Talk:Doctor Fate/Archive 2

Two infoboxes enter, only one leaves

We have two infoboxes in the article; one deals primarily with the subject, and the other deals with other incarnations (other folk who have worn the bucket that is Nabu). As far as I know, only one is needed for the article; the primary one. The other incarnations or publication history can be integrated in the primary one. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First, could you point to the policy, guide line, or consensus that limits the number of infoboxes in an article. If there is one, I'd really like to see it before going and running up infoboxes for character/series (which would be applicable here where the series are a minor part of the article), series/character (reverse situation), alias/series, and series/alias. Creating that for this article as a "special case" instead of a set of general 'boxes for like article is more trouble than it's worth. Also, having such a guide to point to would help with cleaning up a lot of articles that have multiple 'boxes. (Please note, I'm not trying to argue "other stuff", just firmly determine if this is a case of layout counter to consensus or an issue of taste on a non-addressed issue.) - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, J. I do know that i haven't seen any other article s with multiple infoboxes (and that includes other media and article types), so I am presuming there is one. Maybe you could look for such a policy this weekend, as I am heading out of town and will not be checking in. Let me know what you find out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Other examples of multiple boxes in use include Justice League, Teen Titans, Justice Society of America, and a veriaty of multiple character articles.

In most of those cases, the "suplimentry" 'boxes are tied to specific sub-sections of the articles, which isn't the case here, nor could it be given the subject. - J Greb (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There must be a better way to do this that cluttering up the page than using multiple boxes. We can split articles and mark them as such, thus covering other sub-genres. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. The Titans article, for example, has what seems to be an onging give and take debate on compressing and splitting. And it may be that there is a difference in page layou concpt. Remember what I said about subsections and actually look at the Teen titans article. Except for the team 'box and original series, which are at the top of the page, the series 'boxes are set at the top of the relavent subsections. They function as they are supposed to and don't create designe or legability issues.

While there are articles where the layout is and issue (Sandman (DC Comics)) or could be one (here), it isn't an automatic "bad practice" or, as far as I can tell, a forbidden one. Also keep in mind this aritcle is using a character box, the primay focus of the artile with all 6 comic book chrated addressed, and a comic book series box, listing the 3 self titled comic book runs.

- J Greb (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) I don't know, J - it seems a slim argument that tends towards sliding into in-universe infoboxing for one and excess triviality for the other. What is the exceptional notability for any volume of Doctor Fate over another? Remember, this is an article about the character from a comic book, not the comic book itself. Publication information can be noted at the end of the article, or - maybe not at all, as the distinguishing between volumes as to who wore the bucket and when seems trivial. And just bc TT or JL or JSA use it doesn't mean it's correct. As yu noted, there is a lot of discussion about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor does it mean that it is incorrect. This is one of the two reasons I asked you if you had a consensus, guide line, and/or policy that you were coming from. If such exists, then there is a solid, or as solid as Wiki gets, reason for creating the combined infoboxes and enforcing a "the can only be one" mentality. Without that, right here, right now we have an attempt to create that consensus with an editor pointing out "I think this is wrong and we shouldn't do it."

There is also the fact that, and I'm going to hammer this point as hard as I can, the 'boxes in this article are doing two separate things. One is the character 'box which list information, both in real world and in-universe context, of four of the six versions of the character and links to the article on the remaining two versions. The other is a comic book series 'box, which should 100% real world context and self-contained. The character 'box has pride of place due to the article being more about the characters than the three series. But even then that does not elevate content from the series box, making one series more important than the others, because the 'boxes are dealing with different types of content. - J Greb (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With the utmost of respect, arguing from the negative - ie, 'that doesn't make it incorrect' - is a sophistry argument, and less than useful here. If you want to make a point/alteration in policy that you need to make and find consensus for in the Comics Wikiproject, and not testing the waters by putting it here. Virtually every other article within the wiki-en uses one infobox, and that includes other comic book articles. However, I could be wrong. If there are a number of FA articles that use multiple infoboxes, please point them out here.

Of course, that is a bit of sophistry on my part, as there aren't FA articles that have a plethora of infoboxes. The article covers all aspects of the character within one article. It covers publication history, publication dates, etc. The article doesn't distinguish betwen the value of the fictional information and the publication dates of that fictional information. As infoboxes are summaries of the article for the purposes of classification; a far briefer summary of the article that even the Lede is.

Perhaps, arguing for a more extensive infobox instead of arguing for a multiplication of them is the wiser tack here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandman (DC Comics) also uses two infoboxes, and usefully so. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but again - that is a small list of articles that use more than one infobox. I would also point out that the second infobox could easily be deleted, and its information incorporated into the first one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After two weeks without movement on how having two infoboxes is an improvement over one - which is used in the majority of articles in Wikipedia (and not just comics articles) - I've decided to be bold and remove it. It sets a bad precedent. The information in the second infobox can be utilized in the article and isn't particularly useful or relevant as an infobox. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've been bold and reverted.

Bluntly: Provide the guide line or policy that states that using more than one 'box is forbidden.

You've been asked to do this repeatedly and have fallen back on stating that the current, long standing usage must be shown as valid and that you don't like it. That doesn't cut it. Provide the cite or build a consensus to have it changed. At this point there is no consensus, so there is no change. - J Greb (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I have already noted that the majority of the articles in Wikipedia don;t use it, and only a small handful of articles use the double infobox, the second of which is utterly unnecessary, and should instead be provided in the body of the article. It isn't a matter of ot likeing it, J - its a matter of uniformity (art of that whole encyclopedic thing). And allow me to be frank - it is in fact you that needs to beuild a consensus to change the standing consensus clearly inidacted by the lack of the template in other articles. You have to build a consensus to add it. I don't have to provide one to keep it out, especially when it is unnecessary. ou might want to take this discussion to the Comics project, as has been suggested before. Make policy there, not here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... bull.

The pair of 'boxes hav sat quietly on the article until you decided it was an issue. We've hit WP:BRD. Yours is the bold edit at this point. Yours is the one that has garnered contention. Yours is the onus.

Frankly, I'd love to have something more than the "Other pages don't" on this since that would make it that much easier to create a solution that doesn't engender lay out problems, have editors shaking their heads at the look, or remove content.

Yes, there there is currently a discusion here, though it seems to have gone a little sideways. And a question put to the Project focusing on the 'boxes here. Feel free to add your thoughts at Comics, ot to take a whack at proding Infoboxes, but please don't go jumping that your bold edit is right, or shouting "edit war" when you're pushing the change. - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to join in the discussion, but first I'd like to ask you both to consider your tone. Let's bring it back down to the civil realms that I know we're all accustomed : ) - jc37 01:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonrandom break 1

Thanks for interjecting, JC. Let's try this again:

BRD means one makes a bold edit. Then, if there is a revert, discussion takes place. We don't post out view point inthe discussion page, and then go and revert back in something we KNOW is going to be in contention. Let's halt this slo-mo edit war and take the discussion over to the current one at Wikiproject comics. Please await the conclusion (and consensus that arises from that discussion, please).

I'll add more thoughts on this tomorrow. I am off for the evening - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, let me make sure I go this crystal clear:

Content that was added 17 months ago[1], and has been in place, without comment or problem is the edit that needs to be justified while the deletion of that content less than 2 weeks ago[2], which was contested, is fine?

I'm sorry, I don't buy that, especially since the editor deleting it has edited the article prior to the deletion, yet left the 'box alone. That, and the long period the content was left in place speaks to the deletion being the bold edit in this case.

And if we are to await a consensus, at worst that means the article, or the relevant content "hold" at the point prior to the recent bold edit. - J Greb (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you have an adequate grasp of the situation, J. I didn't edit the infobox out because I simply didn't pay as much attention to this article until recently, and my edits reflected article content rather than a plethora of infoboxes. I don't see the eddition of one or more as a step in the right direction. If you feel the current ones are not up to the task, then they should be reworked. Adding more to make a point isn't really helpful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my general thoughts on the Comic Project in hope of moving things forward. My general feeling is that we should try and avoid multiple boxes if we can - the main case for them is where a number of different characters share the same name but we should look into splitting them - as has been done on Sandman (DC Comics) - an example which only appears to need one infobox as all others have their own entries. Where there are different people wearing the same cowl/mask/bucket then we can easily compact them (as J Greb did with Union Jack (comics) here).

Teams may be a different kettle of fish so I suspect their examples may not be relevant to the discussion, as attempts to outline a roster would get messy quickly. I'd still like to look at the examples a bit more closely but it feels like apples and oranges and they could require a different approach.

Given that I think this page works fine with the one infobox. Although I am open to arguments for the use of more. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

I would agree with that assessment, Emperor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Strange comparison redux

I am not sure why the comparison keeps being made, but the same citation that was being used to justify this bit of synthesis before hasn't changed at all, and it doesn't make that comparison. This was already pretty much dismissed as inaccurate in previous discussions. If someone is seeking to change consensus, it would seem wise to actually find a better citation to launch such an argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the title you gave this thread proves you are not paying attention, as the passage we are currently in dispute over makes no "Strange comparison" per se. Here it is (Wikilinks not recreated):

However, he [meaning Dr. Fate] is still not much of a team player, maintaining his own team within the League. This unit, consisting of himself, Atlantean royalty Aquaman and man-monster Solomon Grundy, was designed to parallel the original line-up of Marvel Comics's superhero group The Defenders, sorcerer Doctor Strange, Atlantean royalty the Sub-Mariner and man-monster the Incredible Hulk.

Note that the only specific comparison made is between the two teams as wholes, and not any one character to another. Here's the relevant passage from the source, which you yourself quoted in our original dispute, only I'm going to take it further:

The second paragraph of text begins: Bruce Timm on "The Teror Beyond" (circa 2004): "That's our backward homage to the Defenders."

Now move down to the next paragraph, to the third sentence: "...but then I mentioned, 'You know, we've got Aquaman here and Dr. Fate; we've basically got two-thirds of a DC Comics alternate universe version of the Defenders.' Little light bulbs started going off over everybody's heads. I said, 'All we need now is the DC equivalent of the Hulk.' Somebody mentioned Grundy and it all went from there."

Next paragraph: Dwayne McDuffie on the absence of the "Silver Surfer" from the "Defenders" line-up: "Well, [Silver Surfer] wasn't in the original Defenders, he showed up in their second appearance. Hint, hint...."

I repeat, the only comparison in the current version of the passage (which had been there since last July, BTW) is between the two teams as two wholes, which is definitely in the quoted passage (including, via McDuffie, a limit to the "original Defenders"). Yes, I added a list of the Defenders' original line-up, but that is not synthesis. It is left to the readers to decide who parallels who! If you insist, I'll move that list to after the current ref cite and add one for it giving Marvel Feature Vol. 1, #1, December 1971, the comic with that team's debut story. I won't absolutely insist on an open admission here that you were wrong, or an apology, but that would be the decent thing to do. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd grow old waiting, since I am not wrong. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume you weren't trying to be a smartass, coz of course you are aware that that doesn't help two folk talk about things politely. You've been here long enough to get that, right?

Any comparison to Doctor Strange not explicitly made is synthesis, Ted Watson/Tbittreid. You were told this months ago - and this observation was confirmed by a neutral admin. and you are attempting to add that very information yet again. albeit rearranging the text akin to deck chairs on the Titanic. You are taking one cited example where the two are not compared and making the comparison all by your lonesome. As per WP:SYN. you are taking an interpretive leap that is not there. The reader doesn't know who the Defenders are - they came here to read about Doc Fate. You are taking your personal knowledge about the membership of the Defenders - super-team that has had a lot of members - and then Doc Fate's little band of heroes and drawn a connection between Doc Strange and Doc Fate that the reference did not make. In order to make that comparison, someone has to have knowledge of both teams and make the exact same interpretive leaps as you have. As the citation did not, i am guessing the average reader would not - we don't get to make up their minds for them. The same argument you make for Doc Fate being the parallel to Doc Fate could also be made for Son of Satan, Silver Surfer or Devil-Slayer. That said, I am not going to engage in a debate about the (dis)similarities here; that's better confined to a fan forum or something along those lines.

In comparing the two, you are making a new argument not supported by the statements. You seem very interested in including the comparison - that's splendid. Just find a reliable, verifiable citation that says what you want it to and all will be copacetic. Until then, you cannot include it - any more than you could months ago. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to say this one more time, and demand that you do not ignore it. No comparison between Doctor Fate and Doctor Strange is made in the passage currently under debate, only between the two teams as two wholes (it has been substantially altered from the one we had a dispute over last year). NONE! Read the damned thing and you'll see that! This makes virtually everything you said above completely irrelevant; you seem to be talking about the disputed edit from a year ago, and this one simply isn't the same thing. Again, the only thing in this passage that is not in the source is the original line-up of the Defenders, which I added, and as I said, which I am quite willing to separate from the other and give it its own ref cite. NOW DEAL WITH THESE STATEMENTS! If, as seems to be the case, you did not bother to actually read the "new" passage and see the differences before you deleted it either of these last two times (your remark about the readers of this article not knowing who the members of the Defenders are is impossible to interpret any other way since, as I just said, the relevant roster is included; to say nothing of the fact that I included the passage in my earlier posting above, equally indicating you read only the wrap-up of that), I certainly hope that you're not the sort of person who is too egocentric to admit it (if only by the implication inherent in saying no more and "walking away" from this thread). --Ted Watson (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to give you the opportunity to re-write your post, Tbrittreid/TedWatson; it wasn't friendly and its bordered on being uncivil and, as written, there is no real way to respond to it without taking some of the bait. If you make the attempt to rephrase some of your comments and calm down, we can continue discussing the topic. I can assure you I am not ignoring your reasoning for wanting it in; I am simply disagreeing with it. You are trying to utilize a parallel between Doc Fate and Doc Strange that is not explicitly given in the citation provided. Seeking to end-run that by naming the members of the Defenders is not the appropriate way to make that comparison. You need to find a better source that connects the two, Tbrittreid/TedWatson. The source currently could be used to compare the two super-teams, but not the two Doctors.

Now, if you need to ask admin opinion on both my interpretation and your approach, please feel free to do so. I don't really feel like fighting with you about this, but I am not walking away from this. Understand that it isn't egocentricity, as you've suggested at least twice; we both know you need a better citation to say what you want it to say. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to tell you what you told me: Provide a quote from the passage that is a comparison between Fate and Strange or admit that there isn't one. You can't because there isn't one, only between the two teams, which you have now conceded is in the source. I repeat, provide a quote from the passage to back up your claim of the existence such a specific comparison, or admit that there isn't one. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, Tbrittreid/tedwatson (and maybe find the time to choose an account name, please), if you wish to make a comparison between to different super-teams, this article isn't the place to do it, as it isn't about either team. That info - and the citation - belongs elsewhere. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. You are not changing your grounds for deleting this passage until you admit the first one was wrong. And your claim to "have pointed out [this one] before" is an outright lie. You are merely corroborating my suspicions that you have an unnaturally strong dislike for admitting that you are wrong. As for my account name, I was misled by the sign-up procedures as they existed at that time and haven't been able to find a way to change this. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, calm down. You are getting uncivil, and need to dial back the agro before you end up in a situation you aren't going to like. Secondly, I am not wrong, and if you are going to hang your hat on getting an apology of some sort, get used to disappointment. Thirdly, there are multiple reasons why the passage shouldn't be included. You do not have a citation connecting Doc Fate to Doc Strange. What you do have is a citation connecting two different super-groups. That doesn't belong here. If I am confirming your suspicions about my resistance to including information not included by citation, there it is. Lastly, please ask an admin to help you change your name to Ted Watson or Tbrittreid or whatever name you wish. Editors do it all the time, and it isn't really all that hard. Walking around with two usernames atop one another usually makes folk suspicious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why the passage shouldn't be included. Funny how you never claimed any but the Fate/Strange comparison until I challenged you to produce a quote from the passage to prove it was there and, of course, you couldn't do it. And even if true, that doesn't justify your not admitting you were wrong about the existence of the comparison, and apologizing for standing by it far longer than was, to say the least, reasonable.

You do not have a citation connecting Doc Fate to Doc Strange. True, but this time around I have never claimed such a connection. For you to keep going on and on about that is an indefensible, unconscionable and willful lack of good faith. Let me tell you what the closest thing to a benign explanation of your behavior in this matter is, and it is not close at all:

(Note to you, and to any administrator who might see this: the following is a description of indefensible behavior to the detriment of a talk page discussion of a content dispute, is therefore encyclopedia business, and cannot reasonably be dismissed as a personal attack, especially given that, as previously said, the very few parts that are not facts observable above are as close to a benign interpretation of his behavior that is possible.)

• You saw the passage in the article, assumed it was exactly the same one from a year ago and removed it without fully reading it, as your edit summary that the source did not support it, which was completely inaccurate, proves.

• When you saw I had put the passage back in, you removed it again, without reading my edit summary ("Yes it does; note the rephrasing") or the passage.

• In your edit summary at this point you also invited me to defend it on the talk page here; when I did so you, still assuming the passage was identical to last year's, also assumed that my defense of it would be the same, and failed to read that, putting up a response belittling me for including a comparison between Fate and Strange that just was not in the passage.
• I pointed out the absence of the comparison, which you not only did not acknowledge in your response (either the absence or the fact that I was claiming such), but continued to talk about it as if I was attempting to defend it.
• We had one more exchange like this, and then I demanded you provide a quote from the passage to substantiate your claim that there was such a comparison there, or admit that it was not.
• Your reply to that made no mention of the comparison (evading the admission that you could provide no such quote because there was no such statement; like it or not, the failure to provide the requested quote, given your previous insistence on the point, was an implicit admission that you were wrong!), but instead claimed another ground for keeping the passage out of the article, trying to give it added credibility with the lie that you had pointed it out before (the absolute first mention, including last year's argument, of any problem with any version of the passage since my involvement with it—BTW, I did not put it up in the first place—other than the comparison).
• I demanded that before we discuss an alternate reason, you admit that the one you had been claiming was invalid.
• Now this, again indicating the non-existent comparison. Apparently, you felt that with an exchange of posts between us since the demand for the quote, you could get away with bringing it up again. Wrong!

I admit the last, as well as the statements that you did not truly read the passage, my edit summary or my first posting here, is theorizing, but again, is the most benign, or more accurately the least negative, interpretation of your behavior possible. All the rest is fact.

You were WRONG to say anything whatsoever about the comparison at any point here, because it has never existed in this passage. You were WRONG to say in your edit summary upon your first removal of this passage that the source did not support the passage because, as described in my first post here, it certainly did. Yet you still insist that you are not wrong about anything here. The only possible interpretation of that is that you do indeed have an extreme aversion to admitting you are wrong no matter what the facts of the situation are. I admit that what you now say about relevance to the article—if brought up so belatedy as to bring your own belief that it is a genuine problem into question—is technically valid, like your claim last year that the source did not specifically compare Fate and Strange (I deny that acknowledging the blatant fact that 1+1=2, not 1, not 3, nor anything else in the universe but 2, is synthesis—and I am not the only Wikipedia editor on the record to that effect—but never mind that). Therefore, you will never agree to put the passage in the article, which was the original dispute here. Furthermore, it is obvious that nothing less than holding a gun to your head will get the words "I was wrong" to come out of your mouth (or at least your keyboard). You clearly will never admit to your indefensible behavior here (repeatedly claiming the presence of a comparison that absolutely was not present, and ignoring my postings proving your bringing it up was irrelevant to discussion of the passage). Goodbye. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've got a personal issue with me. Message received, Take a number and get in line. If it is that dramatically important for me to admit I am wrong to you, then you might want to reconsider how you spend your time in Wikipedia; clearly, looking for interpersonal 'wins' from your fellow editors is not the best use of your time.

Now, do you have a point to make that doesn't involve flipping out at some minor and/or imagined slight? Do you have any reason why this statement needs to be in the article? Can you properly cite any reason why discussion of the Defenders needs to be in this article? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For examination purposes, this is the statement you wish to have in the article:

"This unit, consisting of himself, Atlantean royalty Aquaman and man-monster Solomon Grundy, was designed to parallel the original line-up of Marvel Comics's superhero group The Defenders, sorcerer Doctor Strange, Atlantean royalty the Sub-Mariner and man-monster the Incredible Hulk."^[3]

I am not seeing the need for this statment, which seems a thinly-disguised attempt to compare Doc Strange and Doc Fate - this is the DF article, and you are drawing an implicit relationship that needs an explicit connection. We do not make those comparisons on our own, leaving them instead to the reader to decide and connect for themselves. Without citation, we cannot come anywhere near it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I could take apart almost everything you said here, and even point out evidence that you still haven't read my first posting to this thread, but I said "Goodbye" and I meant it, even if you don't know what it means, or didn't read that, either. I will not post to this discussion again, no matter what you post; in fact, I will not even check it again, no matter how many further postings by you my watchlist indicates to me. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Splendid. I do not oppose your departure. Good editing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)