Jump to content

Talk:Chris Claremont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of X-Men characters created by Claremont

[edit]

I removed this rather pointless list: X-Men Characters Created by Chris Claremont -leigh (φθόγγος) 17:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Removed list again. Phthoggos is on target about its being pointless, since it doesn't distinguish between major, recurring and disposable characters. It's also thoroughly un-fact-checked, since it lists all sorts of "Captain Britain" characters as part of the X-Men group, includes conspicuous miscredits (e.g., Cockrum on the Brood, Multiple Man actually created by Peter David. Strong Guy ditto, and who knows what else. I don't have enough faith in somebody who misspells "Byrne" about 2 dozen times to take a list like this seriously.
Not that you should take me quite so seriously, after I reread this later on. Mindlock. Multiple Man created by Len Wein for Giant-Size FF4, not Peter David. Wein plotted, so he's writer-creator, Claremont scripted. Off base on Strong Guy; technically a Claremont creation as well. But the list is still not really solid -- it just assumes that character so-and-so is a Claremont/Artist X creation because they worked on the issue where the character first appeared. Not always the case. Caliban is a Claremont-Byrne creation; I don't know what Cockrum's input was. Claremont recycled him after an originally planned story line was scrubbed.
N. Caligon 22:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do the characters have to be distinguished? This is only a list of them, we're not saying too much about them here. That can be added in later anyway. Anyway, sorry, you doubt me just because I copied and pasted "Byrne" with the wrong spelling by accident. There are "Captain Britain" characthers here because he created them (you're probably confused because Claremont didn't develop them as much as Alan Moore). And Cockrum did create the Brood. I know about Caliban's history, but practically speaking, for the version who appeared, it was Cockrum who created him, as Byrne's design is really something else. OmegaWikipedia2 01:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not "confused" about the Captain Britain characters. I don't think they should be called "X-Men" characters; they were created and developed in a different title. As for Caliban, the fact that Cockrum redesigned the character doesn't mean he wasn't originally a Claremont/Byrne creation. Byrne discusses him at length in an interview, well before his first appearance. And that highlights a problems with a list like this: It assigns creative credit based entirely on first appearances. As a talking point, why is Madeleine Pryor credited as created in part by Paul Smith? Claremont writes a story and tells the artist to make her look just like Jean Grey. You might as well credit her to Claremont, Lee, and Kirby. N. Caligon 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There were tons of Captain Britan characters that aren't X-Men related, and I only included them if they've had some notable part in X-Men/Excalibur stories. Even if Caliban's original design wasn't used, I don't see what the problem is. The version of Caliban that was published is significantly different from the original. Are we going to credit all characters with ideas that never happened? Jack Kirby apparently was supposed to draw the original Spider Man, but they didn't like his design. So, should we credit him too along with Ditko then?
And I understand your concern, and I didn't make this list lightly. I know that the first appearance does not automatically mean the person created it. If you looked at this list, you'll see that Gambit is credited to the person who created him, not the first person who drew him. The artists I've listed along so far on this list are people who I'm pretty sure designed them. The ones that are blank are ones I'm still looking and researching. As for Madelyne, yeah she sort of looks like Jean. But someone had to create that design, and in her early appearances (besides red hair) they don't look that similar. And Claremont, I believe has talked about Paul Smith being her co creater too. Anyway, I hope this has answered your concerns, and I'd really like to move the list back to the main page. The list is still a work in progress. OmegaWikipedia 21:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clash with Shooter

[edit]

Also Claremont was upset when Jim Shooter used Magneto as a conventional villain in the Secret Wars even though Claremont had been slowly rehabilitating the character.

I'm confused because in Secret Wars Magneto isn't used as a conventional villain - he becomes an independent element who aligns with the X-Men, leading to some tension between them and the Avengers/Fantastic Four. Is this really a code for fury that someone else was writing the characters? Timrollpickering 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, didn't the Beyonder put Magneto in the hero group? --DrBat 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was Secret Wars. Wasn't there some comic book they did for famine relief? Secret Wars actually predates Magneto's trial, which is when he became the leader of the X-Men and New Mutants. Don't know about Secret Wars II, though...(DrZarkov 23:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
You're thinking of "Heroes for Hope", which is something else (and I think Claremont was one of the writers on it). And as for Secret Wars, it took place before X-Men #200 (the trial), but it took place after X-Men #150 (when Mags had the epiphany and started to redeem himself). Magneto was placed in the Heroes group by the Beyonder. If you go on Amazon.Com and search for Secret Wars, they have the first couple of pages, which include Magneto. --DrBat 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any actual quotes of Claremont stating that he was upset with Shooter? Magneto was placed on the heroes side in the original Secret Wars, and Shooter was also the Ed-in-chief when Magneto was reformed in Uncanny X-men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.20.204.98 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Works

[edit]

Is it really necessary, or even accurately representative, to list both his works and then the TPB compilations of those works? It can be assumed that if Claremont wrote Dude Justice issues 1-16, then he also probably wrote the Dude Justice trade paperbacks vols 1, 2 and 3 which reprinted issues 1-16. It's a bit silly, a bit of a waste of space and definitely strikes as filler. 204.69.40.7 11:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus on the inclusion of reprint collections within comic book bibliographies. Personally, I am neutral on the matter. However, when they are included, I think that they ought to indicate which issues are being reprinted. --GentlemanGhost 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed most of them. The entire section is pretty silly anyway. Very few other people, writers, actors or artists, have a listing quite so complete of their works. Most folks just have a few high points. There's also the fact that an amazing number of the items listed were simply incorrect. Last I checked, Spider-Man: The Complete Frank Miller was written by uh, hmm... what's his name again? Oh yes, Alan Moore. Claremont's never had a run on The Pulse or Ultimate X-Men. It's just bizarre that so much crap snuck onto the list and lasted as long as it did. Makes a guy wonder how long it'd last if someone snuck Calvin & Hobbes, Transformers: the Movie, the screenplays for WWF Raw from 1997 to 1999 and Of Mice and Men in there. 24.62.27.66 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It /is/ excessive - even Stan Lee's bibliography is a third the size of the one presented here. Ekchuah 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of works could be moved to a separate page. Iron Ghost 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or like we do with most actors and authors, we could pare his bibliography down to highlights and important works. 204.69.40.7 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]

The article states that Claremont is American, but born in London. Does anyone knows when he emigrated/ took US Nationality? Indisciplined 19:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember, he was a military brat. So he was the son of an American serviceman born in London. I can say with almost absolute certainity this was mentioned in the forewards in X-Men Masterworks, but I can't quote chapter and verse...(DrZarkov 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Isn´t he gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.45.184.69 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this http://cma.staging-thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article2432216.ece he was the son of two RAF officers, and moved to the US when he was 3.
Also, I'm not entirely sure why this article says "American comic book writer", seems a bit silly when you write "born in England..." with "American" written immediately afterwards, surely it should be Anglo-American at the very least? Jesus.arnold (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the convention is to give the subject's nationality. Since he moved to the US as a child, and has been an American ever since, he is described as such. Another example is Jeri Ryan, who was born in Munich, but she is described as American, not German. Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes

[edit]

He apparently had a cameo role on the US series "Heroes", as a shop owner called "Claremont", in episode 1x22 "Landslide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceHunter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 May 2007

First, please sign you posts. Second, the character's name on Heroes was Claremont, but the guy had nothing to do with Claremont the writer except the same name, from what I can tell. The only possible link was that Hiro came to the shop owner to repair his sword and Hiro is a big X-Men fan, so that might have been the connection there. But the character on the show and Chris Claremont are not the same person, i.e., it wasn't a cameo. --RossF18 (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncanny445.jpg

[edit]

Image:Uncanny445.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncanny94.jpg

[edit]

Image:Uncanny94.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

[edit]

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) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It needs a photo and there are requests for sources and a lot of other statements that need referencing. I'll come back when I've finished the assessment run and flag the important statements. (Emperor (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Books?

[edit]

Is there a list of the SF novels he wrote in the late-'80s/early-'90s?Rickremember (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writer profile section

[edit]

I trimmed down the writer profile section, since much of it was nothing more than unsourced speculation not suited for a biographical article. I also noted in my edit summary that the text might be copied from another website [1]. I checked again, and it appears that the Wikipedia text was copied to the web page, which as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is not a copyright violation . I will also try to find more sources/references to the article. Talsurrak (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine = Malcom X

[edit]

Since when has Wolverine been likened to Malcom X? Shouldn't it be Magneto? The same way Xavier is likened to MLK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.69.105 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, that columnist erred. However, we cannot change a direct quote from a source, so I think it's best to trim that passage, and leave only the relevant, cogent portion of it, as I just did. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life: contradictory info

[edit]

This article http://cma.staging-thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article2432216.ece, states that Chris Claremont did have access to comic books in his childhood, and read a lot of Dan Dare.

I was going to add this info to the article, but it doesn't really fit with what's already written, contradicting something which is already sourced, so I'm not sure what to do with it.Jesus.arnold (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Times story features a direct quote of him saying that he read Dan Dare in his own words, and the New York Magazine story does not, I'm going to assume that the former is correct. I've edited the passage accordingly, and added some other materials from that source. Thanks for pointing it out. And in the future, feel free to BE BOLD in editing the article yourself. To get an idea of how you might do it, try comparing the version before and after I edited it, if it helps. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1990s photograph

[edit]
It's a shame when RfCs get no response, but it's time to close it. A few people have criticised the quality of the photo, and there is no consensus to include it. StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi - I found a historical picture of Claremont and wanted to post it on the article, but it was reverted here[2]. Seeing as the picture is littered with signing photos of him, where he looks essentially the same, I thought this older photo would add something to the article. It's not the best picture, but it's nice to see what he looked like over 20 years ago during comics' heyday. Anyway I'm probably not going to revert the change but I'm surprised at this decision. If anyone else wants to put it back, feel free.... Tduk (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find the photo? Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the photo, actually, why? Tduk (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you said that you found it, so I wanted to be clear that it was not under someone else's copyright. But in addition that, it's not a very good photo, in that his eyes look either closed or as if he's looking down. What does it add to the article? Nightscream (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shows what he looked like twenty years ago. What do the other pictures add to the article? Maybe if I knew what you thought there I could answer you more clearly... Thanks. Tduk (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, he is looking down, signing something. Tduk (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, isn't he looking down/eyes closed in the second signing picture on the page? Tduk (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly nothing wrong with a photo showing what he looked like twenty years ago, but the photo is of poor quality: he isn't facing the camera even indirectly or obliquely, his eyes aren't visible (which wouldn't be so bad if we could see him signing the item), and then there's that black triangle in the upper right hand corner, etc. By contrast, the other pictures show him in some element relevant to his notability: Speaking to fans at a convention, attending the Colubmia U symposium prompted by his donating his materials to their library, etc. They are also of clear quality and color, and show him either facing the camera or interacting with other elements or people in a relevant manner. If you insist that the older photo belongs in the article, I'll invite other editors to participate in a discussion on the matter. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Nightscream (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. If you can, do it in a generic way rather than asking specific editors. I can also request an RFC. It seems a minor issue, but I think there should be some form of consensus.. Do you agree? Tduk (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you think a wider crop would help, I can do that... I went for the close-up but I can see that wider shots are also on this page... Tduk (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All editorial disagreements, where there is some dispute over interpretation of policy, style guidelines, etc., must be discussed. And yes, one must be neutral with respect to inviting the editors, since one cannot go canvassing, which is a violation of guidelines. I just invited 14 editors who who previously participated in similar discussions on the Larry Hama and Grant Morrison talk pages. What I would suggest is that you select 14 registered editors at random who have recently made edits to the WikiProject Comics page and its talk page, or who are listed on the ComicsProject's List of participants, just so we have a nice, even representative sampling of the Comics Project community. If you want, you can just copy the message I left on the 14 users' talk pages. Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's break it down. First, the infobox image is great and should remain: Clear, crisp, full-face.
Next: Showing him in his element is a good idea. I'm not sure we need two other photos of him, though, at around the same age and looking much the same. Since the infobox image of him is at a signing, judging from the table and the pen, I think the image of him at the symposium is an addition that adds to the article and should remain.
That would leave room for the historical image, which I believe does serve a valid use by depicting him in, if not exactly his heyday, close to it. A tighter crop would eliminate the black triangle, and a either a sharpening filter or a smaller image would take care of the slight softness. I'd advocate filtering for a more natural skin tone than the orange tint. Hope these observations are of some help. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for your input. This would be a terrible infobox photo! but a good historical one I think. I wish I knew the exact date of the photo - it was probably at a NY convention in 1990. Tduk (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new version. I just replaced the old one in this talk page with the new one, I hope no one objects to that. Makes for a cleaner layout. Tduk (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to comment on this matter as I don't have a previous connection to this article (at least not that I remember, but I do use Huggle to combat vandalism a lot). If the photo was better I would say use in the historical context without question, as is, I would say still use it but try and replace it if possible with one that shows the subjects eyes. SeaphotoTalk 02:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merely offering my opinion, but at first glance at the photo without reading anyone else's comments, I felt that him looking down would be a problem for me. That's not so much a "don't use it" as an "I wouldn't use it" as a personal matter of taste. I'd like my subjects to be looking at the camera, or at least being able to see their eyes if possible. BOZ (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current photograph better. David A (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the current photograph? The issue is not whether to replace the photo in the Infobox; it's whether to add the 1990s photo somewhere in the article. Nightscream (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed on the Commons. Nightscream (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the photo isn't very good. Perhaps if he was looking at the camera or if it was taken back and showed that he was in fact signing something then it could be useful but as it stands it is not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

I don't see any clear consensus or interest. So in the interest of _getting_ more interest, I'll make this RFC. We are trying to determine if the picture above will add anything to this article. It would not replace the infobox pic but may be added in lieu of or in addition to the other inline pictures. The picture is not the best picture but seems to be the only picture of the writer (taken at a signing) during his rise to fame over 20 years ago. Thanks for any thoughts..! Tduk (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citing reason behind Claremont turning from comics work

[edit]

In response to Nightscream's last edit summary, I am quite familiar with WP:OVERCITE, but as you can read at the top, it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, simply an opinion essay, and it is certainly not meant to be applied blindly to every scenario. The issue in this case is that the two sentences I sourced are completely unrelated. This increases the likelihood of their eventually being separated, but more importantly, it means that without separate citations, many if not most readers will assume the first sentence is unsourced, since the state of the article is exactly the same as it would be if that were indeed the case. And ensuring that the source for a piece of information is clear is certainly more important than minimizing the number of little footnotes on an article.

At any rate, it is apparent from the hysterical tone of Nightscream's initial edit summary that my editing is not wanted here, so I shall refrain from editing this article in the future. I simply felt the need to post my full reasoning here before I left. Finally, just to be perfectly clear, I will not be reading this talk page either.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing "hysterical" in my edit summary, since its entire contents was nothing more than the reasoning I provided to explain the edit. While WP:OVERKILL is indeed an essay and not a policy or guideline, its content does reflect the feelings of more than one editor on Wikipedia, and it is the reasoning in that essay and in the rationale of given by an editor for his/her edits that needs to be weighed, and not merely whether it's a policy or guideline, which could be seen as wikilawyering. Remarks like "hysterical", and the tactic of reverting the article and then saying that you intend not to edit it further or read responses to your statements before running away are hardly in keeping with the WP:Civility or Good Faith, which are indeed policies.
I will explain my reasoning again here for the record: Consecutive citations of the same source in the same paragraph--and for back-to-back sentences, mind you--are redundant. When a passage, set of consecutive sentences, or even an entire paragraph is supported by the same source, one citation at the end of that material is sufficient, as per WP:PAIC. Placing multiple citations of the same source in the same paragraph is unnecessary and may clutter up the text.
You said the two sentences are unrelated. So what? Who says that sentences have to be related to be supported by one citation? Citations should be placed in a way that readers can understand which source supports which material. What does that have to do with whether the content of different sentences is related? Moreover, one of things we learn in grade school is that paragraphs are structured around a unifying idea (often given in the opening sentence of the paragraph). If the two sentences are in the same paragraph, then they're related. If they're really not, then why not separate the paragraphs, and then employ multiple cites? Why assume that separation will result in failure to add the newly needed cite? If we cite the same source multiple times for each sentence based on one editor's belief that the sentences are unrelated, then may I ask where it ends? I ask, because I've encountered paragraphs with four, five, six, seven, eight cites of a source where there was no other intervening source.
Also, the first citation of a source is the one that should carry the full publication information. This way, editors seeing the first citation in edit mode can discern this, making it easier to find the first citation when it needs to be moved or modified. Why do you insist on not only adding a redundant cite, but adding it before the one with the full info? What is the wisdom behind this? It may not impact the article, as you say, but it can impact editing of it, which may be a consideration for editors who do a lot of editing, even if it doesn't matter to those like you who do less editing. The very least you can do is try to learn and understand the points of view of other editors, instead of being so dismissive of them.
There are different solutions that can be discussed here in a civil and open atmosphere. That cannot be done, however, one editor knee-jerk dismisses all other editors whose ideas he doesn't care about, and then walks off in a huff after reverting and leaving a message that may attract responses he will not read. "Hysterical", indeed. Nightscream (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for picture change

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There does appear to be consensus for use of the 2014 photo. There were not a lot of comments but no one commented against the 2014 photo. AlbinoFerret 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2011 pic
    2011 pic
  • 2014 pic
    2014 pic

Hi, I'd like to get some consensus for which picture is more appropriate for this article. I placed a new picture from 2014 in the article last year, in October. It stayed until just recently, when it was reverted to a picture from 2011, with the comment "Revert. We do not change photos simply because they are more recent. This new photo is smaller, he's not facing the camera, and his facial experession is inferior. Also, Columbia University is not called "The" Columbia University."(sic). I'm a bit confused - because in fact, my new photo is smaller vertically by 500 pixels, but much wider, and uses more pixels for his face. I also prefer the composition of it (I'll refrain from criticizing the other picture since I don't believe it's appropriate), but that's a personal choice obviously - that's why I'd like to get some input as to what sort of aesthetic is preferred - since, judging by Nightscream's revert, it comes down to aesthetics. Thank you, Tduk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have reverted the two photo changes by Tduk for the following reasons:

The Infobox Photo

I don't know why I was not notified of this discussion, or why, for that matter, no one else appears to have been solicited to participate, but contrary to Tduk's edit summary in which he changed the Infobox pix, there was no "consensus" reached above. Of the three editors who responded to the discussion started above, only one indicated a preference for the 2014 pic. The other two indicated no preference. One out of three is not a consensus. Even if we were to include Tduk, then that's two out of four, which is still not a consensus. In my opinion, the 2014 had nicer lighting, but is awkwardly cropped and shaped, and Claremont isn't exhibiting a better facial expression. Either way, I would accept a consensus that preferred that pic, but only when there is a substantial amount of editors summoned to participate, which I always ensure whenever I begin an Infobox photo consensus discussion.

The Columbia University Photo

Changing this photo, which Tduk did in the very next edit right after changing the Infobox pic, makes even less sense. The photo originally in that section was taken at the 2012 Columbia University symposium that is described in detail in that very section. For this reason, that photo had a directly relevant connection to that text. Not only does the newer photo with which Tduk replaced not, as it was taken in Argentina in 2014, but it's badly blurry, and poorly lit, as Claremont's face is in shadow. Tduk himself did not provide a rationale for this change in his edit summary, in which he said he was "unsure" of it. I mean, did Tduk even bother reading the text that accompanied that photo? Or is he one of those who thinks that any photo that is more recent than a current one is automatically more desirable than the current one, regardless of photo quality or relevance?

Photos chosen should be those that best represent the subject, both in accuracy, and in terms of photo quality. For living subjects, the Infobox should not be changed unless the subject has undergone a significant change in their appearance. Secondary photos should makes some attempt, where possible, to illustrate the subject in ways that are relevant to the text. Photos should never been changed simply because they are more recent. Please see Wikipedia:Recentism, and apply its ideas to photos as well as article text. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. I didn't replace any photos with the Argentina photo - someone else placed that up while this talk was going on. The photo I placed was one I took of Claremont, looking to the left and holding a small microphone, while giving a talk at Comics at Columbia. Can you annotate your claims with edits so I can understand if for some reason you're seeing different photos than I am? I replaced the photo with the one which was decided in the above consensus - it _was_ closed, with consensus, as the summary reads. Tduk (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading the text above several times, I realized I was confused about the "Argentina pic" because it had to do with an edit I made - where I said I was unsure of the change - and it was reverted, and I did not contest the reversion, as it was the right thing to do. I'm confused as to why it's being brought up now, as it doesn't pertain to the infobox picture. Tduk (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see the relevance. Confusingly, Nightscream didn't make edits in any easy fashion - i.e. localizing edits, so they are atomically meaningful and can be easily undone if they are a mistake - and caused me to accidentally revert some other changes in his blanket edit that were invisible on my small screen, and I didn't notice. This was my mistake. That shouldn't have been undone. However, there was still a consensus reached - at least, one was stated when the RFC was closed. Tduk (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the RFC above. I find it disappointing that one editor would disregard consensus and a close and change the picture. Nightscream I think it may be wise to undo your changes before you make an appearance on a noticeboard. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more time:
There is no consensus above.
Let's break it down:
  • Tduk prefers the 2014 pic.
  • Lady Lotus said she preferred the 2014 pic.
  • Comatmebro said he preferred the 2014 pic.
  • Ninjarobotpirate indicated no preference.
  • Donlago indicated no preference.
So in total, three people prefer the 2014 pic, and two have no preference. Five people is not an adequate number of participants for "consensus", and three out of five does NOT represent a consensus of the editing community. When I start a consensus discussion, I always make a point of inviting many more people in order to obtain a range of opinions from a wide range of editors from the community --that's a consensus. The fact that you place a brief discussion in a blue box and call it a consensus does not make one, no matter how many times you call it one. Compare this to past discussions I started on the articles on Bryan Talbot, Scott Allie, Larry Hama, Rick Remender, James Marsters and Carl Potts. See how many people I invited to participate there? (You may also notice that in each of those discussions, I accepted the consensus, including when it favored a photo other than the one that I did, which was a majority of the time.) Putting a brief discussion of five people in a blue box and calling it a "consensus" comes off as extremely shady. Nightscream (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nightscream, this is how RfC works. There was a discussion, it ran for six weeks or so, it was closed, there was a consensus of sorts. There is nothing shady about this, and AlbinoFerret's close was perfectly in order. You are welcome to start this discussion anew since consensus can change; notify the editors who commented above and propose a different image. What you cannot do is change the image and claim there was no consensus and that you're not being disruptive. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why is the secondary pic being changed when it wasn't part of that discussion? Why do you and the others here refuse to discuss that matter, even though, as I mentioned in some detail about, that photo was not a part of the consensus discussion?? Why do you people invariably go silent when arguments are presented on things like that? Are you seriously contending that the secondary photo was also a part of the discussion? Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC and consensus was only for the infobox photo. Discuss the other and come to consensus on it, or start an RFC if the editors here cant agree. AlbinoFerret 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream, I already commented above that that was an error on my part, because you confusingly made two unrelated edit-undos in one atomic edit, so when I clicked undo, I didn't notice that I had to scroll down to the very bottom of the page to see there was more being changed. That was my mistake, and, possibly, Drmies also made the same mistake (though I'm not sure obviously). Did you miss my apology about having done that, above? I'm not going to change it again; I can't speak for anyone else. In the future you should probably avoid making confusing edits that make it easy for others to make mistakes. It's in everyone interest to do what they can to avoid errors, isn't it? Tduk (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream, we're here wasting our time because of your disruption. If you choose to combine an edit against consensus with some other edits, don't be surprised (or act petulant) when the entirety of the edit gets reverted. You reap what you sow. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Claremont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Claremont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Claremont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont's earliest Marvel credits

[edit]

The article currently includes "Claremont's career began in 1969, as a college undergraduate, when he was hired as a gofer/editorial assistant at Marvel Comics, during which time he received a plot assist credit for X-Men #59, written by Roy Thomas (cover dated August 1969).[3][note 1] Thomas later assigned Claremont his first professional scripting assignment, on Daredevil and the Black Widow #102 (Aug. 1973).[17]"

The idea that Claremont suggested that the Sentinels fly into the sun at the end of that story, and that that was his first contribution to X-Men, has become pretty commonplace--but he definitely did not get a plot assist credit anywhere in that comic book. He did get a "with a welcome plotting assist from Chris Claremont" credit in Incredible Hulk #148 (cover-dated February, 1972), and then a "from an idea suggested by Chris Claremont" credit in Avengers #102 (cover-dated August, 1972), in which the Sentinels return. As https://50yearoldcomics.wordpress.com/2019/05/26/x-men-58-july-1969/ points out, it makes some sense that Claremont misremembered which Sentinel-related story he got credited for. (And both Neal Adams and Roy Thomas have claimed credit for the "Sentinels-fly-into-the-sun" idea, too, so best to skip that whole question, I suspect.)

I've consequently changed the text to "Claremont's career began in 1969, as a college undergraduate, when he was hired as a gofer/editorial assistant at Marvel Comics. His first professional scripting assignment was Daredevil and the Black Widow #102 (Aug. 1973)." Flexiblecharm (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Claremont&oldid=1200942510"