Jake Fuersturm (talk | contribs) |
→Duke: Reply |
||
Line 497: | Line 497: | ||
On Duke's page I have removed the fansite references. There are no online sources, they now are basically primary sources. Can anyone find some online ones, it would be daft to have to merge it into a list - But it has been tagged for a few years now. It just needs a little bit of work and could do with some attention from you guys.[[User:Raintheone|'''<span style="color:orange;font-family:Modern">Rain the 1</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Raintheone|<font color="#FF1CAE">'''BAM'''</font>]]</sup> 20:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
On Duke's page I have removed the fansite references. There are no online sources, they now are basically primary sources. Can anyone find some online ones, it would be daft to have to merge it into a list - But it has been tagged for a few years now. It just needs a little bit of work and could do with some attention from you guys.[[User:Raintheone|'''<span style="color:orange;font-family:Modern">Rain the 1</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Raintheone|<font color="#FF1CAE">'''BAM'''</font>]]</sup> 20:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Rain, I appreciate that you are trying to be constructive. But since all the G.I. Joe articles have now been assessed, and made part of the Fictional Characters wikiproject, it seems that all you and Harry Blue5 want to do is concentrate on disputing sources, instead of helping to find alternate ones. With all due respect, if you do not have an interest in G.I. Joe, please leave the members of this project to work on improving G.I. Joe articles, instead of opposing the notability of them as you did with [[Zartan]]. You are not being helpful by removing information, and then expecting someone else to clean up the mess. [[User:Fortdj33|Fortdj33]] ([[User talk:Fortdj33|talk]]) 13:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:39, 31 March 2011
Participants
I can't figure out how to Wiki-add my name to the participants section. Also, I don't quite get the 'lucrative' description. Does it really apply to G.I.Joe that strongly? Lots42 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a work in progress that I haven't quite figured out yet. I hope more experienced wiki contributors would come help soon. Also, 'lucrative' description is just an example. Again, it's because the page is still in a work in progress state and I haven't thought of better examples yet. Hehehehehe.--Destron Commander 10:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's anything that you have to do but I just merely wikilink my user name, talk page and signed my post. That's all I did.--Destron Commander 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up
I just want to give a warning to anyone working on this project because of experiences I've had on wikipedia: make sure that all articles have as many independent sources to establish notability as possible.
For example, a very persistent deletionist has been plaguing WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (and a number of other fan-supported fiction-based wikiprojects) for the last few weeks, tagging articles with as many tags as he can think of, and nominating articles for deletion when he thinks he can get away with it. So far although he seems determined to single-handedly dismantle the project, he has been little more than an annoying hassle to the editors on that project; however if enough people begin listening to his arguments about notability, that could change. And he's not the first one to try this, just the most persistent so far; even if he fails, others will try again later.
So, to reiterate, make sure you add as many independent sources from books, magazines, TV specials, etc (preferably not from Hasbro or any licensee) to as many articles as possible to establish notability as soon as you can, to avoid this sort of unwanted scrutiny. You'll thank yourself later! BOZ 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Assistance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Lots42 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://joes.propadeutic.com/ A great Joe resource page, perfect for the linking too imho. Lots42 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Attention Please
I think the Cover Girl page could benefit from a lot more people/an expert working on it. Lots42 08:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Possible templates
I've found a wikia dedicated to G.I. Joe and there are templates that, I believe, we can use for the improvement of the G.I. Joe Wikipedia. The fan wikia can be located at gijoe.wikia.com. I have always envied how Transformers have articles that are more or less consistent in Wikipedia. This is one resource we can utilize. --Destron Commander (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, as is the template you made here for sending folk there for more info. I think the location of the template where you've put it in articles, so that it straddles a dividing line, looks bad tho. (I changed the one in America's Elite but don't feel like going thru and making the change everywhere.) Most of the time, that I've seen, the external-wiki link (i.e. Commons) gets placed in the external links or the see-also sections.Salamurai (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
infobox
Also, regarding templates, does anyone know of, or know how to make, a Joe-specific infobox, that would include statistical info (code name, real name, aliases, SN, specialties, year first figure released, etc) that could be included on each character's article? i.e. like the ones used for fictional characters. Salamurai (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Baroness (G.I. Joe)
Issues have been raised by more than one person regarding the length of sections of this article and the absence of citations. It would be greatly helpful if project members would pitch in and try to get this article under control. One major point is the section Marvel (Volume 1). The section should be a much briefer summary of the plot, rather than a nearly step by step retelling of the plot. Other sections need work as well. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Live-action film
Since filming has begun, per WP:NFF, I've established the film article at G.I. Joe (film). I think this titling is most appropriate because of the setup of Transformers (film) and The Transformers: The Movie. Hopefully, we don't need to rehash titling arguments, especially with hatnotes at G.I. Joe and G.I. Joe: The Movie. However, a note to all about adding production information -- movie websites that provide scoop reports are not reliable sources. If they got news publicly from filmmakers and reported it, they can be cited. See the References section at the film article to understand what's verifiable enough to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Userboxes
This user is a member of the WikiProject G.I. Joe. |
This This article is within the scope of the WikiProject G.I. Joe. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project. |
I just recently joined this project an decide as my first contribution to design an Userbox for members and one to post on the talk pages of articles related to G.I. Joe. What do you think of them? Steve (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Character Templates
May God Bless You All Always!
I need help from some who understands HTML and web pages better than I do. The templates used for G.I. Joe Character need some maintenance and I do not understand what is wrong. Take a look at the character template for Duke.
Duke | |
---|---|
G.I. Joe character | |
Voiced by | Michael Bell |
In-universe information | |
Affiliation | G.I. Joe |
Specialty | Current G.I. Joe field commander and second-in-command (America's Elite), G.I. Joe commander (Sigma 6) |
Birth place | St. Louis, Missouri |
Subgroups | Tiger Force, Star Brigade |
Series | G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, G.I. Joe: Sigma 6 |
Now look at the Template for Transformers' Character Hot Rod.
Template:Infobox Transformers character
Now here is the same Transformer's Template except that I put "G.I. Joe character" where "Transformer's Character" was.
Hot Rod/Rodimus Major/Rodimus | |
---|---|
G.I. Joe character | |
In-universe information | |
Affiliation | Autobot |
Specialty | Cavalier Matrix Templar Warrior |
Rank | 10 (original) 5 (Targetmaster) |
Subgroups | Autobot Cars Deluxe Vehicles Targetmasters Micromasters Wreckers |
Series | Transformers: Generation 1 Transformers: Classics Transformers: Titanium |
So what is the problem? Can anyone tell me and show me how to fix it? (Steve (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
- There's apparently something wrong with the code. Thanks for letting me know. I'm trying to figure it out, but I'm at work and can't spend much time on it right now. So, I'm adding a documentation section (stolen from the TF template) and am attempting to get the Affiliation to work. Other things can be dealt with later. Salamurai (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, affiliation now appears, and the name-bar is color coded as expected. I changed some of the colors. We need to talk about the colors. Please see talk for Template:Infobox G.I. Joe character. Salamurai (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe I have everything that exists in the template functioning now. I think there are some fields that could be added (serial #, for example). I'm going to look over some filecards when I get home and see what could be usefully added. Salamurai (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar?
Do we have G.I. Joe Barnstar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.116.51 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject G.I. Joe participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject G.I. Joe participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of {{FreeContentMeta}}
{{FreeContentMeta}}, which is used in the {{JoeWiki}} template, is under discussion. Please see template talk:FreeContentMeta#Inline or floating to participate in this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Requested move of October Guard > Oktober Guard
There is a move request: Feel free to discuss it at Talk:October Guard#Requested move. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Assessment?
Hey there. Just wondering, but has this project ever thought about adding an assessment scheme? Without it, articles from this project won't be featured in Wikipedia releases, such as the upcoming 0.7 and eventual 1.0. BOZ (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added assessent capability for Wikiproject Toys, so if you want to add {{WP Toys}} with a class and importance rating to anything in this project, you can now feel free to assess them for potential inclusion in future WP releases. :) BOZ (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Terrordome
Terrordrome has been sent to WP:PROD by someone for deletion. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
May God Bless You Always!
I know I have not been here for a while, but my life has gotten busy. Anyway, I have been working on a re-write for the Bazooka (G.I. Joe) article. I will try to have it up as soon as possible. (Steve (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
Urgent citation revision for Action Force villians
Seems that most of them have outdated citations. Just a heads up. I'd like to do it, but my hands could be full in the next few days. Ominae (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Conventions
I believe we need to establish a Conventions page similar to what the Automobiles Project uses. We need to standardize things like how character pages are named, filenames are typed in infoboxes, etc. Thoughts?--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- What conventions? Care to elucidate? Don't know where to start. Cite examples please....Drakesketchit (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're asking. I gave examples of both what conventions are and what needs to be standardized.--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree this can be very helpful. I think we need to also standardize how the pages are set up. Filenames should be typed as they appear on filecards? I like the first name, middle initial, and then last name format personally. The tricky part with serial number is there is no standardization even for the same figure. If you look at their filecards throughout the years, with the exception of a few, most get new serials each revision. Sgetz (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we definitely need to standardize page layout. If we look at three popular character pages, Snake-Eyes, Hawk (G.I. Joe) and Scarlett (G.I. Joe), the layout and section titles are completely different for each page. Something like this would be very helpful IMO. Cerebellum (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, we should also standardize the External Links sections. I think that at a minimum, each character page should link to the Joepedia article, the applicable YoJoe pages, and applicable Myuselessknowledge page. Cerebellum (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea on the links. Sgetz, while I agree that it would probably be best if we added "(G.I. Joe)" to the end of page titles, I was thinking in terms of character names that have been spelled differently over the years or are just plain spelled wrong in article names. For instance, it appears that all figures have been released as Snake Eyes, yet the article is spelled as Snake-Eyes. Also, Rip Cord/Ripcord and Beach Head/Beachhead/Beach-Head.
- The way I see it, we can choose to name articles like these by A) the first spelling used, B) the most common spelling used, or C) the latest spelling used. I prefer A because the other two options would be subject to change as more figures were released. It could also be said that a precedent for this has been established by the recent unobjected move of Ripcord back to Rip Cord, but that's by no means set in stone. Establishing a convention such as this will also protect pages from editors with good intentions who move pages to other spellings they think should be used.
- As for the filecards/infoboxes, we do need to set a standard for them as well. Due to the military nature of GI Joe, I prefer the last name first, but it's not a big deal. We should probably establish what pay grade, MOS, etc. we'll go by if we can since some changed over the years. I was never a big fan of the serial number, do you think we should include it?--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as Sgetz and I have discussed, we should probably make it policy to place a second infobox for characters that will be in the movie. They've changed too much stuff around to be able to neatly assimilate the new stuff into the primary infoboxes.--Flash176 (soon to be rechristened as Ridge Runner) (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Flash, we have been testing the changes to the infobox on some of the pages, take a look at Snake-Eyes and see how it is on the bottom. As for the naming, yes I agree with A, as we go along, many of the names change because of trademark losses. Speaking of which, Snake-Eyes really should be move to Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) sometime soon, and perhaps all names changed to reflect Snake Eyes being named without the dash. We can discuss their different names in the biography section, such as Scarlett being Agent Scarlett on some releases, then Scarlett, and so on. I also agree with the name convention, Last, First MI., you are right, it fits with the military nature. I really am not a fan of the Serial Number because they are so inconsistent. They keep changing them, with some figures having a new one for each release. I would say for the Pay Grade, list the original with year in parenthesis, and if it changes, list it with the year in parenthesis. For all of that information, unless it is stated in a Comic Bio, I would say the file card has to be the main source for that information. Sgetz (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, we should have a convention on what the approved artwork for the info box should be. I have tried to use a Comic Cover when it is available, if the artwork is clear and the character involved. For some, their artwork was available for a time from Hasbro on the website. Personally, I would rather not use any artwork from the Cartoon Series unless absolutely necessary. I would prefer something printed, but that is me. Thoughts? Sgetz (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should there be a convention on how the different sizes are referred by? There is the 3 3/4" vs 3.75" thing going on in some of the pages. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've always heard 3 3/4 myself. Cerebellum (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re the size. 3 3/4" is, I believe, the officially given measurement. It's also what I've always seen used in the fandom.
- I like the idea of the year in parentheses by the pay grade, that would be a big help, I think. Also agree with leaving out the serial numbers. As for the artwork, do you think we should use artwork or scans/pictures of the actual figure. They try to make a big deal out of using figures on here, but it's no different from using comic scans. As far as comic vs. cartoon goes, I think comic drawings tended to be more accurate and detailed, so yes, I would prefer that we use them unless there is a good cartoon example available.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, late to the party. I agree with choice A on the name -- redirects are always available, if needed -- and on using (G.I. Joe) after character names, to specify that it's part of GIJoe and not like Transformers or some such. Code-Name changes, ala "Agent" Scarlett, tend to be just for getting around the we-lost-the-trademark for the toy, and don't reflect a real change in the character's code name, teammates would still call her Scarlett. I would put discussion of toy name changes in a section about the released toys, not in the fictional biography, but then you get stuff where Roadblock is now called Heavy Duty in the main comic, despite there previously being two distinct characters by those names in the past.
- For character pictures, I'd prefer (if fair use allows) that the best-known toy art be used. i.e. for Snake Eyes, use the V2 art. But, like any other fictional character, there may be better art available.Salamurai (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to grab anything useful out of this archived discussion. :) BOZ (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and made a very rough draft to get the page started. Keep in mind that I just wanted to get the page started, so just because something is or isn't on there right now doesn't mean it's the law of the land.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we also work something up on article structure? (see my link two posts above) BOZ (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, BOZ, we should work on an article structure. I have been tinkering heavily with the Snake-Eyes page, and like the format I have used for that. Start with A biography section, a toy section, Comics (original continuity - Marvel/Image/DDP), Comics New Continuity (IDW), Comics - Alternate Continuity (DDP Transformer Series etc), Animated Series and Movies, Sigma 6 (LOST MISSIONS?), Video Games, Movie, and then Other Media/Parody. I tried to follow some of the other Comic articles as a theme. The main thing I tried to do is try to treat each continuity seperatly, and state that the canon of that universe is canon for that universe and that universe only. Tries to keep from having contradictions to other ones. I try to follow my structure when I make new pages, like General Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe) or Low-Light_(G.I._Joe). Thoughts? I agree with Salamurai about the box art as well, being that it usually is the best depiction of the character, but sometimes there are great comic versions that show the character even more detailed. Usually, only if it is from a cover with the main character as the central focus, or from the Devils Due bio pages, those were really nice. I was thinking, one thing that might be useful is a cartoon pic on the page ONLY if it is very different from the Comic/Character Bio, such as Hawk in Cartoon different from the Comic (hair color). I also want to say we should only put extras in if something well is shown, like Snake Eyes with his face unmasked, and the few key costume change pictures used in his article. Sgetz (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, wanted and opinion on when the Code Name is recycled. Only 2 I can think of off the top of my head, Doc_(G.I._Joe) and Dial_Tone_(G.I._Joe), is it okay to use the same page for both characters that use the name, and treat the article as 2 separate articles? Tried to follow how some of the other comic pages handle this, like Supergirl being about all of the different versions. Only difference I see, there really is not a high significance or enough information for these characters to have completely separate pages. Final thing, what should the convention of name be for Joseph Colton? Should he be G.I. Joe (G.I. Joe) or should he remain General Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe), so as not to use the G.I. Joe twice? Sgetz (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should just keep doing like we are now for reused codenames. Transformers already does it. I prefer Gen. Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe). GI Joe (GI Joe) just doesn't look right.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sgetz, sounds like you have a pretty good handle on how the articles should be structured - I can agree with that. :) One thing we need to be careful of in the "character overview" is keeping the universes separate; what applies to a character in the comics may not be the same in the cartoon, or even the toys. However, any elements common to all can and should be preserved, and any elements common to most universes can be stated as "In the comics and cartoons, this character is..."
- And yeah, G.I. Joe (G.I. Joe) just isn't going to work. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Working on the conventions page, I just realized that we probably need to decide whether we want to classify the movie characters as the original characters or consider them new characters like the second generation Doc and Dial Tone.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Does this proposed page layout fit your idea?--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Only thing I would add is a separate are in comics for Alternate Continuities, which is anything that is made by a comic company that does not fit in their established continuity at that time. Such as the G.I. Joe vs. Transformers series, and Transformers/G.I. Joe books. Might be more as IDW continues. As for the Sunbow/DIC part, I think the G.I. Joe The Movie should go in there as well, as it is a Sunbow production. I like the idea of keeping everything related to Sigma Six/Lost Missions separate, since the figures were different size, and the animated series and comic were separate from all other continuities, even though there is a stretch that they follow some of the events of the previous direct to DVD movies. I would like to put the year of the G.I. JOE Rise of Cobra Movie characters first appearance as the year that they first appeared in the movie, so that if a sequel comes out with new characters, there is a way to show when they came out. One thing I wondered, how do you want to handle the people in the movie figure line that are not in the movie, but may appear in the game or toy line? And, yeah, BOZ, I think in the general character overview, can say things that are consistent for all incarnations, or the most well know, like all versions of Snake Eyes have face covered and mute, and that all versions of Scarlett have Red Hair. Sgetz (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should we also set up a Category:G.I. Joe media or something similiar as a tag put on all of the pictures used in any of the G.I. Joe pages? I have seen this done like [[Category:Dragon_Quest_media]], and find it helpful to see what is in there. Also, is there a preferred size and format for the media used? JPG vs PNG, 300 PX max?
EDIT: The Info Box is hard coded for a 240px image.
That type of stuff. How many pictures per page? On Snake-Eyes, I have 6. One in Info Box of Comic cover of V2 uniform, One of original Box Art reproduction, one unmasked, one significant battle scene, one return to old uniform which was significant in comic of him going back to being only a commando, and one is of him in movie. Should the rule of thumb be if their uniform changes significantly (like when Scarlet was in comics in her Ninja Force uniform), or they are unmasked (if traditionally they have a mask at all times), and if there is a key battle in the description you are talking about, and then a movie one? Sgetz (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Acceptable External Links?: What other than the Joepedia should be allowed? Is My Useless Knowledge information okay? Should we link to the YoJoe! of the first figure released (this gives us a quick list of the various releases of the figure for the character)? What about Fan or Tribute sites? Sgetz (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we should add a media category for images. Think it would be too much trouble to set up separate subcategories under media for comics, cartoons, and movie? Also, maybe we could tag each image of a character with a category for that character? Just a thought. I don't have an opinion either way on imposing a limit on the number of pictures used in an article.
- Per external links, I agree with what Cerebellum said up top about linking to Joepedia, yojoe.com (I agree, just link to the first version toy and users can find their way from there), and myuselessknowledge.com. Here is Wikipedia's guidelines on linking. Rule 3 is mainly what applies to us, I think. Unless it's a huge source like yojoe or myuselessknowledge, fan pages and forums are pretty much out. The only exception I've made to this in the past is on the main page to allow links to joecustoms.com to show how big the customization aspect of Joe is and to one or two news websites that track official stuff about G.I. Joe.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have not been following this closely, but you don't want to stick "(G.I. Joe)" after article names unless it is necessary because something else already uses the name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why?--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you asking me why (indent is confusing)? Anyways, we used to add "(Show name episode)" to television episode articles. The reason was that some show's episodes would almost all need the disambiguation, and it looked weird to leave it off from just a few. Long story short, it conflicted with Wikipedia:Disambiguation or whatever page controls that stuff, and after some of the biggest edit wars I've ever seen (in over 4 years!), the result was that we don't dab unless we have to. User:Durova was part of it, I think, if you want to ask someone who really cared at the time. Or you can search the tv wikiprojects talk page, I'm sure it came up there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Started Creating Categories to see how it would work. Created a Category G.I. Joe Media, with 2 Sub Categories so far, Comic and Movie. Thoughts on how this looks? Only thing I was thinking on creating a category for each figure, might get very large, and have several single file categories. Sgetz (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fan Sites
A user keeps adding back the [Snake Eyes Tribute Site] to the Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) Page. Above the ruling seemed to be no external fan sites. Thoughts on this case? Sgetz (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- That site does have a lot of pictures from the comic book and the cartoon. Just click on the few that appear, to see quite a bit more. How many pictures do you need to see of someone who wore a mask all the time? Not that many changes over the years. Dream Focus 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- As long as it stays only on Snake Eyes' page, I think it's a relevant resource for the article. Wikipedia says that other sites that provide a resource that we can't (like Yojoe or My Useless Knowledge) are good to go.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Characters at AFD
Started with
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe), then moved to
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) (which includes several characters, such as Airtight and Barbecue),
with the implication that there will be more to come. FYI 24.148.0.83 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- They seem to be nominating all those that start with the letters A and B for now, in the Barbecue one. The toys are notable, and are thus going to be in books about notable toys, for collectors and whatnot. That counts as notable coverage. So next time this comes up, just use Google book search as I did in the AFD [1] for the name of the toy, the series it is from, and then see how many results you get. Had to add in the names of two G.I.Joe characters to filter out all the unrelated results. Dream Focus 21:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Relevant AfD
Barbecue (G.I. Joe) and Mainframe (G.I. Joe) have been listed at Articles for Deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe). Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- In response to this situation, I dug up the following http://www.yojoe.com/archive/collectorbooks/ Basically, exactly what the AFD people are asking for, a bunch of third party G.I.Joe information. We need to add this in somehow, people, please. Lots42 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on real people
Many heroic Joes are based on real people, like Tunnel Rat-Larry Hama. But many villains are based on real people. This -might- run afoul of Wikipedia's rules against making negative comparisons involving living people. Can't hurt to be extra careful. Lots42 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- The characters may use a real person's name, or their appearance, but the characters are fictional. Even G.I. Joe's "Sgt. Slaughter", while voiced by and heavily based on the then-persona (after, he did a heel for a few years, which was bizarre) of the real-life wrestler, is fictional. Relax a little. Salamurai (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Sgt. Slaughter example is just fine, because the fictional version is very heroic and decent and etc. But many of the G.I.Joe toy-line characters based on real people are evil bastards. That's where the iffy stuff comes in. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- You just say the name and/or likeness was used. I don't think anyone actually believes these guys in real life were running around shooting it out or anything. Dream Focus 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. Editors must take care in adding information about living people to ANY Wikipedia page. Look on the discussion page for any article about a living person and you will find out all the information you could want about Wikipedia policies concerning living people. Lots42 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- You just say the name and/or likeness was used. I don't think anyone actually believes these guys in real life were running around shooting it out or anything. Dream Focus 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Sgt. Slaughter example is just fine, because the fictional version is very heroic and decent and etc. But many of the G.I.Joe toy-line characters based on real people are evil bastards. That's where the iffy stuff comes in. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Another Third Party Source. I love the library.
- Santelmo, Vincent (1994). The Official 30th Anniversary Salute To G.I.Joe 1964-1994. Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-301-6. If I screwed up the HTML, check out Doc (G.I. Joe) for another example. Lots42 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Years to the issue references
If you want to help me add on the years to the G.I.Joe Marvel issue references, I collated a list that should be here --- > http://lots42.livejournal.com/2077906.html Enjoy. Lots42 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources for Joe comic articles
Sometimes it's tough to find sources for articles on G.I. Joe comics. I've put together a list of some helpful links (mostly interviews with creators) at User:Cerebellum/G.I. Joe. Please add more links if you find them. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Watchlist?
- [2] (a revision of Wikipedia:Requested moves) said:-
- I obeyed this move request; but where is the "watchlist at Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Scarlett (G.I. Joe)
- I thought I should bring this here as well. I thought I should let someone know about a user called Doctorfacts[3]
He/she keeps deleting and adding wrong info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page and never gives any explanation as to why[4]
To explain what is going on the page as best as I can... he/she keeps stating on the page that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with the character Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There's no source or episode from that cartoon show to prove that. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can on that page and I have listed which episode and have written out the scenes that explain that. But looking at that person's history page, that user goes on to remove any info that says otherwise no matter what and gives no reasons too any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there. Again I'm sorry to be a bother, but I thought someone should know of this. That person just keeps doing that.
This person is out to delete information just because he/she doesn't agree with it.[5]
Something needs to be done. 75.60.208.208 75.60.208.208 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the only canon source that ever actually put Duke and Scarlett together was in G.I. Joe: Resolute. Otherwise, the ARAH comics are quite clear about her relationship with Snake Eyes. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:User WP GIJoe
I modified the userbox to auto-include categories, just like the ones for the Transformers project. (I happened to notice that the TF userbox on my user page added a cat but GIJoe did not.) I also created the Category:WikiProject G.I. Joe members to go with it. These aren't important, but why not afford a little more legitimacy to the project. How is the project these days, anyway? I've been doing other things. - Salamurai (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I dunno how to fix it dreadnoks picture
There is an comicbook inbox for Dreadnoks could someone fix the picture for it I dunno how to do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
AFDs
Right, sorry I didn't report this sooner, I didn't notice this WikiProject existed.
I have AFDed the following articles:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOBAT (G.I. Joe)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROCC
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest X-30
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.H.A.R.C.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly (G.I. Joe)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.A.N.G.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.I.S.S.
Once again, I apologize. --Divebomb (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Assessment!
Hey guys, I have modified the project banner to allow for article assessment by quality and added some info to the project page. If I have broken anything, please let me know. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Good Article nomination of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)
In other news, I've nominated G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) for Good Article status. Please take a look and improve the page if you can. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article has been passed! Go us! --Cerebellum (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion
I think it may be best if you merge many character articles into a list of characters because they are not properley sourced. Some are fine, most are not. You also need to assess them on your own WP quality sclae and WP Fictional Character's.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 16:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Your character articles.
You need to make sure all the articles in Category:G.I. Joe characters meet the notability guideline by making sure they are "significantly covered"(this means actual coverage, not just a passing mention or a spot on a list) "in third party reliable sources". If you don't, these articles may face a mass deletion, or a simple redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Predacon (G.I. Joe) is an example of a bad article. It doesn't show notability. Why does this character deserve to be in an encyclopedia? If you can't show this, then redirect it to where it is most relevant, and save yourselves the trouble of a mass deletion. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input! There is some community consensus for not deleting these articles, as was demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe), but I definitely agree that some are inadequately sourced and need help. A few may indeed need to be merged to a list. I'll take a look. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- No that applies for those two articles, they won't be deleted. At WP Fictional Characters, we're cleaning up. This wikiproject has had a large amount of time to get it sorted. Many have said they are notable according to their views, however have not taken the time to prove it. They'll all be merged into a list soon (Including articles housing under three references or simply primary sources alone), if the WP doesn't take the steps to show improvement. That however would not stop recreation of these if in the future someone makes a subject matter well sourced.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible Character Templates revisions
Hoping everyone on the project watches this page. I am thinking of modifying the G.I. Joe Character infobox to be consistent with other templates; please see Template talk:Infobox G.I. Joe character#Name formatting. Jist is, we don't match other articles, probably to our detriment, what do you think? - Salamurai (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- That makes sense, I see no problems with the change. : ) Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
G.I. Joe stub
There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2011/March#G.I. Joe stub for consolidating all the G.I.Joe stub articles into one category. Please check it out and voice your opinions! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Fictional characters discussion
Hello everyone, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe Concern which pertains to this project. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Jeebus, we really have over 300 articles? As much as I hate to admit it, maybe the guys calling for AfD might have something. Perhaps we should consider a certain amount of merging, there's any number of ways we could group the character articles - year of release, sub-team, theme (nautical, aerial, etc.). Just something we should consider. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah you have quite a lot of articles. The sourcing is a concern too, quite a few fan sites and copy vios. Your a big project though, if there is a not enough coverage, they can be merged into a list. Just think, all of the minor characters grouped in a list with OOU info, good prose and well sourced content. You could go for a featured list one day, draw something positive out of it. That's just one possiblility.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good points - as an example, User:Fortdj33 recently merged three minor character articles into Lunartix Empire. Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of, Jake? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Cerebellum - yeah, something along those lines. As I said, there's any number of ways we group them. Merging is largely mechanical, so that's not the difficult part. The difficult part will be reaching consensus on: 1. what articles should remain standalone (e.g. my top five would be Duke, Hawk, Snake Eyes, Scarlett, Cobra Commander), and 2. what criteria we use to group the remainder (I was thinking perhaps alphabetical? e.g. "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (characters starting with "A")" or something like that). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of the reasons why I pushed for a way to highlight the Stub class articles. Now that all the articles have been assessed, it's clear that we have a lot of character articles that need to either be expanded, or merged into another article. And unfortunately, most of the stubs are limited to information from the character's file card, and don't have much farther to go. I think that any article assessed at C-class or higher deserves to stay, and maybe some of the Start class articles also, if they are expanded. In the meantime, I will do my best to highlight the articles that need attention. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that notability has nothing to do with the quality of an article. An article can have tons of cruft, and no sources, and look good enough for C-class. An article is notable when it has significant coverage in third party reliable sources. This means if a couple reliable(not fansites or forums) outside sources(not affiliated with the series) have coverage of the character, then it is notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of these articles use unreliable sources which is another reason I first became concerned. Some are highlighted in this discussion here [6].RAIN*the*ONE BAM 16:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that notability has nothing to do with the quality of an article. An article can have tons of cruft, and no sources, and look good enough for C-class. An article is notable when it has significant coverage in third party reliable sources. This means if a couple reliable(not fansites or forums) outside sources(not affiliated with the series) have coverage of the character, then it is notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of the reasons why I pushed for a way to highlight the Stub class articles. Now that all the articles have been assessed, it's clear that we have a lot of character articles that need to either be expanded, or merged into another article. And unfortunately, most of the stubs are limited to information from the character's file card, and don't have much farther to go. I think that any article assessed at C-class or higher deserves to stay, and maybe some of the Start class articles also, if they are expanded. In the meantime, I will do my best to highlight the articles that need attention. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Cerebellum - yeah, something along those lines. As I said, there's any number of ways we group them. Merging is largely mechanical, so that's not the difficult part. The difficult part will be reaching consensus on: 1. what articles should remain standalone (e.g. my top five would be Duke, Hawk, Snake Eyes, Scarlett, Cobra Commander), and 2. what criteria we use to group the remainder (I was thinking perhaps alphabetical? e.g. "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (characters starting with "A")" or something like that). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good points - as an example, User:Fortdj33 recently merged three minor character articles into Lunartix Empire. Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of, Jake? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah you have quite a lot of articles. The sourcing is a concern too, quite a few fan sites and copy vios. Your a big project though, if there is a not enough coverage, they can be merged into a list. Just think, all of the minor characters grouped in a list with OOU info, good prose and well sourced content. You could go for a featured list one day, draw something positive out of it. That's just one possiblility.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
To address Jake's talk of a merge: I would caution against any sort of "grouping" of characters based on any kind of theme, as this may be subjective and confusing. Certain sub-teams may work well, such as the Lunartix and Sky Patrol merges. For the rest, I think a series of lists either by initial year of release, or alphabetically would work best. This would best be accomplished by coming up with a series of "skeletons" (maybe best done in user space before the merging), and then deciding what gets merged in on a case-by-case basis. I personally prefer alphabetical, although I understand that there is a good case for chronological, and the format should be decided before any action is taken.
As far as a list of "must-keeps", I'd estimate that there are at least a dozen, if not 20-30, that should absolutely be kept as articles. Some are just too popular, even with a current lack of meeting the GNG, to consider redirecting. Look at the AFD for Bumblebee (Transformers), for example; I recall it being a snow keep despite the lack of good sourcing. To add to Jake's list, I'd say that some villains such as Destro and Zartan should also be for-sure keeps, and I think it's safe to say that Baroness and Storm Shadow are good to go, and I'm sure a case could be made for characters like Dr Mindbender, Serpentor, Major Bludd, Tomax & Xamot, Zarana, and Firefly, among others. As for the Joes, I'd add Flint, Roadblock, and Shipwreck at the very least. The best way to do it might be to merge all the "low-hanging fruit" articles first, and then for the few dozen or so remaining questionable cases we could hold "merge or keep" discussions, maybe in smaller groups. BOZ (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
See here is the problem BOZ. That discussion you cited, luckily for them they had a lot of votes to keep from editors who do not understand Wikipedia on a whole. They think because this character is so popular, it has to stay. Not the case. However, if they are so popular surely there are buckets of sources around the place. Just because this character is popular in the series, is it just as popular in the real world or in the case of a universal encyclopedia. It probably is the case with some. You know, for the articles you mentioned why not do a quick ref search, place them on the talk page, get the ball rolling. These things are a good way of getting people motivated to improving things again. However when nothing happens, and it stays that way when people have asked for change, I've seen articles go for deletion, mass deletion.. Which is a shame because it is preventable. The list ideas you have are just perfect, you seem to have the know how and idea how to pull it off.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Raintheone - on the issue of popularity within the fanbase versus popularity in the real world, I might make the same point about soap opera characters .... Jake fuersturm (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the soap opera articles I actually added sources to, discussed development, creation, casting, critical analysis, included OOU info and I could go on. The ones proved to be notable. Those ones? Yeah I can see the comparison you made...RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're the one who brought up the topic of fanbase vs. real world popularity, not me. You've also got the advantage of working with characters whose fictional universes are extant, whereas for the most part the Joe Universe reached it's height 20+ years ago, when the Internet was still a glimmer in some engineer's eye. I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion if Wikipedia had been around in the 1980s. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lol Boz started the popularity point before I replied to it. That is no excuse, I undertsand your frustrations but it's not impossible to find sources for an older character. Soap operas have been running for years, some for 50 years, WAY before the rise of the internet. So they don't really have the advantage. Stop trying to make excuses for poor sourcing. Instead of trying to bemoan other work, we should be discussing what sources can be used to improve these articles.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, soap operas have been around for years. But certain ones continue to run, so they unquestionably do have an advantage in having current viewership and current coverage. I'd love to find better sources for the Joe articles, but unlike Shakespeare, once you pass the proverbial "best before date" there's not a whole lot out there once you weed out the fansites. To use another example from popular fiction, there's a distinct and noticeable difference in the quality and quantity of sourcing between JAG and NCIS despite the fact that they belong to the same fictional universe and overlapped for a couple of years. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still you can find some. I took a fictional character from the 1980's to GA recently, using book sources, internet refs from the 90's, and newspapers refs from the 80's. There might be some in the archives on google search which is where I found them. The really notable characters in this series will be fine anyway, it's just the ones that are not that notable and do not infact have any references avaiable because they are minor characters that should be affected. Obviously I'm not going to suggest merging characters that might be salvaged with a little bit of attention.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, soap operas have been around for years. But certain ones continue to run, so they unquestionably do have an advantage in having current viewership and current coverage. I'd love to find better sources for the Joe articles, but unlike Shakespeare, once you pass the proverbial "best before date" there's not a whole lot out there once you weed out the fansites. To use another example from popular fiction, there's a distinct and noticeable difference in the quality and quantity of sourcing between JAG and NCIS despite the fact that they belong to the same fictional universe and overlapped for a couple of years. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lol Boz started the popularity point before I replied to it. That is no excuse, I undertsand your frustrations but it's not impossible to find sources for an older character. Soap operas have been running for years, some for 50 years, WAY before the rise of the internet. So they don't really have the advantage. Stop trying to make excuses for poor sourcing. Instead of trying to bemoan other work, we should be discussing what sources can be used to improve these articles.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're the one who brought up the topic of fanbase vs. real world popularity, not me. You've also got the advantage of working with characters whose fictional universes are extant, whereas for the most part the Joe Universe reached it's height 20+ years ago, when the Internet was still a glimmer in some engineer's eye. I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion if Wikipedia had been around in the 1980s. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the soap opera articles I actually added sources to, discussed development, creation, casting, critical analysis, included OOU info and I could go on. The ones proved to be notable. Those ones? Yeah I can see the comparison you made...RAIN*the*ONE BAM 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
All of BOZ's ideas seem really good. I merged some articles to Sky Patrol (G.I. Joe), but I do agree that an alphabetical list is the best way to go. Jake, you've put a whole lot of effort into List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, what do you think should be done? I'm thinking that maybe every character would be on the list, with main article links for those that have stand-alone articles as well. How about the G.I. Joe infoboxes? Should we incorporate them into the list? The same question goes for the table at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Should we keep it or not? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the main "List of ..." article as a one-stop reference containing the most common information shared between the various characters, a sort of "Tier 1" article if you will. The "List of ..." is a reasonably complete character inventory, and the table is sortable anyways, this is a good way for users to slice-and-dice, regardless of how the character articles are eventually structured. I agree with the alphabetical listing for the "Tier 2" articles, something along the lines of "Characters A-D" through to "Characters U-Z" perhaps? We can then merge the existing individual character articles into them - with the exception of "Tier 3" (i.e. individually notable characters like Snake Eyes etc). I'm indifferent about the infoboxes, but given the amount of work that's already been put into them, I'd be content to include them in the Tier 2 and 3 articles. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just wondering if the Joes and Cobras should be combined for the purposes of this, or if we should at least retain the separation in this case. Thoughts? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- All of that sounds good, especially the tier concept. Here is an alphabetical distribution of Joe names based on Category:G.I. Joe characters:
A 8
B 21
C 22
D 12
E 1
F 9
G 11
H 8
I 3
J 1
K 2
L 12
M 12
N 3
O 4
P 4
Q 1
R 15
S 33
T 10
U 1
V 3
W 6
X 0
Y 0
- As you can see, the distribution is pretty uneven, so the lengths of the lists will be pretty inconsistent if we do 4 letters per list article (A-D etc). Is that OK? It wouldn't bother me, but some might not like it. As for integrating or separating the Joe and Cobra characters, I don't have any opinion. There are comparatively few Cobra characters as opposed to the massive numbers of Joes. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- (Aside: that's pretty nifty, do you have a bot/macro that does that?). I'm not wedded to A-D, that was just an example as I obviously hadn't done a breakdown like yours. We have close to 200 character articles, if we assume about 25 that are worthy of Tier 3 status, then perhaps five Tier 2s of c.30-40 each? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- As you can see, the distribution is pretty uneven, so the lengths of the lists will be pretty inconsistent if we do 4 letters per list article (A-D etc). Is that OK? It wouldn't bother me, but some might not like it. As for integrating or separating the Joe and Cobra characters, I don't have any opinion. There are comparatively few Cobra characters as opposed to the massive numbers of Joes. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone brought up Pokemon in the other thread, and I think the situation with species of Pokemon is very similar to ours. Maybe we can learn from what has been done at List of Pokémon? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Except the species of Pokémon is a set number(until a new generation comes out), and the lists are organized by number by increments of 50.(used to be 20 until recently) I am not sure why you brought up the Pokémon lists, cause the system would not work with your articles. I don't know the G.I Joe universe very well, but I don't think you would be able to make a "List of G.I. Joe characters (1-50)" like we have for Pokémon. Your lists would have to be by teams or sets or something. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to take inspiration from the "Lists of ..." for Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Star Wars as these would seem to be the most directly comparable, but in some ways they're in even worse shape than we are .... -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Cerebellum good ideas, the infobox is a good idea when there is some OOU information which some may have. The link to the main article is a great idea, quite a few lists do this. Adds more notability to the list too. One thing though, Yojoe is not a reliable references and should be avoided really.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I also applaud the effort that Jake has put into the List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, and I think the tables should stay as is, with the separation of the different factions. As for the character articles, now that all the articles have been assessed, members of WikiProject G.I. Joe (such as Cerebellum and myself) have started merging related articles, but a lot of the stub articles don't fall into neat little sub-groups. I think that we should come to a consensus, about which character articles are notable enough to have their own articles. And then maybe we should change the name of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero figures, making a new list of characters that contains a small paragraph for each character. The short articles could then be incorporated into the new list, and the article names redirected to their spot on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fortdj33, when the consensus is reached on which stubs to keep because of future potential. Will the WP:GI Joe be adding the potential sources to the articles, or will you be aiding them in the process?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I also applaud the effort that Jake has put into the List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, and I think the tables should stay as is, with the separation of the different factions. As for the character articles, now that all the articles have been assessed, members of WikiProject G.I. Joe (such as Cerebellum and myself) have started merging related articles, but a lot of the stub articles don't fall into neat little sub-groups. I think that we should come to a consensus, about which character articles are notable enough to have their own articles. And then maybe we should change the name of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero figures, making a new list of characters that contains a small paragraph for each character. The short articles could then be incorporated into the new list, and the article names redirected to their spot on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree to a renaming, I'd thought about proposing that as well - since the "List of ..." is focused on the toyline rather than on the comics or cartoon (albeit granted, it's not really feasible to completely disassociate the three). Wrt the short articles you mention, wouldn't it just be easier to merge the stubs à la the "Tier 1/2/3" suggestion above, or am I misunderstanding you? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that once the "List of ...characters" has been renamed, and we've determined which characters should keep their own articles, the rest of them can be merged into a new List of G.I. Joe characters article. Each short article to be merged, would then redirect to its corresponding entry in the new article, similar to what we've done with the Sky Patrol and Ninja Force articles. The character's entry in the list of figures wouldn't have to change, and characters such as Duke and Snake Eyes could also have a small paragraph in the new article, with a link to their respective articles for more information. If necessary, there could be a separate List of Cobra characters article in the same format. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense. Per the discussion above, the new characters article should probably be broken into (perhaps 5-8?) articles grouped alphabetically, to keep each article's size manageable, agree/disagree? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that once the "List of ...characters" has been renamed, and we've determined which characters should keep their own articles, the rest of them can be merged into a new List of G.I. Joe characters article. Each short article to be merged, would then redirect to its corresponding entry in the new article, similar to what we've done with the Sky Patrol and Ninja Force articles. The character's entry in the list of figures wouldn't have to change, and characters such as Duke and Snake Eyes could also have a small paragraph in the new article, with a link to their respective articles for more information. If necessary, there could be a separate List of Cobra characters article in the same format. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree to a renaming, I'd thought about proposing that as well - since the "List of ..." is focused on the toyline rather than on the comics or cartoon (albeit granted, it's not really feasible to completely disassociate the three). Wrt the short articles you mention, wouldn't it just be easier to merge the stubs à la the "Tier 1/2/3" suggestion above, or am I misunderstanding you? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't ignore my questions guys. :P I'm trying to get involved and help..RAIN*the*ONE BAM 03:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring you - I have no answer, so why would I reply? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't ignore my questions guys. :P I'm trying to get involved and help..RAIN*the*ONE BAM 03:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge has begun
OK, I've created five new pages:
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: A-C
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: D-G
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: H-L
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: M-R
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: S-Z
We can start merging stuff in now, but let's try to do the low-hanging fruit first, as BOZ said above, so that we don't merge article which could be standalone. I'd recommend that any characters listed in G.I. Joe vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide be kept standalone, but we can debate that after we merge the clearly non-notable articles and see what we have left.
Right now I think a separate List of Cobra characters would be better than throwing the Cobras in with the Joes, but it's not a huge deal either way. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- These articles are a great place to start. I would like to see these articles eventually become one article, if we can avoid the page becoming huge, by cleaning up the summaries. I also think that a separate List of Cobra characters would be beneficial, maybe with a link to the Viper (G.I. Joe) article to avoid redundancy. And I understand the difference between the quality of an article and the notability of a character, but I think we should start the merging with the Stub class articles. If there is any question on a particular character, we can put it to a vote here whether they deserve their own page or not. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Fortdj33, the stub-class articles are probably the place to start, since the most notable characters are the ones that will likely have had the most work done on them. As for the Cobras, we may still need at least two articles, say A-K and L-Z, as there are a fair number of those guys. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Since there are already separate articles for Dreadnoks and Iron Grenadiers, do we just merge character articles into those, similar to what Fortdj33 did for the Lunartix Empire, or do we create a separate "List of ..." for them as well? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably best to either merge them into Dreadnoks and Iron Grenadiers or into List of Cobra characters. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of specificity, shouldn't the new articles be along the lines of (for example):
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Joes A-C)
- List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Cobras A-K) Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose that would work, though I'm not sure if it's necessary or not - Fortdj and Raintheone, what do you guys think? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit OCD about that sort of thing, but I won't kick up a fuss if it doesn't happen. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The other advantage of that would be the possibility of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Dreadnoks A-K) and G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Iron Grenadiers A-K). --Cerebellum (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or just List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Dreadnoks) and G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Iron Grenadiers) .... I don't think there are enough guys in either of those factions to need to split into A-K and L-Z. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that the added disambiguation in parentheses is necessary. We're running the risk of creating article titles in a style that goes against WP:IN-U and WP:TITLE. For now, I think the 5 articles for the Joes are fine as is. The stand alone Cobra characters can be listed at one or more articles titled List of Cobra characters, with the others in a list similar to Viper (G.I. Joe). And any Dreadnoks or Iron Grenadiers articles that don't warrant their own articles, can be merged into the Dreadnoks and Iron Grenadiers articles respectively. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is Tollbooth (G.I. Joe) being redirected? It is using fansite type references only that have been deemed unreliable. Just a heads up. :)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done--Cerebellum (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Great work over all I have to say, it is such a heavy task merging everything. GI is lucky to have editors that do infact care enough. :)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- To Rain and Cerebellum, I thought we had decided that the stub-class articles are where we should start merging, since the most notable characters are likely the ones that have had the most work done on them. Tollbooth was marked as a Start-class article, and I agree that it probably needed to be merged, but we haven't had any consensus yet on which articles are definitely being kept. We'll get to the other articles eventually, but in the meantime, it would help to offer alternative websites that we can use as sources, rather that constantly pointing out how unreliable yojoe.com is... Fortdj33 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have been looking, don't worry. Tollbooth didn't fare too well though, so this one is for the best. Instead of Yojoe for the toy ref on some of the characters, can't you cite Hasbro as the source directly? They have toys on sale still right? (You know in the articvles btw, is "toy line" the most common name it's called in in and out universe perspectives? Couldn't it say "action figure line". It's a shame Duke's article had so many fansite refs, but we both know it can stay because there are very much likley to be refs out there for him.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's toyline because the series of toys also comprises playsets and vehicles. The action figures are just one manifestation, but G.I. Joe wouldn't be the same without the rest. Also, Hasbro still sells Joe toys, yes, but the release varies from year to year - they don't keep the same toys in production continuously although they may re-issue a particular toy later on. Think Star Wars, Transformers, or even Barbie as other examples - toy manufacturers have to constantly update their lines to stay fresh (in the same way that soap opera characters come and go) - not everything has the staying power of Monopoly (and even Monopoly has spawned dozens of variants over the years). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then we will try and find an alternative. It might be worth looking which ones hasbro sell atm, archive the links to prevent rot and use them for now for as many as it permits. It's a start and it's okay as a primary source. Sorry I forgot about vechicles but had noticed them prior, I guess the action figure related ones could say that if they were in a particular series alone. That's probably not the case though. Edit: You just included a little more info to your reply, so why are you bringing up soap opera characters again?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not bringing up soap opera characters in particular, but using it as a point of reference that you can relate to, seeing as how you don't seem terribly familiar with the toy industry in general, and this toyline specifically. Make sense? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. seeing as how you're British, grew up in the 90s, and male, you should at least have some familiarity with the Action Force toyline, which was the European version of G.I. Joe (the logos and back-story were changed, as obviously "A Real American Hero" would encounter some marketing issues outside of North America. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I only really played with Barbies and Action men as a young kid. Oh well. I know that soap characters change and the older ones no longer part of the series are harder to find sources for. I realise it's hard, but like I have said it's not impossible. I am still willing to help look for altertnate sources. Others at the project haven't got involved as much and want the articles all merged.. I'm trying to help atleast and offer an alternative. I can understand if you like a particular subject and it might be completley removed, how harsh it would be.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then we will try and find an alternative. It might be worth looking which ones hasbro sell atm, archive the links to prevent rot and use them for now for as many as it permits. It's a start and it's okay as a primary source. Sorry I forgot about vechicles but had noticed them prior, I guess the action figure related ones could say that if they were in a particular series alone. That's probably not the case though. Edit: You just included a little more info to your reply, so why are you bringing up soap opera characters again?RAIN*the*ONE BAM 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's toyline because the series of toys also comprises playsets and vehicles. The action figures are just one manifestation, but G.I. Joe wouldn't be the same without the rest. Also, Hasbro still sells Joe toys, yes, but the release varies from year to year - they don't keep the same toys in production continuously although they may re-issue a particular toy later on. Think Star Wars, Transformers, or even Barbie as other examples - toy manufacturers have to constantly update their lines to stay fresh (in the same way that soap opera characters come and go) - not everything has the staying power of Monopoly (and even Monopoly has spawned dozens of variants over the years). -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have been looking, don't worry. Tollbooth didn't fare too well though, so this one is for the best. Instead of Yojoe for the toy ref on some of the characters, can't you cite Hasbro as the source directly? They have toys on sale still right? (You know in the articvles btw, is "toy line" the most common name it's called in in and out universe perspectives? Couldn't it say "action figure line". It's a shame Duke's article had so many fansite refs, but we both know it can stay because there are very much likley to be refs out there for him.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- To Rain and Cerebellum, I thought we had decided that the stub-class articles are where we should start merging, since the most notable characters are likely the ones that have had the most work done on them. Tollbooth was marked as a Start-class article, and I agree that it probably needed to be merged, but we haven't had any consensus yet on which articles are definitely being kept. We'll get to the other articles eventually, but in the meantime, it would help to offer alternative websites that we can use as sources, rather that constantly pointing out how unreliable yojoe.com is... Fortdj33 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Great work over all I have to say, it is such a heavy task merging everything. GI is lucky to have editors that do infact care enough. :)RAIN*the*ONE BAM 00:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done--Cerebellum (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or just List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Dreadnoks) and G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Iron Grenadiers) .... I don't think there are enough guys in either of those factions to need to split into A-K and L-Z. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The other advantage of that would be the possibility of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Dreadnoks A-K) and G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters: (Iron Grenadiers A-K). --Cerebellum (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit OCD about that sort of thing, but I won't kick up a fuss if it doesn't happen. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
List of Cobra characters
The merging project seems to be moving along steadily. With the exception of any Stub-class articles that still need to be merged, the rest of the G.I. Joe characters that have their own articles should all have a link on one of the alphabetical lists that Cerebellum created. As discussed, I have also created a List of Cobra characters, and have limited it to just the the unique Cobra characters that have their own articles. There are still some Cobra stubs that need to be merged, and I propose that any Cobra-La, Dreadnok or Iron Grenadiers articles should be merged into their respective parent articles. Keep up the good work! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, even though it is marked as {{underconstruction}}, before I could even start expanding the article, someone marked it for deletion! Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cobra characters and give your opinion as to why this article is needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, great job on the merges! Sorry I haven't helped out with that, but with the two of you on it so quickly, I figured that I'd be spoiling the proverbial soup by adding an unneeded chef. Plus I've been working on another project (Cerebellum knows about it). Let me know if there is any additional editing you need/want me to do. Cheers. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK guys, I'm really sorry to bail on you all but I have some RL deadlines coming up and my time on Wikipedia will be limited for the next few days. I wish I could help finish the merge, but I'll be back as soon as I can! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Marvel Comics Article
Folks:
I've been working on a rewrite of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) in the hopes of getting it from its current GA rating to an A and eventually (dare we dream!) FA rating. The draft can be found at User:Jake fuersturm/Work-in-Progress-1.
The draft has added several new sections covering plot, characters, and relation to the Sunbow cartoon, and I've also tried to find additional cite refs to support the content. The rationale for working on the draft on my userpage is that it involved a fair bit of restructuring and I didn't want to impact the existing article (and its GA rating) while its still largely a work-in-progress.
I think its in pretty good shape now, and I'd really appreciate it if you could provide some comments on the WiP and suggestions on how to make it better. In particular, if you feel inclined to copy edit and/or peer review the article, that would be super (there's quite a backlog on those requests, and it would also be nice to get someone who isn't automatically biased against the subject matter).
Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Duke
On Duke's page I have removed the fansite references. There are no online sources, they now are basically primary sources. Can anyone find some online ones, it would be daft to have to merge it into a list - But it has been tagged for a few years now. It just needs a little bit of work and could do with some attention from you guys.Rain the 1 BAM 20:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rain, I appreciate that you are trying to be constructive. But since all the G.I. Joe articles have now been assessed, and made part of the Fictional Characters wikiproject, it seems that all you and Harry Blue5 want to do is concentrate on disputing sources, instead of helping to find alternate ones. With all due respect, if you do not have an interest in G.I. Joe, please leave the members of this project to work on improving G.I. Joe articles, instead of opposing the notability of them as you did with Zartan. You are not being helpful by removing information, and then expecting someone else to clean up the mess. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)