should do? In my opinion, saying, "Black Bolt will face", is decontextualized, and makes no sense as it reads. Should we re-insert the title, and by extension, ignore Asgardian's "no titles in FCB" edict, since policy calls for out-universe instead of in? If so, what do you advise if he again reverts it?

• You already said the What If section belongs in the Alternate section. I don't dispute that. I dispute the manner in which he deleted most of it. I also question whether the "consensus" indeed refers to this, rather than the Lead, but again, he won't respond to messages. You say it should not have been trimmed down so much, so what do we do? Nightscream (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

S'okay, don't worry about it. Typos are the bane of all of us.

As far as your Publication History idea, I see a few problems with this. First of all, if we start that new section, who's going to write it? I have no interest in doing so, nor do I have enough knowledge of the character to do so, so how can I propose it? Second, this is not how Wikipedia prescribes its articles to be written. Policy requires that fiction be written from an out-universe perspective, and cites articles like Captain Marvel (DC Comics) as an example. If you look at that article, you see that the publication history and fictional character biography are integrated as one section, discussing both external publishing events and internal events in the life of the character. Asking me to start a PH seems like an iteration of Asgardian's viewpoint, which is to treat PH and FCB separately, with no mention of titles in FCB, which is an matter of his arbitrary whims/aesthetics, which you agreed was not supportable, and is part of the problem. Indeed, what would a Black Bolt PH section consist of? Characters like Superman and DC's Captain Marvel have gone through a lot of revamps, reboots, chaning publishers, etc., for 70 years, but isn't Black Bolt's PH pretty straightforward? What's there to say that isn't already in the article in his FCB? Lastly, even if I suggest this, what good will it do if he keeps ignoring me and/or reverting it? It's still going to come around to that, so the question has to be answered: What do we do if he continues to revert and ignore? So even if I thought that PH was a good idea, and would wish he'd compromise, you know he's not going to do so. At what point do you agree that it becomes unavoidable to make administrative decisions?

Again, same question for Living Laser.

Again, the PH idea does not address the current problem. First, that fact that we start a PH does not have anything to do with having titles in the FCB, which is what Asgardian keeps reverting. There is no reason "War of Kings" should not also be in the FCB, and you yourself agreed with this. Indeed, a PH would only mention the most notable appearances of the character, and we don't even know at this point if his appearances in WoK will qualify. By talking about a PH, you're not addressing the central problem.

The rest of my post is not a different topic, it's the same topic we've been discussing for some time now, which has not been resolved. You say that I haven't tried your suggestions. How do you figure this? You said try talking to him, didn't you? Jc37 suggested starting a discussion on the Project board, didn't he? I haven't tried these? How so? You and another admin said you'd mentor him. Has this worked to address the issue of his continued reverts and ignoring me? Don't say that I haven't tried your suggestions, because that's true, and you know it. The problem is that you seem to be going out of your way to avoid answering this issue, as if you're dead-set on walking on eggshells around him, and making everyone else do the same. There's no rule that he has to talk to me? In fact, WP policy requires editors in conflict to talk it out. That is indeed a rule. You say that if he starts renewing again he is on thin ice. He's been reverting constantly. How is he not already on thin ice? Are you saying that if I reinsert the material, and he reverts again, that then you'll do something? Where exactly is the line?

You say that I'm advocating "deciding to skip moving things forward because I've assumed what his reaction will be." First of all, I haven't "decided" anything. I've simply been asking you questions. Asking you what will happen if he continues his behavior is not an "assumption". He is exhibiting this behavior as we speak, and has been doing so for some time. Asking you what will happen if he continues the behavior he's been exhibiting up until now is not an "assumption". How is this "straight on" to sanctions? He's been thumbing his nose at WP policy left and right, and I've been taking every suggestion you've made, ever since you and the others raised the issue of my block. So where do you get "straight on" to sanctions? That's not "hypothetical", it's ongoing. Why are you so reluctant to answer the question? Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian again deleted my trimmed down version of the Living Laser material, calling it "fancruft". Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Daniel Case. Btw, does policy or MOS preclude wikilinking section headings? I've seen wikilinked headings often, and was not aware there was a problem with it. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. In the even that you missed the above message, and saw Daniel's post above as your last message, can you let me know your thoughts on section wikilinking? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Asgardian is finally discussing things with me on his Talk Page. His attitude about certain things doesn't seem to have changed, and I don't know if he's going to return to his old behavior once the block expires, and since the version of the Living Laser passage in question that he proposes leaves out the What If? title, I want to ask you something. Should we start a discussion on the Projects page to address this? The last time I tried to start a discussion there, on Jc37's suggestion, no one responded. And the last time I tried to start a consensus discussion on the Ultron Talk Page regarding the Film section, I think two people responded, despite the fact that I contacted like a dozen. I notice that you're active on the Project Talk Page. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I ensure that people will participate? Nightscream (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he and I have been discussing these issues, can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you offer your thoughts in the discussion on Asgardian's Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Asgardian removed an in-universe tag from the Living Laser article, despite the fact that that tag legitimate reflects the fact that WP requires fiction to be written about in an out-universe manner, and that article's content is largely in-universe. Please advise. Nightscream (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Krazy (comics)

Surely Krazy is a comic not a "comics" - you would not have "The Godfather (films)" or "Empire (magazines)" would you? I think the naming convention you cite is more to do with American comics than British (and that Comics project does not seem to cover British comics at all), and I am sorely tempted to rename it back again. Stephenb (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCC applies to all comics and is a class not a description. Hence you have both 2000 AD (comics) and Simon Davis (comics)/John Bolton (comics).

Well, I notice you added the redirect from 2000AD (comic) so not a great example. And neither Simon Davis and John Bolton are a comic, they work in the industry, so there is no comparison. Looking at Category:Fleetway and IPC Comics titles half of them follow the "rule" and half don't (several that do are as a result of you renaming). The rule itself doesn't make sense, of course (see my previous examples above) - most people looking for a British comic or adding a link to one would naturally type "name (comic)" and not the bizarre "name (comics)" no matter what some strange project decided the rule would be (for American comics, which the project might cover, but the naming convention doesn't mention British comics). Virtually no type of article with the distinguishing category in brackets uses the plural. In addition, in renaming the article, you have not changed the disambiguation page link (still reads "(comic)") or the other links I painstaking went through and updated. Basically, this naming convention is entirely wrong for British comics. Stephenb (Talk) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already raised it at the project. I did not say that because other article still use "(comic)" that this should too, but as an example of expected usage, like (film), (novel), (magazine) and so on. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles the examples for class are singular, although the subject or context are not. My argument is that the singular class is by far more preferable for examples of comics themselves, though other articles about the industry may well use the subject/context. Stephenb (Talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Doctor (comics)

Emperor, this "strange" edit came up on my watchlist. The editor, Marcus Brute, may be doing such changes to other SIAs. Could you look into it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to my watchlist. It seems OK as it stands. BTW, have you watchlisted all of the SIAs relating to comics? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I should have them all on my watchlist as I've worked on all of them as well as most of the remaining disambiguation pages that need converting (although I always seem to find one or two I've never seen before). That said it can't hurt to have another set of eyes on them - I have a large list and something else might blow up that distracts me. (Emperor (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me for poking my nose in... I don't understand half of this, but I get quite irritated by the removal of red links for no good reason - they are, I thought, quite an important part of Wikipedia. Designed to get people to notice what doesn't exist, and hopefully write it. Surely? In any case, if there's a massive battle at any point, I notice that this "MOSDAB" page says that a compromise solution is not to remove the text, but just to remove its linkage. So that might be appeasing in some circumstances. (Ignore me if I have the wrong end of the stick..!) ntnon (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mark Farmer (author)

A tag has been placed on Mark Farmer (author) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Flowanda | Talk 08:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pat Mills

Quick question - do we know why Pat Mills is thanked in the opening acknowledgements to Watchmen..? Could it be as simple as first putting Moore and Gibbons in touch on 2000AD work, or... something else. Any idea? :o) ntnon (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for me - I could have done that, and saved you some hassle..! I didn't remember anything specific, so I didn't rush to check it, and your look seems to agree with my feeling. So. A mystery! :o) It's Mills, Gaiman, <someone> and Joe Orlando: Gaiman gave quotes and support (per his blog); Orlando drew some pirates (pre TCJ #116), but the other two... hmmm.... it could just be help and advice on various aspects of the plot/quotes/backups, but I'm curious now.

I think there's a fair bit that can be added to the current re-write of Watchmen, and I'm a bit miffed that I put in a lot of effort which was essentially steamrollered twice! First because there was apparently a rewrite going on when I first re-sourced the article, and second because I again researched and sourced everything for WesleyDodds to write with, but that input has been lost because it was all copied rather than merged.... Oh well. I know what I did to help. :o) (Even if I'm still unclear why there was a wholesale rewrite undertaken, which has lost quite a bit of interesting and useful information on one of/the most important comics.) I would certainly add something approximating what you wrote though, yes. And definitely include the last quote. ntnon (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Do you read Italian..?!

Hmm...! I've just got hold of the 20th Anniversary book of Watchmen essays, but, typically, it's Italian-published and (how unreasonable!) in Italian. (I did know this beforehand, but convinced a friend to lend me it anyway.) So now I don't know what to do with it..! :o) ntnon (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was ultimately a somewhat flippant query - it would need me to guess at something that looks interesting; transcribe the whole thing, and then hope someone else can translate and re-type it..! ;o) Somewhat tough.

I'm surprised it's not made it over to the UK or US (yet), too. I might e-mail someone and ask, actually. I suppose it would be somewhat foolhardy to e-mail Titan and suggest they look into it, so I'll try and locate the publisher/editor and enquire of them. Can't imagine they haven't thought about it, though, and maybe the film will bring all kinds of things out of the woodwork. (Could be legal issues, though, I suppose.) ntnon (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What's in it...? Lots of Italian. :o) Plus some pictures by various people: OK.

Cover by Gibbons and Gabriele del'Otto; Introduction by Michael Moorcock; brief interviews (I think) with Moore, Gibbons and Higgins; 12 chapters on various things; 25-picture Gallery (inc. David Hitchcock, Eduardo Risso, Chris Weston (sure I've seen it somewhere else...), Gary Spencer Millidge, et al.; afterword(?) by Mike Carey; ~6-line biographies [Khoury interviewed Moore, Villarrubia was involved somehow] of the contributors; Watchmens publication details, in Italy; paragraph-long biographies of Moore, Gibbons and Higgins; Gibbon's cover to the Mayfair Games Taking out the Trash RPG module, in black and white. The End. :o) ntnon (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy Awards in the News

The Project Fanboy Awards have recieved attention in an article regarding the Top U.S. Comic Book Conventions,and are listed as a one of the main events for the MegaCon Convention in an article about the Top Us Comic Book Conventions found here:

Top US Comic Book Conventions

Does this article help the Project Fanboy Wikipedia entry I have saved in my sandbox at all? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input. I didn't realize it was a blog entry. Thanks anyway. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hatnote advice

I say it has to go per WP:NAMB. The film seems to already be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this seems more like a case of several characters using the same names. I guess it's ok, but if it were me, I'd trim the hatnote (like I once did for Ice and Icemaiden). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, it may be best to list the characters rather than hatnoting. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Comics

Hi! Would you pay a short visit to Talk:Hungarian_comics, and than a longer one on the article itself? :) (We had a conversation there a few months ago.) Thanks a lot! Zoli79 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DC Encyclopedia

Huh, very interesting, thanks. :o) And reminds me that the second edition is out, too... I don't know, though. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to put together a reasonably good article, but I would find it a little odd, personally. (No odder than a hundred other things, but still... an article on an encyclopedia, when it's contents is ultimately - or should be - lesser than this encyclopedia, seems mildly strange to me.) I'll pitch in and help, though, as and when. ntnon (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm sure it passes the Wikipedia requirements, I just think it's a little... strange! ;o) Mind you... what could work would be having some kind of "DC ENCYCLOPEDIA" page, which could cover the three Fleisher books (and mention they were reprinted); then this DC Encyclopedia, plus the Vertigo one (honorable side-mention of the DK Marvel companion); mention the Batman, Superman, Catwoman DK volumes, and then, Greenberger's Batman update and the up-coming Superman update. Or would that be a little much..?! (With a 'See also: Who's Who; Secret Files & Origins, etc.') ntnon (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Pages Section

I like to patrol the 'New Pages' section but every once in a while, the author (or someone who seems to a sockpuppet) deletes my DB-html right off the page and or blanks the page which is, of course, a breaking of the rules. I don't know how to respond to this. Lots42 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IOM infobox

Just following up on this...

I've move the template to a live page - {{Infobox comics in other media}} and placed it on most of the IOM articles.

I've also gotten some feed back on my talk if you're interested.

- ~~``

Actually Something Comics-Related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_(film) About once a month, someone goes in and changes the gender refs to the character Gabriel. From 'he' to 'her' to nuetral-gender to back again. Big discussion in the talk pages has seemed to hit a brick wall. One person fails to understand that the gender depends on what the movie says. Lots42 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Archie

Just saw that you'd reverted some "OldSunnyGirl" deletions from various Archie/Red Circle characters. This is the several-th time that this editor has done this, almost entirely un-explained. I've wondered vaguelly and specifically (to 'her' as well) whether there is actually a technical reason that these edits are occurring, which is possible, or whether it's just random vandalism. I'd like to assume the former, but these edits keep happening, even after warnings from various people and queries from the same. Weird. ntnon (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent edits on Runaways, adding film, fixing infoboxes, and headers. Thanks! A _talk 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I truly agree, that's why I try and help whenever I can. Thanks! A _talk 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Warren Worthington III

Someone just tried to add Category:Marvel Comics supervillains to the article. While I can understand why, WP:VER requires us to source these kinds of things regardless of its obviousness. Would you happen to have a source on you? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is all in the entry under the "Archangel" section and he was a supervillain for a while (in the broad sense). This goes back to my question on the talk page - do we include those who have been brainwashed, mincontrolled, coerced, etc.? I think we need a broad consensus which we can use to arrive at a specific consensus on each page. (Emperor (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

And there's that query I left at #Doctor Druid which went unanswered. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered over there. (Emperor (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Thank you Emperor. Indeed, we need to establish some criterion on how to designate individuals as supervillains. Think you can get a discussion going at WT:CMC? I'll do it later on tonight if you're unable to. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically I have got the ball rolling - no one picked it up and ran with it. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

What do you mean? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here where I ask whether we need a stricter definition of what it takes to be classed as a supervillain. I'd suggest that (at least for the purposes of assigning categories) we should have as a basic standard that they made a choice to be a supervillain (so no mind-control and no coercion - as anyone can commit terrible acts if someone threatens to kill their family). There are clearly going to be so many exceptions it'd make your brain bleed trying to come up with the combinations and permutations so I'd keep it simple and leave the last call up to a consensus on the relevant talk page. (Emperor (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Galactus suggestions

Have a look and see if the sub-titles are what you were thinking about for the alternative universe section. There is actually quite a bit of material from the creators about Ultimate Galactus so that section can be extended quite a bit. In regards to the lead, need to find someone to do that as I'm more of an editor than a writer. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Post apocalyptic comics

About this edit. I am not sure about the reasoning behind adding it to alternative history as almost all of them are set in the future (any exceptions, although I can't think of any at the moment, should be tagged individually). Although I may be overlooking something ;) (Emperor (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Trying to figure it out myself : )

The overlap between alternate history and parallel universe and "dimension" makes trying to cat these to be a "fun" challenge.

For one thing, I'm trying to minimise duplication.

For another, the alternative history cat is for comics publications (something I didn't spot right off : )

And trying to figure out how Earth-Two categorises was "fun" as well. (I'm really starting to think that perhaps we should remove cats from infoboxes...)

So anyway, it's still a "work-in-progress". Please feel free to jump in and help : ) - jc37 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate history needn't have anything to do with parallel universes unless it is specifically invoked as the explanation (usually in the Big Two where they are heavy continuity). There may be some post-apocalyptic alternative history works (I suspect a few Steampunky novels deal with a disaster in the past) but it is an area that isn't heavily explored, even though now I think about it there is some interesting potential (the only problem is, if you throw in an apocalypse in the past it changes history so much that it would tend to fall out of the alternative history genre - although there are ways to make this work. You could argue Scarlet Traces fits, as it is after the Martian invasion). (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm. It wouldn't take much pruning to repurpose Category:Comic book alternate futures to Category:Alternate future comics, to match Category:Alternate history comics and alternate future. What do you think? - jc37 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are very few alternate future comics (which are different from alternative history comics) as they deal with time travel to change the future - the examples listed are the only ones I can think of (outside of one off sci-fi tales with a twist). Technically the future equivalent of alternative history is probably science fiction. (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Though I see that the article alternate future says that this is limited to time travel, I don't believe that this is the case. And while I agree that some stories set in the future are science fiction, that's not always the case. (The Pelbar Cycle comes immediately to mind.)

Are there sources of scholarship on the topic? - jc37 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just 2¢ (and sorry about the dedent... I'm not sure how to fit this into the thread...) But it seems that the breakdown of "Alternate reality", "Alternate history", and "Alternate future" stems as much from the internal construction of the story as when the story was written. Scarlet Traces is a good example of the later. If Wells had written it, or something similar as a sequel to War of the Worlds it would have be strictly science fiction since he would have been using the world as know as a contemporary or near future tale. As it stands though, Scarlet Traces is an alternate history since the writer is looking back and speculating how the decades after the Martian attack would have played out differently from actual history.

Also, the more I think about it, "alt reality" and "alt future" are plot elements/devices than genres.

- J Greb (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree.

And technically, isn't every work of fiction which protrays anything relating to earth a work of "alternate history"?

And thus anything set in "the future" (either in relation to the time of the work's authorship, or in relation to a specific point in time selected by the author) would have the same issue?

We run into the same problem of "alternate as compared to what?".

And to further add complexity, there is the question of "alternate in regards to a 'mainstream' continuity".

Perhaps these should be lists in order to more clearly describe/explain the application of "alternate". - jc37 02:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid categorising themes as genres and alternative futures are specifically connected with time travel (otherwise there is no actual future to make an alternative too - those time travelling conundrums are braintwisters ;) ) so if it needed a category then "time travel in comics" might be it, although whether we need to be so fine-grained is another thing and it'd obviously fit under sci-fi. I am looking through Category:Comic book alternate futures and I am really usure about a lot of them - I am pretty familiar with Judge Dredd and, while there is time travel and the Judge Child story (and perhaps the Necropolis storyline) counts, most of it doesn't fit. I think Earth-691 might. I'd need to go through them but am dubious about most. (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

First hurdle: All works of fiction are alternatives to the world outside your window. That is a nutshell definition of "fiction".

One you start breaking the works down into genres, and the contents of the works into elements you start running into specific "alternatives".

"Alternate history" as a genre, IIUC, covers works where the writer changes events in the past and speculates how that would alter history. These may be fantasy works, science fiction, straight drama, straight action/adventure, or what have you. Most are termed science fiction, but that isn't a requirement.

Some works of science fiction could be viewed as alt history at some point well after they are published. Star Trek, Mad Max, and 2001 are examples of this. In each case, the work references a specific date after the time when the writer is working for certain events. At that time, these are just science fiction stories. But today, since we've past the"milestones" and the events in the fiction didn't happen, that could be seen as alt histories. They aren't discussed as such, but the term can be stretched that way.

Alt realities and futures are almost exclusively plot elements because the need to be viewed with in the particular work of fiction for the term "alternate" to mean anything. - J Greb (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The complexity of which essentially means that we probably shouldn't be categorising based upon this.

Do either of you oppose this being listified (or deleted)? - jc37 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine as a category and the genre is pretty clear, as outlined in the main article. I suppose the simplest ways to envision them are like "what ifs?" Obviously sci-fi set at a date in the future that is now the past don't count - it is the difference between Victorian sci-fi and Steampunk. (Emperor (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

If this is kept as a category, its introduction explaining its inclusion criteria is gonna be rather complex.

And I don't think that the difference is "obvious". I'm really starting to think that the difference between "alternate future" and "alternate history" is rather subjective. How the line is drawn seems to be a question of Wikipedia editor choice, rather than source material. (I'm not positive on that, but I will admit to being rather not clear on what seems a "fuzzy" dividing line.)

Could you clarify? - jc37 03:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well both are actually pretty specific. Alternative future stories involve time travel stopping a specific future from happening and I think only a few articles in the category count. Alternative history involves some specific change to history (like the Germans winning WWII) and is better explained in alternative history than I could do it justice.

The problem isn't with the actual genres it is with what is being assigned to the categories. Going back to my original question I can't see how post apocalyptic comics fits at all but few if any of those categories should be sub-categories. Equally there are actually very few comics that should be in the category - Ministry of Space is a perfect example of alternative history fiction (and I think those that qualify include Captain Confederacy, Roswell, Templar and possibly Stickleback although I'd remove that too). I can't quite see how you can have an alternative history to a fictional history (as alternative history are based on changes to historical events, so "what if Superman landed in Russia not America" clearly doesn't count) so the Elseworlds category should be removed (although it may be specific titles might be worth including - I just can't think of any). So the problem isn't with alternative history per se but with the assignment of certain titles to that category (Category:Comic book alternate futures in particular is a mystery). Strip out those that genuinely aren't alternative history and you are left with half a dozen articles in it and no sub-categories. I don't think you can condemn a category because of misuse but I do wonder if there are enough comics to sustain the category (and I definitely doubt alternative history comics would be big enough to be sustainable). So those I'd keep the ones that are actual alternate histories:

• Captain Confederacy
• The Life Eaters
• Ministry of Space
• Roswell, Texas (graphic novel)

There are a couple I am unsure about Templar, Arizona, Arrowsmith (comics) and Stickleback (comics) and I'd be tempted to leave them in and have a think about them (I am really unsure about Watchmen but there is a reasonable argument made for it). We don't really know enough about Aetheric Mechanics or Atomika to say one way or the other. Sooooo you'd have 4 definites and 4 possible ones needing further investigation and a could that are unclear. Just about enough to justify having a category. (Emperor (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

(de-dent) Based on all of that, it's clear (unfortunately) that the inclusion criteria is confused by the general editor. (Even with the clarifying introduction.)

As such, particularly since categories can't provide supportive sources for each of their members, this probably should be a list, so that everything you just explained might be explained there, and the entries might be presented in such context.

I honestly think this would make for an interesting article (or even a set of articles). But as a category each would seem to have problems.

That said, is there something which you feel that I am not seeing? - jc37 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well all categories are open to being misused by editors who have misunderstood what the genre is - it should be our job to keep an eye on them and clean them up and I'm happy to do that (it was what sparked this discussion after all). The top category Category:Comics often needs a run through to clear out but I think keeping it as empty as possible is a worthwhile endeavour and I'd be happy to keep an eye on this category too. The link to alternative history is really all that is required as an explanation as the article is pretty clear and specific about the scope of the genre. I don't think listifying it is an option as it would make a fairly short list and given the fact that there only a handful of comics that are great examples of alternative history I don't see a decent article emerging any time soon. I will be working to improve the comics section on the article as it is currently pretty poor, including bad examples and leaving out decent ones and have started a discussion there. I am happy to clean up the category too as it is poorly categorised too - it should be a child of historical comics and possibly science fiction comics (the latter being a substitute for "speculative fiction comics." If, after being cleaned up, it looks like it isn't a viable category (it will probably have 7-8 items in it which is probably OK for a recentish category - there must be others that fit which haven't been included and I'll have a nose around for those) then we can look at deleting it and upmerging to historical comics and science fiction (where appropriate in the latter case). (Emperor (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Midnight (Marvel Comics)

Hello,

I turned this one into a disambiguation page. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! That's a good one.  :) Also, I wanted to point out to you all the hard work that Scottandrewhutchins has been putting into Man-Thing. Is that good enough for a B now? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I remember thinking that Blade might have been improved enough to be a B-class article now, but I'm not altogether sure if I'm remembering correctly. Also, regarding the Marvel Universe Appendix, have we officially determined whether or not it's a fansite? I had the feeling we had determined it was a good resource, but obviously there is still some room for debate. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same way about it. I try to link any character pages on here to corresponding pages there, because that site is amazingly well referenced for one thing. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please point me in the right direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louboy14

I can't seem to find an appropiate forum to report this; basically it's someone editing and deleting and ignoring the db-tags. The forums I go to say, basically, 'This page is for this only'. Can't find, heck, I'm not even sure how to describe this oddness. Sometimes Wikipedia reporting just gets so -complicated-. I don't want to fill out a police report, I'd just like to ask 'Hey, can someone take a peek at this?'. Is there a forum for -that-? Lots42 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind sparing an eye...

I'm in a discussion at Template talk:Punisher#Header colour overriding that I think is going in circles.

I think I maybe missing something and a fresh set of eyes would be a help.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)