Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

It got messy and stalled because new images came along midway. Can we try again?

• Talk:Rick Remender#Lead image selection - Redux

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thread started at the Village Pump here to discuss the use of cosplay images in character articles. postdlf (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When mentioning the 2012 Avengers film or its sequel, do we want to say "Marvel's The Avengers" as here (or at Thanos or Ultron), or should the title just be "The Avengers"? 50.151.230.203 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Either is acceptable but I don't see the need to be overly formal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As the name is officially Marvel's The Avengers, I believe it should be listed as that in an initial reference on the page. Afterwords, The Avengers solely is fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk)

That's fine in the main article but I don't think its necessary elsewhere. Again it doesn't hurt, it just looks overly formal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Magical powers by the author)

Summary:

• use these links: magic in fiction, paranormal, psionic
• don't use these: magic(al) power(s), magical(ly)

Magical powers redirects to Magic (paranormal) which is about human Anthropology and Religion.

I visited all 11 articles that use the "magical powers" link and changed 7 targets to magic in fiction. Those seven articles about four fictional characters, one novel, one film, and one TV series. All use "magical powers" concerning anthropoid characters with superhuman abilities. I suppose that most of the characters are treated as human within the fiction. It may be reasonable to call them "superhumans" for short.

Some of the superhuman abilities are called paranormal in the context of real human beliefs and practices, ranging form pseudoscience to religion to stage magic. Some are called psionic in science fiction and real contexts, I think. Perhaps editors writing about "magical" characters should consider linking to one of those articles.

At the moment we have 0, 4, more than 100, and 0 articles that link magic powers, magical powers, magical, and magically --all of which redirect to magic (paranormal). My ongoing examination of their use seems to show that they do need disambiguation so I anticipate that all will soon redirect to the disambiguation page Magic.

--P64 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've put up the article for Winsor McCay's 1912 animated film How a Mosquito Operates as a Featured Article Candidate. Any and all participation in the nomination page would be enormously helpful. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, image:Self-portrait of illustrator Harry V.R. Anderson.jpg has been nominated for deletion and WT:Articles for creation/Harry V.R. Anderson has been rejected for creation. If this comics illustrator is of importance to your project, you may want to rectify the situation with a fair-use rationale for the image, and adding references to the article and moving it to mainspace. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If a character has a name change after more than 20 years of appearances under one name, I am questioning if this is the best way to handle it in an article. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The navboxes for comics are way too big and difficult to navigate through (which is the point of a navbox). Mainly I see large cast of characters and fictional groups mixed with media. I propose splitting the characters/groups apart from the media so it can be easier to manage and navigate.Lucia Black (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by splitting them? Having a more prominent divider within the navbox, or actually having two separate navboxes for fictional content and media? And if the latter, what's wrong with assigning subjects either a single navbox or multiple navboxes on a case-by-case basis, the way we do now?--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the latter. And I just mentioned the problems, but your question comes off more like "We been doing it like this for a while, why change?" their too big, and "case-by-case" seems odd as I see large number of navboxes being too big. Either the line for too big is too far off, or editors stopped caring. Template:Green Lantern, Template:Justice League, template:Hulk and various other series where the characters are mentioned first, making it difficult to find the media. This can also help place better templates. Such as only putting media navboxes in media articles while having character navboxes in characters.Lucia Black (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you both have a point. Lucia Black, the templates that you mentioned do seem to be too large, but I don't think that the idea of splitting characters and media applies to every navbox. NukeofEarl is correct that each navbox should be examined on a a case-by-case basis, plus there is always the option of a navbox having collapsible sections, such as {{G.I. Joe}}. I think you should propose any splitting or section changes on the talk pages of the templates that you are concerned about. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Lucia, I think you partially misunderstood me; I see the problem you're talking about, but I'm only seeing it on a certain percentage of navboxes. To give just a few examples, I think you'll agree that Template:Symbiote Family and Hosts, Template: Spawn, and Template: Spider-Woman are of quite reasonable size. In particular, the Spider-Woman one has so few media entries that a template covering just Spider-Woman media wouldn't be large enough to satisfy Wikipedia's template policies. So if we were to universally split fictional elements from media the way you're suggesting, in Spider-Woman's case this would in effect mean simply deleting the media entries from the template. Again, I agree that there's a problem, I just think that it would be better addressed by splitting specific navboxes than by creating a universal policy.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

But looking carefully at those series, their part of spider-man franchise. (Except for spawn). But fine. How about I look for them and find a way to split them (or prioritize them better).Lucia Black (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly are "Other versions" and "In other media" two separate sections in comic book articles, usually? Basically, film and cartoon versions ARE other versions - and usually, the other media has a companion comic book or something. (A strong example would be Smallville Season 11) . Those are the same versions, same continuity etc, but they are actually split in terms of Wikipedia - this could lead to a lot of duplicate information.

Don't exactly want (or care) to change it across Wikipedia, but a discussion on the topic would be nice. Has this been brought up before? || Tako (bother me) || 18:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that "Other versions" applies to alternate comic book versions of a character, when they appear in titles that are not part of their mainstream continuity. But "In other media" is for appearances of that character in media other than comic books, such as film, television or video games, regardless if they are different than the original character or not. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the wording of Fortdj33. I think of "Other versions" on say a DC character page, to include anything about their Flashpoint counterpoint (if any), or say any other incarnation of them from an alternate reality. And then "In other media" exactly as Fortdj33 stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyway to add more shortcuts to that page? I was looking for it, and typed MOS:COMICS and was surprised that didn't take me to it. I know for other MOS pages, like film, using MOS:FILM takes you to the MOS page for film. Or even MOS:COMIC would be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's just a matter of create the page and redirecting it. I've taken care of it, as well as added the shortcut to the list on the MOS/Comic page.|| Tako (bother me) || 05:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested a new one here: Template talk:WikiProject Comics - Christian75 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This article still needs improvements. --George Ho (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully propose a new workgroup: Tintin. I am new to the WikiProject Comics but not new to Wikipedia Tintin articles and Franco-Belgian comics articles, which I have been editing in collaboration with other fine editors for a few years. The long-range plan is Featured Topic Tintin containing multiple Featured Articles, including the main article, the list articles, the book articles, and the character articles. Perhaps by formalising a workgroup, more qualified editors can join in. I humbly request your suggestions and support. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks later ... the sound of crickets. Ah well. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to mention in the article's lead that James Spader will portray Ultron in the next Avengers film? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes.Zythe (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I figured - please join in the discussion on the talk page to weigh in. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interested parties can see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive2#Whammy_on_the_Whaam.21_50th_anniversary_drive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:TFAR nomination for Whaam! is now open at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Whaam.21 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. I presume that after nearly 700KB of discussions some people may be interested in this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've put up Little Nemo (1911 film) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Nemo (1911 film)/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody think Giant-Size X-Men should be moved to Giant-Size X-Men 1, per WP:PRECISION? I haven't been able to find many WP pages created for single issues, so I'm unsure. This isn't really a "series", per se — two one-shots in 1975, two 30 years later. Much of the material in all four issues are reprints. It's only Giant-Size #1 that's really significant and notable, not the other three. Woodshed (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the only justificstion to do something like that would be if each of the issues had so much written about then in reluable sources that they had to be split into separate articles. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. WP:PRECISION states an article title should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". The only reason to add the issue number, would be if there were another article about Giant-Size X-Men that required the disambiguation. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That article looks a real mess, unable to decide if it's about the issue or the series. "Though not a regular issue" - actually it was, but Marvel soon switched the Giant-Size line to all reprint and cancelled it shortly afterwards; with new series launched under it converted to the regular format (e.g. Super-Villain Team-Up). "it jump-started the series after a five-year hiatus" - no, X-Men had a brief publication gap in 1970 but then returned as an all-reprint book. There's no mention of the reprints in Giant-Size #1 as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reprints are mentioned in the first non-lede section, and the article talks only about #1 until the last section; there's not really any indecision. Information about #2-4 is relegated to the final section. Obviously, the "jump-start" line refers to new stories (which had been on a five-year hiatus), plus the new team of characters. Can you cite a source to support your claims about the Giant-Size line being canceled/converted, etc.? I hope you'll choose to improve the article. Woodshed (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in this list, as it includes multimedia franchises with comic book components. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The lumping together of all of Marvel Comics' characters into a single franchise, and the same for DC Comics, obviously needs fixing. Don't know if I'll find the time for that, though.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, for example, X-Men/Avengers/Spider-Man as separate entries? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

this idea seems really off...i don't believe we should even have a list. It looks difficult to read and doesn't provide any value.Lucia Black (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I must ditto Lucia Black. I see no value in this list. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 04:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Punisher appears in the current Thunderbolts title as a member of the team; is it appropriate to mention this in the infobox[1]? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think so, but the link should probably direct specifically to the Marvel NOW section of the Thunderbolts article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Expert opinions are needed regarding the notability of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Powr Mastrs and the suitability of the sources listed. Please use add {{afc comment|1=Your comment here}} to provide your feedback. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have (or can get) a photo of Françoise Mouly they'd like to share (for her article)? I'd rather not resort to a Fair Use image if I can avoid it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Every time i even "attempt" to fix or clean up these articles, it gets confusing and gives me a headache. Their all organized completely different and its hard to find some middle ground for them to follow a consistent universal organization. I've been making this MOS for fictional characters for a while. User:Lucia Black/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Fictional Characters.

Maybe after agreeing with a specific guideline to organize, then maybe the entire project can choose a random high-importance article, and slowly clean up the articles up 1 article at a time as a group effort. I'm not an expert in western comics, so i don't know where to look or how all these comics coexist together or what details to reduce. can someone help?Lucia Black (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm up for improving character articles, but a bit confused on the need for a new manual style article to cover them. Aren't templates like WP:WikiProject Novels/CharacterArticleTemplate and manual of style sections like WP:CMOS#STRUCTURE sufficient as guidelines for consistent organization?--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously novel characters are at a completely different standard than TV series, Video game, and Comic characters. Not only that but if anyone challenged it, it could be voted to be cut down and simplified. WP:CMOS#STRUCTURE needs to be simplified to, i think thats the reason why most of these articles are in really bad shape. most of these follow that version. This MOS i'm creating is meant to be universal for all fictional characters of all media, and its focusing mainly on how to organize "fictional history/appearances" of multiple media and versions at the same time.Lucia Black (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Looking over the current version of your manual of style, I generally agree with the content, but there are a few cases where the wording seems misleading:

• "Multi-Characters", "Individual characters and groups" I think "Articles on multiple characters" and "Articles on individual characters and specific groups" would be clearer.
• "Be sure to name the section relating to fictional history as "Role" or "History" if the character only appears in one series." I'm a little baffled here, because this sounds like you're talking about the section named "Fictional character biography", "Fictional biography", or "Character biography" depending on the article, but I can't imagine that you would want to rename a section of in-universe content to "History".
• "Intead "When (events of episode/chapter X) occured...."" Three problems here. First, per WP: TENSE, this should be in present tense, not past. Second, "instead" is misspelled. Third, I think the "of episode/chapter X" part is too potentially confusing. I'd just say "Instead "When (event) occurs....""
• "(such as writers and develops)" I've never seen "develop" used as a noun before, so I'm wondering if this is a typo of some sort.

Hope that helps. I'll try to see if I can think of something to actually add to the manual of style.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I still believe we should have a different MOS separate from specific wikiprojects, so that we can have organization. problem with comic characters is that they treat both the character and the series together. take Batman for example.Lucia Black (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Having trouble at Thundra with a user who wants to insist that she is a supervillain without evidence. 50.13.17.59 (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone able to take a look at this? 50.13.17.59 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the opinion - does a preview in Marvel Age count as a first appearance, or do we go with the first issue of his series? [2] 50.13.17.59 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say the first issue of the Darkhawk title is still his first official appearance. Marvel and DC issue previews of titles all the time, but unless it is a full-size comic book intended to be in continuity, it is just advertising, and should not count in a character's bibliography. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Darkhawk#First appearance?, but the editor is now edit warring instead of discussing the issue. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Every time i even "attempt" to fix or clean up these articles, it gets confusing and gives me a headache. Their all organized completely different and its hard to find some middle ground for them to follow a consistent universal organization. I've been making this MOS for fictional characters for a while. User:Lucia Black/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Fictional Characters.

Maybe after agreeing with a specific guideline to organize, then maybe the entire project can choose a random high-importance article, and slowly clean up the articles up 1 article at a time as a group effort. I'm not an expert in western comics, so i don't know where to look or how all these comics coexist together or what details to reduce. can someone help?Lucia Black (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm up for improving character articles, but a bit confused on the need for a new manual style article to cover them. Aren't templates like WP:WikiProject Novels/CharacterArticleTemplate and manual of style sections like WP:CMOS#STRUCTURE sufficient as guidelines for consistent organization?--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously novel characters are at a completely different standard than TV series, Video game, and Comic characters. Not only that but if anyone challenged it, it could be voted to be cut down and simplified. WP:CMOS#STRUCTURE needs to be simplified to, i think thats the reason why most of these articles are in really bad shape. most of these follow that version. This MOS i'm creating is meant to be universal for all fictional characters of all media, and its focusing mainly on how to organize "fictional history/appearances" of multiple media and versions at the same time.Lucia Black (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Looking over the current version of your manual of style, I generally agree with the content, but there are a few cases where the wording seems misleading:

• "Multi-Characters", "Individual characters and groups" I think "Articles on multiple characters" and "Articles on individual characters and specific groups" would be clearer.
• "Be sure to name the section relating to fictional history as "Role" or "History" if the character only appears in one series." I'm a little baffled here, because this sounds like you're talking about the section named "Fictional character biography", "Fictional biography", or "Character biography" depending on the article, but I can't imagine that you would want to rename a section of in-universe content to "History".
• "Intead "When (events of episode/chapter X) occured...."" Three problems here. First, per WP: TENSE, this should be in present tense, not past. Second, "instead" is misspelled. Third, I think the "of episode/chapter X" part is too potentially confusing. I'd just say "Instead "When (event) occurs....""
• "(such as writers and develops)" I've never seen "develop" used as a noun before, so I'm wondering if this is a typo of some sort.

Hope that helps. I'll try to see if I can think of something to actually add to the manual of style.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I still believe we should have a different MOS separate from specific wikiprojects, so that we can have organization. problem with comic characters is that they treat both the character and the series together. take Batman for example.Lucia Black (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the opinion - does a preview in Marvel Age count as a first appearance, or do we go with the first issue of his series? [3] 50.13.17.59 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say the first issue of the Darkhawk title is still his first official appearance. Marvel and DC issue previews of titles all the time, but unless it is a full-size comic book intended to be in continuity, it is just advertising, and should not count in a character's bibliography. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Darkhawk#First appearance?, but the editor is now edit warring instead of discussing the issue. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Having trouble at Thundra with a user who wants to insist that she is a supervillain without evidence. 50.13.17.59 (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone able to take a look at this? 50.13.17.59 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Should this in any way be considered a reliable source?[4]

Also, please see my above thread about Thundra. 50.13.17.59 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the source is reliable, though the disclaimer at the bottom of the article certainly makes it sound like it doesn't have any editorial oversight, and sources without editorial oversight are generally considered not reliable. The real problem is that that edit uses text copied verbatim from the source without proper attribution.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And, they are still edit warring over it. 50.13.17.59 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, 129.33.19.254 already reverted him with an edit summary directing him to this discussion thread, but I've gone ahead and done the same. Hopefully this time he'll take the hint.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping to bring the Comics article to Featured Article status one of these days, and have put a lot of work into researching and polishing it. There's still a lot fo work to do (such as tracking down some references). Is there anyone who could lend a pair of eyes to the article, and help out either by contributing feedback or edits? The article's on the Vital articles list, and really deserves to be done well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is one editor determined to eliminate an article [5] despite the comic book series having reliable sources interviewing those involved in it and giving it plenty of coverage. More attention to this please, I don't want to start an edit war with this person again. Dream Focus 21:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on that user page, but you're correct here, DF - CBR, BCN and several others used there are considered reliable sources for the purposes of reporting comic books. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please revert him. I've done it enough times today. I think he just went there because I created that article, and he is upset I reverting him again elsewhere. [6]. Anyone want to go there and explain to him what original research is, please do so. Dream Focus 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• And he just reverted you as well. More opinions please. Just two people trying to reason with him didn't work last time. Maybe if a dozen or so went to explain it to him he'd stop doing this sort of thing. Dream Focus 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  I blocked them for edit warring. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  I have had issues with this user in the past on other pages, regarding what they consider notable, vs what actually is, as is the case here. I believe DreamFocus, you were in the right here. I will add the page to my watchlist to help monitor and add a fresh opinion, in the event they go at it again once they are unblocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15

You did not attempt to reason with me DreamFocus. All you did was attack me, you did not attempt to reason with me at all, there was any any discussion at all. I attempt to turn that into a one, Postdlf banned me; real classy. Dream Focus has about 350 reports at AN. And you have not added a fresh opinion at at all, Favre1fan93. And to answer the question, no they don't as they are routine coverage like reviews. Spshu (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Spshu, since you're the one seeking to change the WP:STATUSQUO, the responsibility for starting discussion falls on you, not DreamFocus. And blaming other editors doesn't accomplish anything, unless your goal here is to make as many enemies as possible. As to the question at hand, I've had a look at the article, and at least some of its references are clearly more than routine coverage.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

While it is routine that most published media get reviews, we do not consider that routine coverage in terms of sourcing - that would be more like stories about the average-day's stock market performance or an overview of a baseball game. Reviews are secondary sources and provide the necessary transformation of primary information (the plot of the comic) into what's needed to assert why the comic is important. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Spshu, I did attempt to reason with you in the past, at Tribune Entertainment, and you just gave up for awhile then went back to the article and started edit warring the same thing before. So I don't think you can be reasoned with, and don't want to waste time arguing. Two editors reverted you on the Justice League 3000 page, and explained in edit summaries that those were reliable sources so the article was notable. [7] More discussion was done on your talk page. No one is able to convince you of this fact. You previously were warned by an administrator User_talk:Spshu#Edit_warring_warning and criticized by many people on this Wikiproject's talk page, when you tried to eliminate large numbers of comic book articles by replacing them with redirects. You dismiss what everyone else tells you. You have been warned about edit warring multiple times for different pages. Dream Focus 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• User_talk:Spshu#Justice_League_3000 More input please to hopefully convince him that these websites count as reliable sources and thus the articles that receive coverage by them are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He still doesn't seem convinced. Hopefully if enough people chime in he won't try to erase/redirect comic book articles in the future for that reason alone. Dream Focus 15:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, you have not attempt to reason anything at Tribune Entertainment. New names don't result in a new article and/or treaded as a new entity despite the PR angle. So, if you want to drag it up, Dream Focus, you have been at the Admin. Noticeboard 350 times!!! Me 13 times. postdlf 71 times. You should be critized for not starting a discussion and edit warring. So, I replace a bunch of poorly sourced and unnotable article turning into one group article well sourced and saved the history of the articles by turning them into redirect in case the info can be salvage with sources. But no, it is either an all or nothing issue for the lot of you. I withdrawal the article in question back to userspace. Didn't I listen to the discussion that despite their problems the group want to keep them? YES. I was reverted 20 times to my 2 reverts across the 18 articles.

Second, recruiting people who agree with you to go to my talk page is improper. So, you damage your credibility even more. Spshu (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares how many times someone went to a noticeboard if it never resulted in anything? I certainly wasn't accused of anything 350 times, that just how many times I showed up to comment on something which may or may not have involved me. And you are having this discussion on your talk page, so obviously people should know about it. If you are going to come back later on and start trying to eliminate comic book articles again, because no one has convinced you that those sites count as reliable sources, then people in this Wikiproject need to be aware of it. Dream Focus 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Spshu, it's not about how many times someone has been at the noticeboard. When you blank/redirect an article for apparent lack of sources to establish notability - and someone comes along and reverts it, it means there might or might not be a case for keeping it; it is your job to start the discussion, per article. Mass deletion/redirection is something that looks very weird when you randomly do it without any prior discussion. Wikipedia is based around community - which means, we have to talk; discuss the issue in order to reach a consensus. Generally, you'll find people are more willing to cooperate when you lay out your plan before making drastic changes and not accepting others (FYI, I was fine with a "List of DC Comics imprints" article, but you took literally every former imprint, even those with enough notability, and shoved it in there. That's a drastic change which should have been discussed as a community of editors before the action took place.) || Tako (bother me) || 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: i disagree completely that a review is secondary. Reviews are part of reception, reaction to such media. You can argue that reviews influence other third-party info, but they are most certainly not second-party. second party sources do not assert that they are relevant, they are merely transforming first-party information. reviews don't transform the information...they review whether it is quality material or not. Its all in the intention of the source, not what you perceive in it.

@Spshu: if you can provide any new information that discredits these as reliable sources, please state it. But don't remove them if you don't have consensus. i'll be reviewing the sites myself, see what i can find. Sometimes they may not be high quality sources, but doesn't change the fact that they're reliable.Lucia Black (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Lucia, I've explained this to you before. There is no such thing as second-party sources. You're mixing up the idea of primary/secondary/tertiary with first-party/third-party. Reviews are, most often, third-party secondary sources. Criticism is considered transformation in a secondary source ("It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." per WP:PSTS). --MASEM (t) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's subjective, you're not seeing reviews for what it is really is, just what it contains." Reviews are meant to evaluate the quality (not facts). So it doesn't fit exactly into what Wikipedia claims secondary sources to be, and tertiary is also something not fully known. Wikipedia should either expand both tertiary/secondary sources to give more broader meanings, or give up on the idea of primary/seconddary/tertiary labeling.Lucia Black (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong. Reviews about a published work are universally secondary sources under WP's definitions. You can go as at WT:PSTS but you will definitely be told this as well. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

IF you analize it for with it has, not what it is, then yes. but not really.Lucia Black (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Did we ever come to a resolution on whether cosplay pics should be used in character articles?[8] 50.13.17.59 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Its best to use Cosplay images when they are relevant. Such as CHaracter X has been a subject of cosplay, has been ranked X for most cosplayed, has made an impact in modern cosplaying, etc. That Psylocke cosplay doesn't even have anything "cosplay" related about her. So it doesn't work. So that should be removed because theres no information that talks about her being a subject of cosplay.Lucia Black (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out to the editor, that he has surpassed WP:3RR and should discuss rather than revert. But it appears he has ignored my comments. Perhaps this worth reporting to WP:AN/EW. He has since added some context, we might want to discuss if it is enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There's not much context, the first source being used is not even talking about "cosplay" at all so i removed it. There's only one video about Linda Le cosplaying Psylocke and her just talking about it. But we can find dozen of those videos for any single time someone famous for cosplaying, its not completely relevant to the character. So we have to find information on the character making an impact on modern cosplaying or in cosplaying history in order to find a cosplay image relevant. If we do dsiscuss this and he does not respoond AN/ANI is in order for the 3RR.Lucia Black (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Should this in any way be considered a reliable source?[9]

Also, please see my above thread about Thundra. 50.13.17.59 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the source is reliable, though the disclaimer at the bottom of the article certainly makes it sound like it doesn't have any editorial oversight, and sources without editorial oversight are generally considered not reliable. The real problem is that that edit uses text copied verbatim from the source without proper attribution.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And, they are still edit warring over it. 50.13.17.59 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, 129.33.19.254 already reverted him with an edit summary directing him to this discussion thread, but I've gone ahead and done the same. Hopefully this time he'll take the hint.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping to bring the Comics article to Featured Article status one of these days, and have put a lot of work into researching and polishing it. There's still a lot fo work to do (such as tracking down some references). Is there anyone who could lend a pair of eyes to the article, and help out either by contributing feedback or edits? The article's on the Vital articles list, and really deserves to be done well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is one editor determined to eliminate an article [10] despite the comic book series having reliable sources interviewing those involved in it and giving it plenty of coverage. More attention to this please, I don't want to start an edit war with this person again. Dream Focus 21:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on that user page, but you're correct here, DF - CBR, BCN and several others used there are considered reliable sources for the purposes of reporting comic books. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please revert him. I've done it enough times today. I think he just went there because I created that article, and he is upset I reverting him again elsewhere. [11]. Anyone want to go there and explain to him what original research is, please do so. Dream Focus 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• And he just reverted you as well. More opinions please. Just two people trying to reason with him didn't work last time. Maybe if a dozen or so went to explain it to him he'd stop doing this sort of thing. Dream Focus 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  I blocked them for edit warring. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  I have had issues with this user in the past on other pages, regarding what they consider notable, vs what actually is, as is the case here. I believe DreamFocus, you were in the right here. I will add the page to my watchlist to help monitor and add a fresh opinion, in the event they go at it again once they are unblocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15

You did not attempt to reason with me DreamFocus. All you did was attack me, you did not attempt to reason with me at all, there was any any discussion at all. I attempt to turn that into a one, Postdlf banned me; real classy. Dream Focus has about 350 reports at AN. And you have not added a fresh opinion at at all, Favre1fan93. And to answer the question, no they don't as they are routine coverage like reviews. Spshu (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Spshu, since you're the one seeking to change the WP:STATUSQUO, the responsibility for starting discussion falls on you, not DreamFocus. And blaming other editors doesn't accomplish anything, unless your goal here is to make as many enemies as possible. As to the question at hand, I've had a look at the article, and at least some of its references are clearly more than routine coverage.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

While it is routine that most published media get reviews, we do not consider that routine coverage in terms of sourcing - that would be more like stories about the average-day's stock market performance or an overview of a baseball game. Reviews are secondary sources and provide the necessary transformation of primary information (the plot of the comic) into what's needed to assert why the comic is important. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Spshu, I did attempt to reason with you in the past, at Tribune Entertainment, and you just gave up for awhile then went back to the article and started edit warring the same thing before. So I don't think you can be reasoned with, and don't want to waste time arguing. Two editors reverted you on the Justice League 3000 page, and explained in edit summaries that those were reliable sources so the article was notable. [12] More discussion was done on your talk page. No one is able to convince you of this fact. You previously were warned by an administrator User_talk:Spshu#Edit_warring_warning and criticized by many people on this Wikiproject's talk page, when you tried to eliminate large numbers of comic book articles by replacing them with redirects. You dismiss what everyone else tells you. You have been warned about edit warring multiple times for different pages. Dream Focus 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• User_talk:Spshu#Justice_League_3000 More input please to hopefully convince him that these websites count as reliable sources and thus the articles that receive coverage by them are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He still doesn't seem convinced. Hopefully if enough people chime in he won't try to erase/redirect comic book articles in the future for that reason alone. Dream Focus 15:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, you have not attempt to reason anything at Tribune Entertainment. New names don't result in a new article and/or treaded as a new entity despite the PR angle. So, if you want to drag it up, Dream Focus, you have been at the Admin. Noticeboard 350 times!!! Me 13 times. postdlf 71 times. You should be critized for not starting a discussion and edit warring. So, I replace a bunch of poorly sourced and unnotable article turning into one group article well sourced and saved the history of the articles by turning them into redirect in case the info can be salvage with sources. But no, it is either an all or nothing issue for the lot of you. I withdrawal the article in question back to userspace. Didn't I listen to the discussion that despite their problems the group want to keep them? YES. I was reverted 20 times to my 2 reverts across the 18 articles.

Second, recruiting people who agree with you to go to my talk page is improper. So, you damage your credibility even more. Spshu (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares how many times someone went to a noticeboard if it never resulted in anything? I certainly wasn't accused of anything 350 times, that just how many times I showed up to comment on something which may or may not have involved me. And you are having this discussion on your talk page, so obviously people should know about it. If you are going to come back later on and start trying to eliminate comic book articles again, because no one has convinced you that those sites count as reliable sources, then people in this Wikiproject need to be aware of it. Dream Focus 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Spshu, it's not about how many times someone has been at the noticeboard. When you blank/redirect an article for apparent lack of sources to establish notability - and someone comes along and reverts it, it means there might or might not be a case for keeping it; it is your job to start the discussion, per article. Mass deletion/redirection is something that looks very weird when you randomly do it without any prior discussion. Wikipedia is based around community - which means, we have to talk; discuss the issue in order to reach a consensus. Generally, you'll find people are more willing to cooperate when you lay out your plan before making drastic changes and not accepting others (FYI, I was fine with a "List of DC Comics imprints" article, but you took literally every former imprint, even those with enough notability, and shoved it in there. That's a drastic change which should have been discussed as a community of editors before the action took place.) || Tako (bother me) || 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: i disagree completely that a review is secondary. Reviews are part of reception, reaction to such media. You can argue that reviews influence other third-party info, but they are most certainly not second-party. second party sources do not assert that they are relevant, they are merely transforming first-party information. reviews don't transform the information...they review whether it is quality material or not. Its all in the intention of the source, not what you perceive in it.

@Spshu: if you can provide any new information that discredits these as reliable sources, please state it. But don't remove them if you don't have consensus. i'll be reviewing the sites myself, see what i can find. Sometimes they may not be high quality sources, but doesn't change the fact that they're reliable.Lucia Black (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Lucia, I've explained this to you before. There is no such thing as second-party sources. You're mixing up the idea of primary/secondary/tertiary with first-party/third-party. Reviews are, most often, third-party secondary sources. Criticism is considered transformation in a secondary source ("It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." per WP:PSTS). --MASEM (t) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's subjective, you're not seeing reviews for what it is really is, just what it contains." Reviews are meant to evaluate the quality (not facts). So it doesn't fit exactly into what Wikipedia claims secondary sources to be, and tertiary is also something not fully known. Wikipedia should either expand both tertiary/secondary sources to give more broader meanings, or give up on the idea of primary/seconddary/tertiary labeling.Lucia Black (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong. Reviews about a published work are universally secondary sources under WP's definitions. You can go as at WT:PSTS but you will definitely be told this as well. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

IF you analize it for with it has, not what it is, then yes. but not really.Lucia Black (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Did we ever come to a resolution on whether cosplay pics should be used in character articles?[13] 50.13.17.59 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Its best to use Cosplay images when they are relevant. Such as CHaracter X has been a subject of cosplay, has been ranked X for most cosplayed, has made an impact in modern cosplaying, etc. That Psylocke cosplay doesn't even have anything "cosplay" related about her. So it doesn't work. So that should be removed because theres no information that talks about her being a subject of cosplay.Lucia Black (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out to the editor, that he has surpassed WP:3RR and should discuss rather than revert. But it appears he has ignored my comments. Perhaps this worth reporting to WP:AN/EW. He has since added some context, we might want to discuss if it is enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There's not much context, the first source being used is not even talking about "cosplay" at all so i removed it. There's only one video about Linda Le cosplaying Psylocke and her just talking about it. But we can find dozen of those videos for any single time someone famous for cosplaying, its not completely relevant to the character. So we have to find information on the character making an impact on modern cosplaying or in cosplaying history in order to find a cosplay image relevant. If we do dsiscuss this and he does not respoond AN/ANI is in order for the 3RR.Lucia Black (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming that this[14] is not an appropriate link addition. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct, per WP: FACEBOOK, Facebook pages are only allowed under external links if they are official pages for the article subject.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we come up with some sources to prove the notability of Savage Land? Unlike many of the nominator's recent AFDs, this one and possibly also Atlantis (Marvel Comics) are likely to have the kind of sources needed to salvage them, as was done with Ultimate Nullifier. Most of the rest, in my opinion, are better merged per WP:PRESERVE than deleted. BOZ (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Darkseid a "archenemy" of Superman or Galactus a "archenemy" of the Fantastic Four or Ra's al Ghul a archenemy of Batman. I am having dispute on another editor about this. He keeps adding back his inclusions on the archenemy page. Some I stated that weren't reliable sources but he added anyway some are more reliable but I still feel are hogwash. I feel like getting rid of the entire list of that page entirely so Wikipedia won't be a list of opinions. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A character only has one archenemy. Who it is, however, has shifted over time for most comic characters with long publication histories. If there's dispute on the matter, don't use it as an example in the page archenemy. --erachima talk 18:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Our consensus (as you can see if you look at the articles and it's talk page) is to remove it. I would think something like Joker being the archenemy of Batman would have been one of the most notable entries to be put in there but when I was in disagreement that Ra's al Ghul is archenemy too (even when there is sources "claiming" him as one) I put my foot down. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I really think it should - I went ahead and converted the first page of List of DC Comics characters into more of a list, rather than just table entries. Doing all 26ish pages would be heavy task, so, I'd very much like some help from other editors. There are lots of dumb or useless entries, one-shot characters or background characters that literally have done nothing. There's also the issue with the existence of the List of minor DC Comics characters article - user:Fandraltastic seems have to handled the bulk of merging of Marvel's version of the same page to their main list of characters. There's really no reason for two articles, when they should technically have 100% overlapping content. There are also lots of stub articles on DC characters that shouldn't really...have articles. I know user:Fortdj33 is actively merging Marvel characters articles with very little content into the Marvel list. I'm pretty sure that the DC stuff should be handled the same way...so, anyone in? || Tako (bother me) || 14:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

i think there are deeper problems with that and thats whats in the list.Lucia Black (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned that. Third sentence...lots of it could be trimmed down, which would be part of the whole overhauling of the lists. || Tako (bother me) || 23:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should focus on those specific lists before trying to organize the current one. We may end up having too little to even have these type of lists at all. I'll take a look and see what i can do. We may need to reorganize both lists. i'm not seeing much of an improvement from List of Marvel Comics characters.Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been bothered by how much insanely trivial info is on those lists, too. I don't have a confident opinion on where we should draw the line at inclusion, but if there is a consensus formed here I'd be happy to lend a hand with the trimming.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid of AfDing any of these because some fanbase community that doesn't participate in WT:COMICS will rise up and reveal themselves in the AfD and oppose them.Lucia Black (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? I haven't done many AfDs in the comic book field, but when I've sought deletion of articles on non-notable subjects in the past, I haven't even needed to go to AfD. I just put up a deletion proposal and in most cases no one objected, and when someone did object, 90% of the time it was the admin reviewing the expired proposals saying that the article should be merged rather than deleted. I think I'll try proposing a few obscure character articles for deletion and see what happens.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they should have the same style. The question is am I the only one who thinks List of minor DC Comics characters as unnecessary. Just the very notion of a DC character being "minor" just because he is not notable to have his own article doesn't sound right. I think if the DC Comics character article gets to be like the Marvel Comics characters. They need to move there instead. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So i was looking at Batgirl and noticed how well written it is and that its even a GA. Something i didn't expect from an article such as Batgirl. And then i noticed the Barbara Gordon in other media and Alternate versions of Barbara Gordon saving so much effort into destroying an article from a mess of alternate history and such and makes it focus only on key details.

But now we have more messy articles. So maybe part of the key to fixing huge unnecessary messes is moving such specific info into a separate article to cover those specific details and where such article would need to cover them. But the rest is figuring out how to make these alternate articles into GA aswell. I think this will definitely help further articles that are convoluted with those that are in other media/alternate versions.

If we find a way to make them into GA, we may be able to solve most of the problems that these articles have or at least make them more accessible to first-time readers or editors to be able to edit the article further to reach them closer to GA. If we do find a way to modify it, we would be able to fix it....unfortunately, again, i'm unfamiliar with most of the characters, but i'm determined to attempt to fix these articles, i just need a discussion going to reach a wider consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a table for such things, to make them out to be list articles instead.Lucia Black (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We've been demoted, folks. It was decided 5–2 that comics is not vital, because "As a type of drawing, it's a step down in significance from that or the other visual arts." The discussion was closed by the nominator five hours after the first oppose vote. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Heyo.. is there a cosplay wikiproject? or, is this wikiproject a good place to seek cosplay experts? Can someone point to statistics of the most often cosplayed characters? Cogiati (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

For your last question, I think the Help Desk is the place to go. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to improve this article but noone is responding there. I need sources. Any sources. Stuff on cultural impact, if oyu know of song or media references I can then search for references for those, if any of you have scans or a PDF of "Joker: A Visual History of the Clown Prince of Crime" or other related books that would be really useful. This is an important character to comic books and popular culture and I've done what I can to significantly improve the article but Googling Joker doesn't exactly give you a choice selection of related sources, OR it's all about The Dark Knight. Anyone have anything they can provide? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, it has a link to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens. However, the guideline does not apply to fictional characters. I created the essay Wikipedia:Naming conventions (characters), so can I replace the link to the other guideline with the link to the essay? --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently posted a question/comment to Talk:Doctor Strange#Archive links which I would like some feedback from the larger Project community. Per Wikipedia:Link rot ("Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation"), I spent quite a bit of time in March adding 25 archive links (WebCitation or the Internet Archive) to the Doctor Strange article. These archive links were present for nearly seven months until being removed entirely in October by an anonymous user. I certainly don't want to sound like I'm claiming ownership but archive links seem pretty uncontroversial and are (in the long-term) beneficial. I would like to restore the 25 links but am weary of edit warring. Comments here or at the Talk:Doctor Strange page are appreciated. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply here, since it's more than just about that article. Basically, there was an RFC a while ago for the removal of archive.is links. I haven't read the whole thing, but there was some nonsense about unauthorized bots removing archive links from various providers. I think you are safe to restore them, as long as they are not Archive.is. || Tako (bother me) || 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I was not aware of the issue with Archive.is as I hadn't even heard of that service until very recently. The archiving links I had posted were to WebCitation and (I think) a few Internet Archive/Wayback Machine as well. The truly odd thing about the removal of the WebCite links on October 16, 2013 was that the bylines for the articles were removed as well which throws out one of the rules found at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Webpages. It's most perplexing why someone would not want to give proper credit to the authors of the source materials! Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I had a question about some simple math I'd like to include in an article. The math is completely based on things already sourced in the article, but I don't plan to cite the actual math, because that'd be like, an entire line of sources.

This exact instance pertains to the New 52#Publications / List of the New 52 publications. I've been thinking of adding a line like, "As of [date], there are 44 ongoing titles that have not solicited a final issue and 32 titles have ended or have solicited a final issue. 30 of the 52 "First Wave" titles remain in publication." A simple way of summarizing the tables and Publication history.

Would this be valid per WP:CALC, Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations and WP:NOTOR#Simple calculations? I know all of those say pretty much the same thing, but would these apply in this case? Thanks. || Tako (bother me) || 01:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, but think it needs a reword. Something like this: "As of [date], there are X ongoing New 52 titles, with X that have ended. 30 of the initial 52 "First Wave" titles remain in publication." I don't think we should mention titles or use wording regarding solicited final issues. Just keep to the numbers currently publishing and then at the end of the month, update for books that got added or finished. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding edits like this. (Even though I would agree that we shouldn't label him as this when the movie hasn't happened yet.) This is a WikiProject Film guideline on how to write on the cast section on a film article. I feel this needs to stop being cited on a comic book character article unless this WikiProject adds it on their guideline as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If an article falls under WikiProject Film, and if its a film character it does, then their rules apply equally. Plus its just interpretation, I've seen people label characters as Antagonist, Deuteragonist, Tritagonist, etc. There's no need to say it, he's playing a villain, what else can he be? It's like Joker in other media, he is only ever the bad guy.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware that editors will feel strongly about adding it on any article and I don't care if it's removed (I do feel it's a overused statement)...but I don't think the should be cited on fictional character articles all the time. I can see it being ok on some articles. (but not deuteragonist and tritagonist. That's beating a dead horse.) Definitely if the character was cited as such in the citation. But still it still it seems that it was a consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters and I feel like if we want them off there then we should discuss like what we are doing now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with DWB, it might be a WP:FILM guideline but it seems perfectly applicable here and it just reads like very elementary writing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's clear that we have a consensus...and I knew we would have with you guys being part of the consensus in the first place...but I feel that we need a a better placement for the redirection on a guideline. Maybe we should create a guideline or essay on it altogether. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Help?[15] This user keeps insisting that he co-created Nova, without providing any kind of source. 2601:D:9400:3CD:41FD:DB69:B4AE:D176 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that three other editors have already reverted the edits. One of the other editors left a message on the user's talk page. I left another one myself with greater detail about the sourcing policies (I didn't notice that the earlier welcome message was from another editor, as I assumed it was a bot), and I also let one on the username account talk page and the IP talk page so hopefully that will clear it up. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Carl Barks is obviously very notable, and his comics deserve a lot of attention, but I fear we are going into overkill mode. I Prod'ded The Genuine Article (comics), an article about a one-page comic, but noted then that other similar articles have been created as well, e.g. Jumping to Conclusions (comics), Sorry to be Safe or Ornaments on the Way. Any opinions on whether these truly are all independently notable, and how best to handle these? Note that some stories deserve individual articles, so I'm not argiung to get rid of all of them. Fram (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that all of the articles under "Category:Donald Duck comics by Carl Barks" should be deleted. I find it hard to believe that any of them have been specifically mentioned in independent sources enough to meet notability requirements. Attention towards Carl Barks would be better spent on improving his own article, which is in a truly sorry state given what a respected and influential figure he is, than on creating stub articles for every one of the thousands of stories he created.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Carl Barks is a notable comics creator. Therefore, according to "Notability Books", his work is notable: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Edgar Allan Poe's stories and poems are notable because Poe is notable. All of Poe's stories and poems have stand alone articles. The articles I've created are cited to secondary sources per our Notability guidelines. Barks' stories and art are the subject of some college and university courses. Doduf (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The poems by Poe have been individually the topic of critical attention, not just reproduction and cataloguing. While I do believe that some stories merit a standalone article (e.g. the one that sparked the Carl Barks asteroid name, can't recall the title offhand), most of them are just part of the corpus, not significant as stand-alone works. Instead of comparing with Poe, we could compare him would Charles Schulz; a very important, influential, comics creator, whose work has been translated and reprinted many times: but creating separate articles for every Peanuts strip (or even every Peanuts Sunday page) would be a bad idea as well. Group them into a list (or lists) of Carl Barks comics instead. Fram (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

People keep posting this kind of thing on Doctor Octopus and Vulture (comics).[16] Is this in any way appropriate? 2601:D:9400:3CD:4864:72FC:9846:465C (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Them appearing in a trailer is not notable IMO. I might accept it if it's on a movie and the creator's confirming it as a Easter egg with a source to back it up. But so far I feel we don't need to rush it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also very speculative and crystal-ballish. 2601:D:9400:3CD:718E:F981:F6C2:22F5 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I knew we both knew those guidelines. You were right when you said that when you reverted in the first place. If you were looking for a consensus to agree with you you got one so far. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now the lists of characters, such as List of Marvel Comics characters, have a style bug:

Characters that have no page show up as sections. That's expected.

Characters that have their own page show up as bulleted links to the page. Without a section. So the bullet appears in the section for the previous character on the list.

Either every one of them should be in their own section, or they should be removed from the page(s).

My instinct was to create a section where the title linked to the article; it was reverted by NukeofEarl because MOS:Header doesn't like linked headers (in which case, fine: create a section with an unlinked header, containing only the bulleted link :-), and because we should have uniformity across all of these list pages.

Help me figure out a better final style format, and I'm happy to implement it across all of the affected pages. – SJ + 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would create a section, write a short summary and use Template:Main under the section title. --Crazy runner (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. – SJ +

I did something like this back when the merging project first started, and it was reverted because the user thought summaries of characters with articles would add unneccesary bulk to the page. I opted to go for the section header followed only by the main article tag. I don't remember who it was, when it happened, or which page it was on, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I also have a question about List of Marvel Comics characters. Before there were Template:Comics character list header for each character, some contributors delete them [17], is there a change in the use of this template ? --Crazy runner (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I like that header. I'd be happy to include it as well, though sometimes it can be hard to fill it out. – SJ +

I like Crazy runner's suggestion as well. In fact, before I recently edited them for the sake of uniform format, something like five of the articles were set up just like this, so if we decide to go that route we can save a bit of time by just reverting my edits on those articles. However, I don't quite understand why we should change from the current format; specifically, why does every character need to be in their own section when these articles don't have tables of contents anyway? Also, it has (belatedly) occurred to me to check on the Lists of DC Comics Characters, and all those articles use the bulleted list format as well; in fact, they don't seem to have sections for characters who don't have their own articles at all.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the section list format is used due to a lot of merging activities, in order to have a redirection to the section. For me, there is no current format there is mix of section-bulleted list and if you look at [18], you can also find table list on some Lists of DC Comics Characters. Uniform format would be great. --Crazy runner (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well, that the lists of Marvel Comics characters started out as bulleted lists in alphabetical order. As characters are merged to the lists, the bullet is removed and the character is given a header, in order to have a redirection to the section. And for characters that have their own articles, we should just create a section and use Template:Main under the section title. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fortdj33 here. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to bring this up because it may further complicate this issue, but I've never been comfortable with the practice of merging articles to the list articles. It seems like nothing more than a method for completely bypassing the WP: NOTABILITY pillar, and a not at all subtle one at that. If it were totally up to me, I'd have all the lists follow the same format used by every other list article on Wikipedia: each character has at most their name and a link to their own article.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The text that contains the phrase is confusing: .(C)omplete with installing a lack of memory of anything related to humanity.".

Should the "C" be in ()? Robert (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Per WP: QUOTATIONS, alterations to quotations must be put in brackets, not parentheses. Though why they had either brackets or parentheses in the example you cite is beyond me, since "Complete" is verbatim from the source. That section of the article was very poorly written in general, and I've gone ahead and fixed it up.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can available editors offer their opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for any assistance in judging whether this article merits publication. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with Superboy comics perhaps give Superboy (Kon-El) a little clean up / rewrite in summary style? I've compressed the New 52 stuff based on other accounts of the story, but there are entire Superboy runs written as a blow-by-blow account of every thought or action Superboy had since "Death of Superman". I'm not a massive reader of Superboy comics so I don't think I'm qualified to compress it - I suspect it needs a full rewrite, with a fraction of the detail.Zythe (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I may be in the minority on this, but I think people who aren't heavy readers of a book are better suited to cut cruft from long summaries. They can look at it more objectively and not let something unneccesary remain just becasue it was a well executed scene. If something important is removed, you can be pretty sure another editor will put it back fairly quickly. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this edit original research? It's definitely unsourced, at the very least. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's unsourced and OR. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I reverted and pointed back here in my edit summary. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey I am sorry about editing the page, i didn't know and I apologise but my editing was based off the fact that marvel wikia, powerlisting wikia and comicvine all stated that he had these powers and on those wikias they were sources proving this and since I couldn't figure out how to get those sources on wikipedia I just linked my edits to marvel wikias Franklin Richards page. I am sorry but those powers do seem legit, there was evenn several references to those powers in many comicvine battles each of them including threads proving this argument. So again I am so sorry about this and I will stop the editing war going on between us. So Sorry Again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega Editor (talk • contribs)

Thank you for responding. Omega Editor. I locked the page because you were reverting without responding, so I am glad to see that you are engaging people on this talk page. I can tell you that Wikia is not considered a reliable source, so in my opinion you would need reliable source to back up your claims. I am not sure what other people here would think about that, but I would like to hear from them as well. BOZ (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this something we want to give any recognition to at all? [19] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it's in the wrong place; having it in the middle of a paragraph about the character's established creation is confusing and disorienting. If it's to be included at all, it should be in a separate paragraph somewhere below "had any role in Wolverine's creation". As for including it at all... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any conventional accounts of Wolverine's creation mention this. I don't know if the cited websites are considered reliable or not, but the articles themselves are essentially sensationalist clips (Hey everyone, did you know that Wolverine was created by a fan and Marvel stole the idea from him?! Okay, so actually the fan just came up with a completely different character who happens to have the same name, but we got your attention, didn't we?) rather than journalistic accounts of Wolverine's creation, and without any proof that Thomas or Wein even saw this fan's submission, they don't make a convincing case that this is a notable element of Wolverine's creation. I'll admit, though, that I am somewhat prejudiced by the fact that Wolverine's self-proclaimed creator is a narcissistic looney; in the second article he basically claims that the word "wolverine" is the be-all and end-all of the character.--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit sensationalistic at this point without making a meaningful mark in the character history. So no, not at this time. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. BOZ (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I just had a little bit of an issue with articles created by a user that appeared to be here to promote the website Mattycollector.com. I've managed to redirect most of them to various other places on Wikipedia, as most of them were either covered in another article or they weren't notable enough for their own article and could be merged into another entry. (These are mostly He-Man related, by the way.) All I have left is the article for Scott Neitlich, the website's founder. I've reduced the article down to a bare bones state, but I'm a little unsure of the sourcing I currently have. Some of the sources are from sites I'm not sure would pass our RS guidelines and I'm just concerned that others aren't really about Neitlich, but about toys in general. They're neither about his toys specifically nor about himself or the website. It's kind of that grey area. They're exclusive to his site, but it's not really about the site if that makes any sense. I'm just not entirely sure that he passes GNG, but I'm somewhat unsure as to where to merge him to. I figured I'd come ask for some help before officially nominating it for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the Village Pump that project members may wish to weigh in on regarding characters names used as disambiguators. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to let everyone know that List of The New 52 publications has been submitted for a featured list review. We are really close to getting it approved, and could use a few more eyes and comments on it. Please find the review here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Beth Sotelo, Draft:David Morgan-Mar, Draft:Jason Holmgren, Draft:Klaus Scherwinski, and Draft:Steve Crompton are draft space pages related to this WikiProject. If you have any independent reliable sources to add to any of these articles, we may be able to get them moved into article space.

If you are interested in helping out with more drafts, please see my list of draft space pages, and help me reach my goal of eventually getting them all to article space! BOZ (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On 18 November 2013, I posted here regarding an incident on the Doctor Strange article regarding the unexplained removal of WebCitation and Internet Archive links from that article on 16 October 2013. See here:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 47#Archiving online links.

On 20 January 2014, a similar incident occurred on the Inhumans article as well. I posted on that article's talk page here: Talk:Inhumans#WebCitation and Internet Archive links

Both times the WebCitation/Internet Archive links (and the author names/bylines as well) were removed by an IP user from Norfolk, England (86.140.207.5 for Doctor Strange and 86.169.192.128 for the Inhumans) I would like to follow WP:GOODFAITH but am rather perplexed as to why someone is removing things without explanation or rationale, especially something that is there per the Wikipedia:Link rot policy. I wanted to let other editors know about this as I'm trying to avoid losing my cool over it.

Thanks for listening (er...reading.) Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely an issue. You should go to ANI or ANV with these two IPs and pretty much just say what you did here. I too feel that there is no reason for these things to occur. As a side note, I recently started a bit of Doctor Strange work, as I am helping to prep the film page. While most of the info that is there in that section is archived, it did need a bit of an update. But that doesn't seem to be what this user is doing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted a notice here to the talk page of the IP user who edited the Inhumans article. Let's see what happens next before kicking it up to ANI or ANV. Thanks again for the feedback. Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a neutral request for comments regarding the inclusion of Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher at Template talk:Avengers#Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The current critical reception section of MIND MGMT says "Later issues continued to receive praise" with a group ref to 6 reviews of random issues. I'd like to replace it with one ref to the the book's page on comicbookroundup. A wiki search shows it used on one other page - Valiant Comics - in an identical situation.

Is this a reliable source? If so, should I leave in the other links, since not all of them are included by the aggrigator? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of this site, but to me, it looks similar to Metacritic. I don't see any issue with its inclusion, if worded as one would a Metacritic source (see The Avengers (2012 film) for a good example if needed). However, if the reviews you want to remove are not included on the site, and they provide worthwhile commentary, I'd keep them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone be able to find any reliable sources for Tomm Coker? I suspect there must be something for him out there. BOZ (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Saved. :) BOZ (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The recently created Emily Osborn article has been nominated for deletion. Please post comments for or against on the discussion page. Thank you. Spidey104 14:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has any insight or input on this situation, please post your thoughts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Crashsnake. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for indefinite block/ban, if you have a viewpoint to share. BOZ (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I want to create an article on the graphic novel M3, and was looking through the sources I came across. One is a mention of it in my local paper, The Hudson Reporter, so I know that it's reliable, but I need to know about the other three:

• http://whatchareading.com/2012/05/09/review-of-m3-from-hound-comics/
• http://www.amberunmasked.com/ep1219-m3/
• http://www.popstarsplus.com/houndcomics_m3_review_001.htm

I had never heard of these websites when I came across them. Are they reliable? What does everyone think? Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon Whatchareading once before. It seems to be perfectly reliable; at the least, it has editorial oversight. With the others, it's harder to say. I'm leaning against Amber Unmasked, since it lists only three people for staff (and one of them is a tech guy), and my first impression is that it's very niche, but I'm not sure. PopStarsPlus... I just don't know either way.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to populate Category:Fictional characters with radiation abilities based on rationales such as this or this? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No no no no no. Kill this vague, pointless category. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Was moved to Category:Fictional characters with nuclear abilities instead. 2601:D:9400:3CD:C833:60C:82BD:3342 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Both categories are populated, and poorly defined. Probably need a CFD for both. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Both need CfDs. Kill them! Kill them now before they grow! Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Back in the day, most if not all of the characters by superpower categories got deleted at CFD, due to most powers classifications either being too vague or overly specific, the degree to which comics characters change or temporarily get endowed with new and different powers (i.e., Spider-Man in a number of powers-related categories just for once being Captain Universe for a few episodes), interminable arguments over whether a character truly had the power of "flight" or instead glided, levitated, used flying technology etc. So these were all supposed to have been converted to lists. Was that reversed at some point, or just subject to category entropy? postdlf (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Short memories. We kept the biggest ones - which seemed at the time to be rather useful - and the ones which seemed to relate to types of characters in fiction ("Magic users," "psychics") and then the rest crept up again as new editors came along, found it fun, and tried to help. The same mistakes everyone (myself included) made 8(?!) years ago!Zythe (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the people who got banned for persistently creating such categories (among other sins) may be at it again. Things like Category:Fictional characters with plant abilities have been popping up at about the same time and appear to be getting created by the a single person using multiple IDs and addresses. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the stuff at Category:Fictional_characters_by_superhuman_feature_or_ability seems a bit silly - although a handful ought to stay.Zythe (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that one Doczilla... "Chlorokinetic abilities", oh boy.  :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated Lynd Ward's wordless novel Gods' Man as a Featured Article Candidate, and would appreciate anyone willing to donate their time to review the article. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The article for Will Eisner's graphic novel A Contract with God has recently become a Good Article. I'm planning on nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate and would appreciate any feedback to help it get there. The Peer Review is here, so please stop by! Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

My apologies to everyone on this page who received a notification ("echo" or "ping", the numbers to the right of your name at the right hand side top of the screen). We are experimenting with Flow, a new talk page system, and it has some serious bugs. Feel free to join the tests at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page or to leave your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Flow. I'll try not to repeat the accidental mass-pinging, but accidents can happen... Fram (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure what that was about. :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Same. No worries. However, my will not let me clear it. Is there some way to do this without clicking the notification box? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. If you have this issue, go to preferences, notification, then uncheck the new notification option for Flow (the web one). That will clear it. Reenable if you wish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. The devs deployed some fixes for this. The problematic notification from the large Flow post is still there, it's just being hidden in Special:Notifications (please confirm!), so your Echo notification counter may stick at [1]. They're working on that too, and offer these comments:

To fix it, you can either: 1) Temporarily uncheck the Flow notifications (web) in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo (as Favre1fan93 explains above); or 2) Ignore the [1] for 9 days (a week from Thursday) when we'll get the next version of mediawiki code deployed to Enwiki;

or 3) Copy & paste this code to Special:MyPage/common.js:

importScript('User:Mlitn/MarkAllRead.js');

press 'save', and a dialog will pop-up asking if you want to mark all Notifications as read. Accept that, and it will be fixed. You can then remove the line of code from your common.js again.

Every found and fixed bug is a step closer to happiness!

Sorry again for the confusion and distraction. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I had added some tags into Transformers characters articles calking them "Marvel Comics characters", just the ones who appeared in actual Marvel comics. Another editor has been removing these tags under the argument that all Transformers characters are tagged as "comic characters", therefore tagging them as "Marvel Comics characters" is redundant. I don't think this is legitimate because not all Transformers characters specifically appeared in Marvel comics. The reader of a wikipedia page of a Transformers character won't know if that character appeared in a Marvel Comics from the categories unless you specially call him a "Marvel Comics" character. Some newer Transformers characters appeared in Dreamwave Productions comics, or IDW Publishing comics. So I planned to list the specific comic companies. A broad "Comics character" does not inform the reader if the character was Marvel, Dreamwave, IDW or whatever. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Mathewignash (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because certain Transformers characters appeared in the The Transformers (Marvel Comics) comic book, does not mean that they belong in Category:Marvel Comics characters. And besides, all Transformers characters are already included as a subcategory of Category:Comics characters, so including them in another subcategory is indeed redundant. I understand where you're coming from, but per WP:BRD you should have waited for the results of this discussion, before edit warring to make a point [20]. Hopefully we can come to a consensus as to whether these characters are actually considered "Marvel" characters. I for one, do not believe that they are. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I see two possible points against the inclusion of the category for TF and GI Joe characters as I understand it. One is that they don't belong to the "Marvel Comics character" category because they are already listed as comics characters. I don't agree with this simply because its not specific enough. The second is that these characters may have appeared in Marvel Comics, but they are not specifically Marvel Comics characters, just toy character licensed to Marvel for comics. To this I would argue that the first Transformers biographies were written for Hasbro by Marvel Comics writers, and they very first appearance of many of the Transformers characters in ANY fiction was in the Marvel Comics. Transformers #1 by Marvel Comics predates the Transformers TV series, books and movies. The original Transformers are Marvel characters before anything else. The "Category:Marvel Comics characters" specifically states "This is a catch-all category for all fictional characters originating in Marvel Comics" Optimus Prime's first appearance in any fiction was in a Marvel comic book. Mathewignash (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I see where you're coming from, but your logic is flawed. The Transformers and G.I. Joe characters did not originate in Marvel Comics, they are as you stated just toy characters licensed to Marvel. And, if Category:Marvel Comics characters is a "catch-all" category, then it should not be used to mark specific Transformers who have appeared in Marvel Comics anyway. The best solution to this would be to add the specific categories to Category:Transformers characters, rather than add them redundantly to character articles already in that category. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just going by what other wikipedia article have done, look at Rom the Spaceknight. He's a Parker Brothers toy who is listed in the Category Marvel Super Heroes. Just because he's a licensed toy doesn't exclude him from a Marvel category. Same could be said of any of the Micronauts heroes, who originated as Mego toys. Mathewignash (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Rom and the Micronauts are not good examples, because those articles specifically state that those characters are in the Marvel Universe. They are not like Transformers or G.I. Joe, which both have hundreds of characters, many with their own articles, some of whom appeared in Marvel publications. I understand that you would like to tag those characters specifically, but it is simply unnecessary, when they are already tagged with subcategories of Category:Comics characters that are much more specific. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the examples of Rom and the Micronauts, as they have the same toy origins. I would argue that "Transformers characters" should NOT be place in the category "Comics characters" as not all Transformers characters have appeared in comics. Most of them have appeared in some comic book at one time, but not all of them. So my correction would be to remove the Comics characters category from the Transformers characters page. This would be more technically accurate. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, I moved Category:Transformers characters to Category:Marvel Comics characters, and added categories for the other companies that have published Transformers comics, similar to what was done with Category:G.I. Joe characters. But this still means that adding those categories to specific Transformers character articles is redundant, because they already have specific Transformer categories on their articles. The category "Marvel Comics characters" specifically states that it is for characters that are not already covered by one of the subcategories. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your solution doesn't really address the flaw. Looking at the way it's organized now it looks like every Transformers character is a character of Marvel Comics and IDW comics, and Dreamwave comics, etc! which is inaccurate. Is there is there any reason why you are against all the Transformers characters who appeared in Marvel comics as "Category:Marvel Comics characters"? It seems the most accurate way of doing things. The ones who appeared in Marvel Comics get that category, and those who did not don't get that category.Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we get any disinterested third parties to comment on this? The two ways that seem to be possible is: 1. Just list all the Transformers as generic comics characters, which is simple, but inaccurate, or 2. List each one if they appeared in comic brand, which is a bit longer, but much accurate. Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathewignash, with all due respect, you are trying to create a problem that doesn't need to be solved. More than one reason has already been shown, as to why it is unnecessary to place Transformers character articles in specific comic categories. You even state that you "see two possible points against the inclusion of the category for TF and GI Joe characters", but your argument is that you just don't agree with it. The fact is, that these characters are not "Marvel" characters, and apparently no one else thinks that it is necessary to mark which characters were published by certain companies. That is simply overcategorization, which is redundant and unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm being any trouble. I simply saw a category that seemed appropriate to an article, and you removed it based on the idea that it was redundant because all Transformers are listed as Marvel characters. I'd argue that this is inaccurate, and simply want to be more specific. I have not really heard a good argument from you as to why being specific with each character (as opposed to painting all the Transformers articles with a broad brush) is a bad thing. Mathewignash (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Transformers characters have appeared in Marvel Comics, but they are not Marvel Comics characters, because Marvel does not own (most of) the fictional elements from the comics. That's why Dreamwave, IDW, and Fun Publications could use ideas from the Mavel books without crediting Bob Budanski or anyone else, but cannot use Circuit Breaker, Death's Head, or any of the human characters. On the other hand, they do own virtually everything in the ROM books except for the likeness and name of the title character. Since there's only one page for the character and the series, and because the character was much more involved in the larger Marvel U, it has a stronger claim to the category.

Here's another way to think about it - Do you think this tag should be added to the Barack Obama article? He appeared in an issue of Spider-man. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree but would say that's a poor example, because the obvious issues with Barack Obama are that he is a real person, not a character, and his fictional representation in comics is limited to a couple of non-notable appearances. Neither of those issues are the case with the Transformers cast. A better example would be whether the category should be added to Luke Skywalker.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Barak Obama is a bad example because he's a real world person, however, The article Ronald Reagan in fiction does have the tag of "Marvel Comics character", since Ronald Reagan's fictional likeness has appeared in Marvel comics. I would point AGAIN to characters like Rom or the Micronauts, who were licensed character based on toys who Marvel wrote comics for. They are listed on Wikipedia as Marvel heroes. So if they qualify, is there ANY reason why Transformers would not? Anyways, to be honest the debate between myself and Forddj33 is NOT whether Transformers should be considered Marvel character, as he also has them listed as Marvel characters as a group, but lists EVERY Transformer as a Marvel character. I'm the one suggesting limiting it to only Transformers who appeared in Marvel comics as Marvel characters.Mathewignash (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathewignash, you said on my talk page to "please feel free to add your input, and I'll abide by the project's decision". Two other editors have now given reasons why it is not appropriate to place Category:Marvel Comics characters on specific articles for Transformers characters. Yes, I added the category to Category:Transformers characters, because just like Category:G.I. Joe characters and Category:Gargoyles characters, they were at one time published by Marvel. But at that point, those subcategories are sufficient enough to differentiate those characters from others, so marking certain characters as "Marvel Comics characters" is inaccurate and completely unnecessary. I'm sorry if you cannot understand why, but I feel like we are going around in circles, because it has already been explained to you more than once. Please consider dropping the stick and moving on. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to list some of the TF characters as Marvel characters individually. You want to list ALL the TF characters as Marvel characters as a group. The two other editors have said that they don't think that the TF characters should be listed as Marvel characters AT ALL. So those two other editors did not pick your solution or mine. Their decision is actually closer to mine than yours since they don't think any TFs should be listed as Marvel, and I only think SOME should be listed as Marvel. So technically they sided closer to me me. Are you willing to concede or do you want to wait for more input? Mathewignash (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...Again, you are misunderstanding the reason why I added that category to Category:Transformers characters. It does not mean that I "consider ALL the TF characters as Marvel characters". I understand that you think some of those characters should be marked specifically, but I have already given you two different reasons as to why that is unnecessary. But, I waited until there was additional input, and User:Argento Surfer stated that "they are not Marvel Comics characters", and User:NukeofEarl stated that "Neither of those issues are the case with the Transformers cast". I do not see how this means that they sided closer to you. The fact is, that Category:Marvel Comics characters simply does not apply to Transformers characters the same way that it does to other licensed properties that have appeared in Marvel Comics. Again, I'm sorry if you disagree, but please stop trying to push your POV, when it is clear that you don't have a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fortdj33, with all due respect, I really don't see how POV is involved here. This is strictly a matter of sorting things.

I haven't actually voiced my stance on the core topic yet, so I might as well do that now. I think the chief concern here is overcategorization. If we tag individual Transformers character articles, it makes things more complicated for those navigating through the Marvel Comics characters category. There's also considerable upkeep involved and the human error that goes with it. Mathewignash, I understand your concern with accuracy in categorization, but I think tagging the character articles individually would ultimately lead to things being less accurate, as editors can overlook appearances made by individual characters, and characters who haven't yet appeared in Marvel comics may yet do so. You refer to Rom and Micronauts. I know very little about the Micronauts so I won't presume to speak on them, but with Rom, in addition to the other points Argento Silver pointed out, the difference is that Rom is an individual character with no parent category, so there's only one article on which to place the category tag. So it's not overcategorization in the way that tagging every Transformer who appears in the comics is.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

NukeofEarl, thank you for that clarification. The only reason I mentioned POV, is because Mathewignash is having trouble looking at this objectively, regardless of how it is explained to him. I agree that it is a matter of overcategorization, which I already pointed out above. Hopefully your explanation will be enough to make him understand. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I lack objectivity, I just disagree with your position on a category detail. I have opened this up to hear other opinions, and I stopped adding the category while the discussion has gone on, so please let the process continue. There is no rush to conclude this discussion.Mathewignash (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, there is no need to continue this discussion. More than one editor has given reasons why Transformers characters are not considers "Marvel" characters, and why including specific characters in Category:Marvel Comics characters would be overcategorization (see WP:OVERCAT for more info). Creating a new category for the same purpose, would be unnecessary for the same reasons! Mathewignash, you and I are both members of {{WikiProject Transformers}}, and I know that you have done a lot of good work in that regard. But in this case, you really need to stop beating the dead horse. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

NukeofEarl, I am unaware of rules concerning "over categorization". Not trying to sound glib here, but that sounds like advocating that we should remove categories from articles because too many articles share a category. I will admit, tagging every TF who appeared in a Marvel comic could possibly double the number of articles in that category as there are many TF characters. Do you think that's a problem? If a category is too large, should it be split to be more specific? Perhaps something like "Fictional characters licensed to Marvel Comics?" as a sub category of "Marvel Comics characters" where TFs, Micronauts and Rom could reside seperate from the one Marvel made on its own? Mathewignash (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that subcategory could be a good idea, but it would get enourmous fast and require subcategories of its own. In addition to transformers (either singly or as a group), there would also be characters from Star Wars, The Dark Tower, Dexter, Ender's Game, countless movie adaptations they've printed, the old Classics Illustrated books. Not to mention a case for all the DC characters who appeared in JLA / Avengers. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but this just further proves that such a category would be overcategorization. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, especially when you differeniate between characters licenesed to Marvel and characters formerly licensed to Marvel. And Star Wars would be both! I think this was a good suggestion but is ultimately impractical. How would you (Fortdj33) feel about the OP making a list page instead? Then the information could be included in Wikipedia, but not clutter character pages with more categories. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The IPs 108.34.176.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.38.188.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have added the phrase "real name" in the lead of numerous comics character articles. Do we want the lead sentence to read "Smith Man (John Smith) is a..." or "Smith Man (real name John Smith) is a..." as the IP user(s) have been doing? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Both are a bit too biographical and not really appropriate for writing about fiction. "Real name" is the worse of the two. It should be Best Known By This Name Man in the first sentence of the Lead, and if it at all relevant you can mention John Smith in a subsequent paragraph - for Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Diana of Themiscyra, Tony Stark, Peter Parker and other well-developed characters. But in many cases it's stupid - Squirrel Girl's real name is not an important fact for her lead section, nor is e.g. Invisible Kid's. However, it can handily be deployed in the infobox and the Publication history.Zythe (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point - common practice is to include the character's "real name" in the first sentence or two of the lead, but we can discuss whether it is appropriate to have the alter ego only in the infobox. BOZ (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there at all unless necessary, few characters are known notably by their uncostumed name and where they are this is discussed in prose ala Spider-Man, Batman, etc. Looking at the IP's history and the edit made, it makes it read like a fan artice/fictional biography, which is not the intent of Wikipedia, and picking a random name from the IP's edit history, no-one knows who Bloodshed (comics) is, let alone who Wyndell Dichinson is. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So then, while it's debatable whether the alter ego name should be in the lead sentence at all, there does at least seem to be some support that the "real name" phrase is definitely unnecessary. So would it be a good idea to revert all of those additions, and point the IP user back here if they are inclined to revert war instead of accepting the change? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think undoing them is the right thing to do in this case, at least the edits I saw on that particular IPs edit history. There are only the really big name characters whose alter egos are equally as famous as the superhero name, Batman/Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man/Peter Parker, etc. and in those cases it is mentioned out of universe, where here it is being presented like a case file biography. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - I will revert them all now and point the user to this thread. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone mind terribly if Warlord (DC Thomson) was moved to Warlord (comics), and that one went to The Warlord (comics)? The American comic is titled with "The", and (apparently) so is the character. Would make for more natural disambiguators, and be more accurate. See WP:THE. I'm not familiar with either, though, so there might be something I'm overlooking. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that that's not a good enough disambiguation given how similar they are. Can't Warlord (comics) be a dab page for Warlord (DC Thompson) and Warlord (DC Comics)/The Warlord (DC Comics)?Zythe (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zythe. "Warlord (comics)" is too ambiguous, so it should be a dab page for Warlord (DC Thomson) and The Warlord (DC Comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It could. But then a searcher would have to click twice to get to whichever Warlord comic they wanted (possibly after already clicking through The Warlord page). And adding "DC" just makes them look more similar, while confusingly meaning different things. Best to leave a "For the other comic, see the other article" hatnote on both, rather than create more hassle.InedibleHulk (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I decided to be bold and move the article to The Warlord (comics). "Warlord (comics)" still redirects there, but it could easily be made into a dab page if necessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just give it to the comic titled "Warlord"? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because "Warlord (comics)" could apply to more than one publication, it is too ambiguous, therefore a disambiguation page would be more appropriate. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be a page with only two links. With a hatnote, those who were looking for the other one are a click away, while those in the right place are happy. With a disambig, everybody comes to the wrong place first. Not bad for that the way it redirects now, just a bit backwards.

I'd prefer that to forcing doubleclicks on innocent people, but whatever works for your Wikiproject works for me. I haven't even read a comic since the mid-nineties. It was a Ghostbusters, with a witch and a crippled ghost boy. Good times, I guess.InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see there's a Chinese Warlord, too. I guess there could be a disambiguation page, but I think it might be at The Warlord with the others. Having a disambiguation page link to another causes tripleclicking, and that's surely not healthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a little uncomfortable with much being made of the The. See Thing (comics) for The Thing.Zythe (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That seemed wrong at first glance, but Google eased my mind. Marvel's site and ComicBookResources (is that a good site?) call Ben Grimm "the Thing". But CBR and MikeGrell.com call Travis Morgan "The Warlord".

Aside from that, there's also another comic called The Thing!. The exclamation point is much subtler than an extra syllable. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A very similar discussion was held at Talk:The Wolverine (film)#The Wolverine redirection. Opinions there would probably be relevant here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Not even The Joker is safe. I feel like the guy who alarmed the President about bodysnatchers, only to have him remove his mask. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not implying anyone here is (or isn't) an alien, by the way, just meant I get the sense that this "goes all the way to the top". And that's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to have a list that separates current and former members of a team like this? 2601:D:9400:3CD:BA:66E2:920E:EEB5 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what we do with musical groups. Of course, that's because Template:Infobox musical artist includes fields for "current members" and "past members". So I guess the real question is, should we change Template:Infobox comics organization and Template:Infobox comics team and title to include such fields? My concern is that comics team articles tend to be not as well maintained as musical group articles. I just now discovered that Defenders (comics) still listed as "current members" the incarnation of the group which broke up over a year ago. I've never seen the membership for a musical group article get anywhere near that outdated.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems a very defining characteristic which is incredibly common in comic books; yet this is not a category. It's one of the top three most common super powers behind super strength and speed probably. I guess Nth metal would count as a technology and people using technology to fly like Iron Man should be left out. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find exceptions to the rule while proposing it, others will surely find others. What about those who got their power from radiation, or an alien beam or some magic crystal? Isn't that technology, too? What about Lucy Lawless (as she appears in The Simpsons, not to be confused with Xena)? I bet a lot of people consider Iron Man a flyer, and bet that's part of why not.

But, as a guy who doesn't work here, I give my approval. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Its too common, but not often an ability thats exploited. So unless an article out there exists on the ability to fly as something relevant to all superheroes, then maybe we can make it into a category.Lucia Black (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with flight is that it's so common that it isn't a defining character trait anymore. Besides flight (either as a superpower or through other means), many characters do not "fly" but do things that get very close to the idea, such as Batman or Spider-Man using ropes to hang around, Hulk and his giant jumps, Thor when he throws his hammers and grabs it, the Invisible woman standing over a forcefield, etc. If we count all the cases toguether in a liberal way, the exceptions are really the earth-bound characters, not the other way. And, by the way, the most common super power (even more than flight) is another... Cambalachero (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So...[[Category:Perky superheroes]]? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to The Comics Journal #267 (April/May 2005, the Will Eisner obituary issue). I'd like to see if there's anything significant in it that could be added to the artcle for A Contract with God before I take it to FAC. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Superhero's who possess a professional skill should be listed as that profession even if it is not their job. I've been adding categories to super hero's such as sole survivor and roboticist to Superman. Superman is clearly quite good at making his Superman duplicate robots. Some of the best known runs of Batman address that he has a split personality issue. Batman comics are psychological fiction even if Batman doesn't count as a psychologist; which according to checkmate he is treated is. Martson run Wonder Woman is the most familiar to feminist theorists, the version of Wonder Woman with telepathy and electro kinesis. The original Spiderman invented web shooters which he could augment for different situations or give to people. I think the policy of using only the best known aspects of the character instead of the comics canon version tends to ignore a lot of their more memorable dark and edgy aspects that would never make it to a film, cartoon or even video game. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The applicable guideline here is Wikipedia:Categories#Articles. Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define Batman as a chemist? No? Then do not categorize Batman as a fictional chemist. If you disagree with the guideline, work to achieve a consensus to change it. Otherwise, please follow it. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with SummerPhD; otherwise Superman would fit under most occupation categories that exist (He can crush coal into diamonds - he's an alchemist! He flies through space - he's an astronaut! He holds up falling airplanes - he's a pilot! He rebuilds collapsing buildings and bridges - he's an engineer and architect!) and Batman would fit under at least as many. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Character articles already heavily overuse categories, and the last thing we need to do is add every conceivable category that a character could fall into. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Superman doesn't know how to invest robots, he has the data crystal in his Fortress of Solitude telling him how to do things, and the robots do all the work for him anyway. Batman is well known as a fictional detective and fictional orphan, that what he is known for, his tragic backstory repeated often enough. Batman is currently listed as a category:Fictional aviators, for flying the Batplane, and I don't think that's something that really matters, since its not a key feature of the character. He is in the categories DC Comics martial artists, Fictional judoka, Fictional karateka, and Fictional martial artists. Perhaps just the first one would be enough for that. He is listed as a fictional inventor also, he known for his gadgets, just as Spider-Man is known for his inventions. Spider-Man didn't just invest the web shooters and various types of web fluid, but he invented things to fight villains all the time. The Amazing Spider-Man #2 in 1963 had him encounter the Vulture for the first time, and use an invention he created to defeat him. It is a rather common thing to see him invent something to take someone out, so I think he should be listed as a fictional inventor. Dream Focus 12:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have somewhat relevant question to this discussion. Article in question is Green Arrow. I'd like to make a short review of some categories that I find troubling and would like to remove. First is "DC Comics limited series", probably should be used only for articles about particular limited series, not for character pages. Next is whole bunch of "comic debuts", it seams that someone put category for each time GA's new series was launched, is it really needed? With, for example, Marvel relaunching books yearly it feels like we'd drown in these categories. I'd say that only "introduced in 1941" should be left. "DC comics titles", same as with limited series I'd say, if article is general purpose about character and his publication then there is no need to categorize it as title. Following that we have it listed as "Black Canary character" which feels completely missleading, GA is not supporting character of hers and shouldn't be listed in this category, otherwise we might as well put "Superman character" in every article about DC character. And for the last one we have Fictional X, things that could be removed: martial artist (while good fighter it is not his defining feature), mayor (was mayor for very short period of time), swordsman (same as with martial artist), from california (I actually can't even find if he is supposed to be from California or not at some continuity). Basically I'd like to get confirmation (or rebutall) for removal of my mentioned categories since I don't really like to do such things without consulting first. If my understanding on whats relevant in this case is correct I'll apply it further for other character articles that I'm watching. BlisterD (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The "comic debuts" category should be used for characters at the year of their debut (that is, when the character was first created). Relaunchs and alternate versions do not count, only the comic books should be categorized. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I just created a page for the new Batman character Bluebird, my first comic book character entry. I notice that it has a number of tags about depreciated parameters in the infobox I took from the old Marvel Bluebird page, as well as something called the "comic navigational boxes purge." It seems like ditching the older "supersupportingbox" in favor of the broader one for all comic book characters would fix the first problem, but I can't find anything on the style page about navboxes. From the name of the category, it seems like there is a push to delete all of them, which seems a shame. Is there a place I can find more information on these problems?

Thanks! TI. Gracchus (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Comic-Con Panel. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated the Goodman Beaver article up as a Featured Article candidate, and would appreciate any and all reviews and feedback. You can take part at the nomination here. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the Joker article and have been doing so over the last 5 months, but I am struggling to find information on his real world impact in terms of merchandising, popular culture references, etc. If anyone could provide me info on these it would be very appreciated. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as pop culture goes, I do know Heath Ledger's Joker stars in the fairly popular "Do X and no one bats an eye; do Y and everyone loses their mind meme" - it's seen quite a lot of circulation, but getting a good source on it might be trick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TI. Gracchus (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing is a difficulty for a lot of things Joker-related for some reason, I assume because Google just isn't producing the right results. I wanted a source for the meme of modifying Barack Obama's poster with Joker makeup for instance, real world impact stuff. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've put the ukiyo-e article up for Peer Review with the intention of nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate sometime this year. I'd appreciate any and all feedback—but especially on the choice and placement of images, and on my admittedly poor description of ukiyo-e's relation to traditional Japanese aesthetics. The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ukiyo-e/archive1‎. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How is there no article on Allen Bellman, the last artist standing (still living) from Timely/Marvel's World War II years? I'd create it myself, but I have a COI issue. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Bell (comics) has been proposed for deletion by an editor who thinks a press obituary isn't enough to establish notability. I've expressed my opposition on the deletion page and added a reference from Alan Clark's Dictionary of British Comic Artists, Writers and Editors. Bell is a significant name in British humour comics, and it would be a shame if a valid article were deleted for a lack of references, so if anybody can improve the article by adding references, please do. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate removal of content? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It could probably be worded better, is that information in the source? If so, I can't see why it was removed, and if the user left no summary to explain themselves then probably not a suitable removal at this time. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point; I did not notice anything about the character's background in the Entertainment Weekly source. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The information is in the Entertainment Weekly article; I found it near the bottom of page 3, underneath the photo. Reading over the removal edit summary, I'm not clear on the reason for removal, though like DWB says, it could be worded better. I'd use "In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Wilson is an agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. who has had military training." instead of "Wilson will be an agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. who has had military training and is a tactical leader."--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How much of this content is appropriate for the lead section? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Batman article could be looked at as an example, one line with actor names. In what exact movies or tv series actors appeared should be left for other media section. Thou I think it could be argued that actor names shouldn't be in the lead at all, it is an article about comic book character after all. Someone like Steranko, who is often associated with the character, is more important in this context than Hasselhoff or Jackson playing him on big screen. BlisterD (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be in the lead in some form because the lead summarises the whole article. It's also worth explaining the Samuel L Jackson comic book likeness was used prior to his being cast in the role, and was then as a result brought into the mainstream comics as a result of his popularity.Zythe (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A lede should mention if a character has appeared in other media, sure, but its level of specificity should vary by article to avoid giving too much weight to one medium. If you mention Hasslehoff and Jackson in Fury's lede, why not include the voice actor for his appearance in the Spider-man cartoon? Or the VA for Drax the Destroyer from the old Silver Surfer cartoon? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sam Jackson, obviously, because he has appeared in several films in this role. The others are all debatable. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But has Jackson done anything new with the character? Did he bring some new element to Fury's backstory or personality? The number of films he's been in is irrelevant, as his total screen time in those 5(?) movies is roughly equal to or less than Hasslehoff's in one film. In a case like Starlord, where the character has only been represented in other media one time with a speaking role, listing the actor in the lede is fine. In the case of Fury, Spider-man, Superman, or Batman, I would say leave the details to the media section. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Jackson is one of the most recognizable actors in the world, and has played the character in some of the highest grossing films of all time. That's not a mere "detail", that's now a highly significant aspect of the character. Equating that with a voice actor in a cartoon or the largely unseen Hasslehoff TV movie doesn't make much sense. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Black Nick Fury was introduced in Ultimate Marvel universe, that version of the character has its own separate article and movies Fury is based on it. I'd say that Hasslehoff is more relevant to the particular article about white Nick Fury. If someone really wants to write about Jackson and his likeness then they probably should do that in Ultimate Nick Fury article. BlisterD (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate Nick Fury is a depiction of Nick Fury which had subsequent influence on adaptations of Nick Fury proper and the eventual fate of Nick Fury proper. Fragmenting our coverage in this way is not helpful. Is UNF even independently notable of Nick Fury? They should probably be merged anyway.Zythe (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except, BlisterD, Nick Fury is the parent article for the overall character and its different versions. I completely agree with this, because as Zythe says it gives appropriate weight (and re: your comment above, Steranko should also probably be mentioned in the lede). postdlf (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by eventual fate of Nick Fury proper? As far as I know he still exists as he always existed, but after success of Avengers movie Marvel introduce Nick Fury junior into their main continuity as long lost son of Nick Fury proper who happens to look exactly like Jackson. BlisterD (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That is to what I refer.Zythe (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Jackson is one of the most recognizable actors in the world" postdlf, I think you underestimate the Hoff, especially at the time he starred in that movie. Also, Jackson has appeared as Fury in 5 highly grossing movies, but three of them were very minor roles, totaling about 5 minutes of screen time. We don't list every writer and artist who worked on Fury's appearances in comics in the lede, not even the ones who wrote his self-titled miniseries. Jackson's portrayal does deserve coverage - just not in the article's opening.Argento Surfer (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Zythe mentions that "the lead summarises the whole article", but he overlooks that the article in question doesn't cover Nick Fury's appearances in cinema, and in fact scarcely mentions that the character has appeared in films outside of the lead. So shouldn't we move the text in question from the lead of Nick Fury to the lead of Nick Fury in other media?--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lead section of Nick Fury in other media should be expanded. However readers are likely to come to Nick Fury before Nick Fury in other media so some general coverage of his media appearances should be included in the lead of Nick Fury as well as a link to the "in other media" article for more in depth coverage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

True enough. I think the current paragraph could use be a bit shorter though, at least for its appearance in Nick Fury. In particular, mentioning every single film the character has appeared in seems excessive.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, something linking to the Hasselhoff film, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Nick Fury in other media should be sufficient, IMHO.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The article itself should contain a larger summary of the Nick Fury in other media article (a few paragraphs) as well, which the lead ought to reduce down further. The reason Jackson deserves slightly more coverage is it's worth explaining how the Jackson-inspired Ultimate Nick Fury predated Jackson's casting, which then led to his likeness becoming the dominant version of the character in mainstream comics and other adaptations.Zythe (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

...Okay, I just now realized that Zythe had already shortened the paragraph in question in precisely the manner I suggested. My bad. (And thanks, Zythe!)--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to get some Comic folks to take a quick look at the Article on Al Plastino

Basically, comics historian Mark Evanier has made a public statement on his blog about Al Plastino not dying from Prostate Cancer but from Guillain–Barré syndrome. He posted it on his blog, which I consider a viable resource. It's currently being challenged by User:Tenebrae, mostly because of claims that vaccines causing GBS are "fringe science".

I'd like a few other people to review this so it's not just two people's disagreement. I think most folk here would consider Evanier a reliable source, and it's also stands to reason mistakes in a death are unlikely to be followed up by the mainstream press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, is that non-neutral.

Here is what I've posted at ANI:

The family and friends of Al Plastino are tag-teaming to perpetuate their edit-warring with a WP:FRINGE claim that a flu vaccine gave him Guillain-Barré. One editor on the article talk page misrepresents the CDC, which contrary to this editor does not say flu vaccines give people Guillain-Barré. The article states clearly that Plastino suffered from Guillain-Barré, with citing. But no disinterested, unbiased source claims the vaccine killed him — only the family, which has something to gain by putting that claim on Wikipedia as a way to bolster any lawsuit. They also make an additional claim that's untrue. This hijacking of a Wikipedia page by the subject's family and friends to push a fringe view unsupported by any source other than themselves is shameful.

--Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Evanier is not the source: Maryann Plastino is. All Evanier did is accept her quote at face value and disseminate it with a headline literally reading "Let's Correct Wikipedia on Something!" That's not what I would call rigorous journalism. And as far as "mainstream press" getting it wrong, neither The New York Times, the New York Post not Newsday make any claim as to cause of death. You can't get more mainstream than that.

In any case, this appears to be moot. I've just seen that admins have reverted the family/friends edit and protected the page. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember, Tenebrae, non-Wikipedians like Evanier have no idea how Wikipedia works—they believe they have "the Truth", and that Wikipedia must conform to "the Truth". Did you not go through such a phase in your own Wiki-history? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's "moot", since it will be up for editing in a week. I'm also pointing out that if Evanier is no longer a trusted source, all his quotes should be removed from the article. I wanted others to get involved in the discussion because I feel there needed to be more perspectives and I was more concerned about the notablity of Evanier when it comes to comics. Usually, when problems are occurring on an article, I usually go first to the working group, and try to get them involved, especially when it's just two egos clashing over an article. JRT (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A blog, even by someone "in the know", is generally not accepted as a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as if JRT is threatening to edit war again in a week. Nice. I guess I'll bring that up to page protection and let them know your plans.

As for Evanier: Mark Evanier is a reliable source on comics and TV, not medicine. As well, the post this editor mentions is not Evanier's independent reporting: Evanier himself did not research and make the statement about vaccines causing GBS. All Evanier did is accept a family member's quote at face value and disseminate it with a headline literally reading "Let's Correct Wikipedia on Something!" That's not what I would call rigorous journalism, and it's certainly out of his field of expertise.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I did NOT threaten an "edit war". I am saying that just because the page is protected, it doesn't resolve the disagreement. I want to see others discuss this JRT (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

About a half-dozen other editors have been discussing it, and they seem in universal agreement that Evanier's blog is not a reliable source for medical claims — particularly highly controversial and contentious claims such as "flu vaccines cause GBS." The very book you pointed to on the Wikipedia page for GBS says 36 years of studies have shown no risk or essentially no (one in one million) risk. Mark Evanier's comics/TV blog and a not-disinterested, non-medical-expert family member are not citable to claim otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, but there's still no attributed quote to him dying of GBS, and there should be a ref, so all I was saying is that the Ref should be included, which is probably likely to be the blog entry where she makes the correction. It doesn't have to be in the article and the controversial statement can be omitted. Based on the discussion, it's already apparently considered reliable to some in the admin section. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"it's already apparently considered reliable to some in the admin section."? What does that even mean? Who are you talking about? And ... "apparently"? "Apparently" by definition means someone's interpretation.

Absent something definitive, like a report quoting his doctor's or the death certificate, we don't know what the official cause of death was. At least one reliable source, PBS Newshour, says prostate cancer. The daughter says GBS but she also says GBS caused by a vaccine, so unless she states she is quoting the death certificate, she is not a credible source, and with such a contentious claim, certainly not in a blog that's not WP:RS for medical information. (She's not disinterested or unbiased, since a claim of vaccine-created GBS can be the basis for a lawsuit.) Given such conflicting reports and uncertainty, the safest, most conservative and most accurate thing for an encyclopedia to do is not state a cause of death at all. It is in no way required, and it is clearly a contentious issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that in the Administrator section you pointed out saying Evanier was a good source for comics information. I still think it's an okay reference, even if we say nothing about the GBS's cause--you can still die of GBS without it being caused by a vaccine. But I'm okay with there being no reference to cause of death either, since it's disputed. I would also suggest both Tenebrae and myself refrain from either one of us making edits to the article when it goes back online, and let the other comics people repair it. JRT (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors who may or may not have been admins said Evanier was a good source of comics information. So did I. No one said he's a good source for contentious, highly controversial medical information. All admins did is protect the article's status quo, which does not give a cause of death and simply cites what The New York Times, the New York Post and Newsday all reliably say.

I'm in agreement with you that given the contentiousness and the lack of concrete sourcing, it might be best not to state a definitive cause of death. As for "repair it," aside from the minor chronological shift of a phrase, no one other than you thinks there is anything to "repair." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Again with the hostility? You can only speak for yourself--I find this passive-aggressive rudeness in these general talk threads off-putting. There's no reason not to believe that he died from GBS, there is a reason to doubt that a vaccinee caused the GBS, at least if we assume good faith and don't assume. You seem more concerned in these arguments with belittling the opinions or arguments of the other person rather than making sure this article is as well-written as possible, and you've made no attempts to apologize for being uncivil or lack of assuming good faith. (Like accusing people of being friends or family and even suggesting they were looking for ammunition for a lawsuit. If you don't want to apologize I understand, but that's the reason I suggested we both decline from further editing the article. I'm just concerned that I've never been treated this way on WP before, and If you treat others that way it's likely to cause problems for other editors in the future. JRT (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Stop. I am tired of your insults and pseudo-psychological claims. There is nothing hostile in my post above, where I even say I agree with you on something. You are the only one throwing around bad-faith accusations like "hostile" and "passive-aggressive rudeness" — and "rants," among other things, earlier — and I'm tired of it.

I'm also tired of your sloppy logic. "There's no reason not to believe that he died from GBS"? There's no reason not to believe he died of old age. Or of pneumonia, which happens frequently with very old people in hospitals. There's no reason not to believe he may have died of a dozen things. But that's not how research, journalism or basic logic works. They work by giving solid, empirical evidence. And the claim of a biased, non-impartial, non-medical expert family member making an outrageous fringe-science claim to a non-journalist, non-medical-expert comics blogger is not reliable sourcing by any stretch of the imagination.

And don't try to poison the well with "other editors," please. Go here and see for yourself what other editors have to say about working with me over the last several years. The only editor people here and on other pages aren't agreeing with is you. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am personally tired of your unwillingness to admit any on your part. I see that you were actually blocked less than a month ago for personal attacks, so apparently you have a temper when it comes to working with some of your fellow editors. Here's a line-list of how you crossed the line regarding WP:CIVILITY rules.

• Instantly assumed that I was a friend/family member of Plastino, and instead of it discussing it further, instantly went to the admin notification board, refusing to either discuss it here or wait a while.
• Made a near-libelous statement regarding the family of Al Plastino, implying they were trying to get ammunition for a lawsuit.
• Assuming a hostile tone with a anonymous IP user on the same page, who was likely just trying to help.
• Assuming I'm trying to "poison the well". Nobody cares how many articles you edit when it comes to these discussions. I'm discussing your tone when correcting other users, not the quality or frequency of your editing.

If you can't understand this, there's nothing further I can say. I just hope your tone doesn't put off other people... JRT (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Once in more than 8 1/2 years I lost my temper and I did my time. To even suggest that's normative on my part is inaccurate and insulting.

And since this is twice ow you seem to be offering as WP:LEGALTHREAT, I think that and the insults means it's time to bring in an admin. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no legal threat as I am not related or know the Plastinos at all. I simply meant you should watch what you say and Assume Good Faith. JRT (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that according to policy, "A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat." JRT (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You weren't talking about potentially libelous material being added to an article. You were accusing me of libelous comments. Those are two different things, and yes, accusing someone of libel is threatening. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless somebody here is planning to sue somebody else for libel, please drop this already. No well is poisoned. It makes no difference who did or said what if you can stop fretting over who accused whom of what, leave that behind, and get back to work on creating the best article. Stop arguing. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 04:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

An article about this comic-book writer/artist was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Nicholson. At the request of user Ultra Klutz Jr. (talk · contribs), who has an admitted COI, I userfied it to User:Ultra Klutz Jr./Jeff Nicholson and gave some advice at User talk:Ultra Klutz Jr.#Jeff Nicholson. S/he has done some work on it so that it less like a CV, and has asked on my talk page for help. I think there is an article here: is there anyone who could lend a hand? JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we document every time a character is mentioned in other media? For example, Sif mentioned the Kree in an episode of Agents of SHIELD.[21] I am thinking that just because someone said the word "Kree" in an episode of a TV show, we do not need to mention it here. 2601:D:9400:3CD:60BD:CB57:C627:D304 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I might be ok with it if it were the only time the character or group had been referenced in other media. That's definately not the case here. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This will likely be a much-fought over item.[22] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen this particular episode yet, but as the previous episode in that series revealed a blue body stored in a tube, which at least one critic speculated at the time might be Kree, it may be worth mentioning. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is worth the mention in this case, because there has been questioning if the Kree species exists in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, due to their rights being muddied like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. (Apologies on not providing this "questioning" location. I want to say either Newsarama or IGN noted this.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

More relevant and substantive commentary from The A.V. Club, on the mention of Kree in the most recent S.H.I.E.L.D. episode (which I have finally watched): "Sif responds with a list that includes Interdites, Levians, Pharagots. Kree, Sarks, and Centaurians. That's a lot of comic-book races that are now confirmed to exist in the MCU, and having Sif bury 'Kree' in the middle of her line suggests that's probably what Coulson found at the Guest House. That placement makes it appear to be just another word in a list, but it's a very important one that will mean more once Guardians Of The Galaxy hits this summer, and assuming the alien is a Kree, having Sif actually say the word means the reveal won't come out of nowhere." (emphasis added)[23] postdlf (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional context, such as this should be included when listing appearances, and it only adds to its notability on the list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Is "confirmed to exist" worth noting? If a character in the show lists 100 characters who exist somewhere in the MCU, but none of them actually appear anywhere, do we want to add a note to every one of those character's articles to say "hey, someone mentioned this guy once"? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, I added the AV Club source, just so the material was sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is generally a standard that inclusion of pop culture references of a work or character in another work should only be included if a third-party source notes this inclusion, otherwise these become TVTrope-like trivia sections. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus, it is still entirely speculative at this point to say that the Kree are even going to appear in the TV series or any of the films, which is also evident in the text posted above from AVclub. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As there are six species that are listed, I think in this instance it should be approached as follows: it should be noted on the Kree page, per the reason I stated above, and with the context Triiiple noted should be included, and all other statements on List of alien races in Marvel Comics for the other species should be removed until it is confirmed what the half corpse race actually is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Without really commenting on what should be done, I think it is interesting that all of those races plus "Solon" can be found on the list page by doing a search for "blue skin" - wonder if the show's R&D department just searched on List of alien races in Marvel Comics to find blue races? :) BOZ (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

One could hope! I'm sure Marvel has a very organized database that can look up character info based on different attributes given. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the first category is much more easily defined and is best known to belong to Superman as one of his most iconic abilities. How many times does Lex Luthor hide things in lead because Superman can see through the walls of world. I can namea few other characters who have that ability as well, though I don't think Olga Mesmer has her own page yet. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading over past (and recent) history, Doduf has asserted that Carl Barks' notability confers notability on the articles in question that it's not hurting anyone, and that the article demonstrates notability internally.

• I don't recall leaning on either of those last two arguments. Doduf (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

All three of these arguments are explicitly spelled out on WP:AADD as invalid, specifically WP:INHERITED,WP:NOHARM and WP:ADDSVALUE. None of these were raised during the AFDs, PRODs or discussion here.

• WP:AADD is not policy. It's opinion, an essay, and many things in this essay fly against WP's established policy and guidelines. At the head of the WP:AADD article we are warned that: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Doduf (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

None of the articles that I have seen contain any demonstration of NOTE. The refs point to the work itself, or collections. I can't find any examples (admittedly I only looked at 4) of independent 3rd party mentions, and my google-fu has failed to turn up anything interesting.

• WP policy and guidelines do not require a "demonstration of NOTE" for any article to be published. Doduf (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)).

I'd suggest a mass AfD unless someone has some independent sources to throw into the mix. As another editor noted, the obvious counterexample would be the asteroid one.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Carl Barks is a major American satirist of the 20th century and one of the most respected comics artists and authors. Notability has been established with secondary sources for all of Barks' comics stories and gags articles on WP. WP asks for only one secondary source, not multiple sources, but anyone can expand these articles with other sources. Additionally, these literary works are notable because their author is notable per WP:NBOOKS No. 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." If an unknown play by Shakespeare was discovered in a dusty trunk, that play would be "notable" because its author is notable. There's no reason for a mass AfD. Each and every WP requirement has been met. Doduf (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

• Carl Barks is notable, but notability is not inherited. The independent notability of the individual stories has to be established with appropriate sources.

• This has been done. Doduf (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be easy for at least the major Duck stories—a lot of ink has been spilled on Barks' work. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Notability has been established for the Barks stories and gag pages thru secondary sources per policy and guidelines. Doduf (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Doduf: Sounds nice, but I don't see any evidence of this at e.g. Best Laid Plans (comics), The Genuine Article (comics), The True Test and so on. Being listed in the GCD is not an indication of notability. Fram (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • GCD is what one would get from the indicium. The Fantagraphics volumes confirm the stories' notability. Barks was a major American satirist. I cannot understand how anyone could consider deleting these articles about his work. Doduf (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Being reprinted as part of a large collection does not confer any notability on the individual stories. Would you consider separate article for e.g. every Peanuts Sunday Page (some 2500, I think) appropriate? They have been reprinted by Fantagraphics and others, Schulz was a major American author, and so on... Does that make every individual page notable? I don't believe it does. perhaps it really is time to take those to AfD. Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Every Sunday Peanuts strip is the work of a notable comics writer and artist so the Peanuts strips are notable because they are the works of a notable comics writer and artist. If Shakespeare's grocery list was discovered, it would be notable simply because it was the work of a notable poet. Yes, it would be appropriate to produce articles on each of the Sunday Peanuts strips if secondary sources can be found. Simply being reprinted does not make a Sunday Peanuts strip notable. The Donald Duck gag pages are all reliably sourced. I'm stunned that anyone would suggest deleting reliably sourced articles about a major American satirist. Doduf (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
          • If Shakespeare's grocery list were discovered, it would be worth including, at best, somewhere in the William Shakespeare article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Notability is confired by significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. One source will not be sufficient for these. I would say it is fair to have a list article that compiles the basic summary of the otherwise non-notable stories since it's clear that Banks' work is notable and some stories on their own are notable, but individual pages for all stories just because they are penned by Banks is not appropriate for WP. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • WP does not demand multiple sources. One reliable source is enough. Check the policy and guidelines. If the gag stories are reliably sourced (and they are), they are notable and there are no just grounds for deleting any of them. We all need to go back and read the policy and guidelines. Doduf (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes we do require multiple secondary sources to show the GNG is met. One source may be fine for a developing article to prevent speedy, but when challenged and no other sources can be found, that shows the non-notability of the topic. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Doduf: I really can't see any excuse for something like "Sorry to be Safe". Why not make a List of one-page Disney comics by Carl Barks page—each entry could have a short synopsis like in the "Sorry to be Safe" article. I think something like that would be far more useful to readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • • Thanks for the suggestion, but please read the policy and guideline at [24]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doduf (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I can assure you, I've been around here long enough to have read that thing backwards and forwards. There's letter, and there's spirit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

All nine pages are now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorry to be Safe. Fram (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed merging Scorn (Marvel Comics) into Symbiote (comics). Please post your opinion in the discussion. Thank you. Spidey104 02:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please post a comment? The discussion should be open-and-shut, but I need more opinions than mine to close the discussion. It has been open for 9 days. Thanks. Spidey104 19:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I brought something up on the Batman & Son talk page, but I realize that it will get more attention here. As near as I can tell, the actual title for the graphic novel collection uses the word 'and', not an ampersand. (I put some refs for this on the article's talk page.) Per MOS:&, you should only use the ampersand if it is part of a work's title. However, it seems to me that this is not the case for Batman and Son. It's a nit-picky point, but I know some of you are as detail-oriented as I am. I thought I'd bring it up with all of you rather than just being bold and moving the article. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (converse) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It has the word and, not an ampersand. That needs to get fixed. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

However, the article - as per the lead - is about the story arc. Not subsequent collections or reprints. That story arc was called "Batman & Son" in each involved title's credits. The graphic novel collections that are titled "Batman and Son" collect both "Batman & Son" (Batman #655-688") along with 3 other single-issue stories - "Three Ghosts of Batman", "The Black Casebook", "Batman in Bethlehem" (Batman #663-666) , not explicitly referring to the publications and story arc that the article covers. || Tako (bother me) || 22:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like the original comics used the ampersand; scroll down at this page to see a scan from a title page. So the original title of the arc was apparently Batman & Son, though the collected volume is titled Batman and Son. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, what's wrong with the link to the official website in the EL section of the MoCCA Festival article? There is indeed a url in the official site link template, but it doesn't show up in the saved article. I tried fiddling with it, and even formatting it a different url, http://www.societyillustrators.org/Mocca_Event.aspx?id=10561, but the same thing happens. Any ideas? Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be because of the the equal sign for the URL paramaters. Try the template giving an explicit argument:

{{official|1=http://www.societyillustrators.org/MoCCA.aspx?id=8560}} becomes Official website

whereas without:

{{official|http://www.societyillustrators.org/MoCCA.aspx?id=8560}} becomes No URL found. Please specify a URL here or add one to Wikidata.

The template page states, "Some URLs that contain special characters, such as & or =, will break the template. The solution is to prepend the URL with 1=". Seems like that definitely fixes it. || Tako (bother me) || 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did your suggestion Tako, and it seemed to solve your problem Nightscream. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for both of you! Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently there are two articles for notable costumes worn by superheroes: the Batsuit, and Superman's suit. This is totally understandable, as these two iconic character designs have over 75 years of history behind them. However, many other character designs that could also be researched enough to have their own articles do not. That will soon change, as the Anarky article is in need of another split, and I've worked on a draft for a new Anarky costume article. I've a problem, though. In the absence of a name for a suit such as Batman's and Superman's, there seems to be no standard for what to call such an article. I'm leaning to "(insert name) character design", "Character design of (insert name)", or the slightly longer "Design history of (insert name)", which nicely mirrors the "Publication history of (insert name)" standard that exists now. Any comments would be appreciated, since this issue would seem to be an treading new ground and potentially establishing a new standard for other characters, from Wonder Woman and Captain America, to non-superheroes such as Archie and Tin Tin. --Cast (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This navbox was recently created, I'm assuming because of the character's recent appearance in the new Captain America film, but is it really necessary? It is a navbox for a moniker that was once used by Bucky, a supporting character of Captain America. The moniker itself isn't even independently notable from Bucky. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's forget that Buck was a sidekick to Captain America, turn into a villain as the Winter Soldier, later became an anti hero, became a hero, took over as Captain America, them went back as his Winter Soldier's persona, and became the hero. He's a fan favorite character in the Marvel Universe. Lg16spears (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems you are arguing in favor of WP:FANCRUFT. Why devote an entire navbox to just one of Bucky's many incarnations? I'm not even sure if a Bucky navbox is needed. We don't normally create navboxes for supporting characters and I don't think readers have a problem navigating to Bucky/Winter Soldier related topics from Template:Captain America, where he is already listed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat. This seems unnecessary, given the fact that the moniker has only been used by one character, and is adequately listed in the Captain America template. It should be deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary. Much of the material is redundant to the Captain America template. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion, you may comment on the discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 28#Template:Winter Soldier.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this category properly apply? [25] 2601:D:9400:5FF:88CA:4B8C:7A46:656 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether Galactus can be properly defined as a supervillain is a tricky question that depends on what your definition of supervillain is. But the article Galactus mentions that Marvel, IGN, and Stan Lee have all referred to him as a supervillain. I'd say that's more than enough reason to put the category there.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put the article for Will Eisner's 1978 graphic novel A Contract with God up as a Featured Article Candidate. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Contract with God/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Arkham Knight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arkham Knight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. buffbills7701 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This reads, to me, like some one has done an essay. All OR, IMHO. 101.177.132.234 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have an issue of Comics Interview which includes reproductions of the pencils from Wolverine volume 2, #1 alongside the finished inked-and-lettered panels. It's occurred to me that scans of these reproductions might be useful to illustrate points in the articles Inker and Al Williamson (who inked that issue). However, Comics Interview uses ink-on-paper production on cheap newsprint, so the reproduction of the pencils is not very good quality. Will these illustrations still suffice until someone finds something better, or should I not bother?--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Surprised that there have been no opinions on this. I think I'll give it one more week, and if no one chimes in by then I'll just put the images up and see what happens.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

They will probably fail our fair use policies, which will mean that they can not be used on Wikipedia (and if so, get deleted again after you have uploaded them. If they are in the public domain, then the situation is of course different, but that seems doubtful. Fram (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it would "probably fail" NFCC, as this is really the kind of thing that a reader needs to see to effectively understand and so it's not replaceable by a mere text description. It depends on whether there is commentary in Comics Interview specifically about how the inking added to or changed the pencil drawings rather than just "here are the before and after pictures; enjoy." For the inker article, it might be better to find such examples from more general reference works about comics art that are used to illustrate the technique rather than just to highlight one artist (though be careful of examples that were created for those reference books). In both cases, see if you can use just one representative panel to minimize the portion of the original works copied. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It would fail fair use for Inker because there are conceivably free images that can be used to produce the same information. Non-replaceability is a core factor in determining fair use. As for Williamson, there are already six non-free images in the article, so adding even more doesn't seem to be a good option (although perhaps these can be added and a few others deleted instead). Fram (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What free images are you conceiving? All the early comic books that might be public domain (due to nonrenewal; the medium isn't old enough for anything to qualify as pre-1923) wouldn't illustrate it because 1) it's astronomically unlikely any pencils survived, and 2) I don't think the technique was very developed beyond retracing outlines until much later. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for my delay in responding on my own thread! I must admit that fair use issues didn't even enter my head on the subject. Don't know why, since I'm usually good about taking fair use into account before I upload anything. I have to agree now that it definitely doesn't meet fair use for the inker article, though Al Williamson's article may be a different story. Postdlf, there is no commentary on the pictures; the captions that go with them indeed basically just say "Enjoy these images of Buscema's pencils followed by Williamson's inks". I'm afraid I don't understand how that is important to the fair use issue, though. Could you explain?--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the Savage Dragon and Spawn character articles have little or no third person sources I am thinking of deleting or merging some of them any thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Last year when I was going through my old issues of Wizard, I found a good amount of stuff on Spawn, and added it to Spawn (comics). Given that Savage Dragon and Spawn were both hot properties at the time that Wizard was considered the premiere source of best-selling comics, it seems likely that old issues of Wizard have a lot more stuff that you can use. Depends on which character articles you're referring to, though.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hero Magazine covered them in various issues. McFarlane also had some interviews in Write Now! magazine (issue 1, maybe? I'll have to check) where he talked about how the Spawn idea developed over time before he finally published it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have started a conversation to merge many of the Spawn characters see Talk:List of Spawn villains and List of Spawn characters

I regards to Savage Dragon many of the characters are just poor with little or no effort to include sources at all such as Alex Wilde, Freak Force, SuperPatriot, Cyberface. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary issues of Comics Buyer's Guide, Hero Illustrated, Comics Scene and The Comics Journal might also be helpful. And if it's critical reception you're looking for, doing a Google search for phrases like "reviews for Spawn" would be what I would try. There's also reviews for recent issues of those properties. Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Weekly Comic Book Review, ComicsAlliance, The Comics Reporter, iFanboy, IGN, etc., all provide those. Here is a Comics Alliance review of Spawn: Year One, for example. I also occasionally find reviews in mainstream sources like MTV Geek, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Complex magazine, Publisher's Weekly, Ain't it Cool News, etc. I relied on these when I wrote the Saga article. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Can other editors weigh in on this discussion regarding this source? We could use others' opinions.

In the Identity Crisis (DC Comics) article, I removed the following passage:

Chris Sims and Matt D. Wilson, contributors to Grantland and the AV Club respectively, as well of Comics Alliance and the War Rocket Ajax podcast, ranked it dead last in their "Every Story Ever" rankings (a subjective list ranking comic story arcs).The War Rocket Ajax podcast

I removed it for the following reasons:

• The War Rocket Ajax podcast appears to be a fan podcast. Fan sites and other sites with content created by uncredentialed or anonymous non-experts are not considered reliable under Wikipedia's policy on source reliability.
• Second, the meaning of the passage is unclear. What does that list mean? It includes Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, Top Ten: Smax, the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby X-Men, etc. What are the criteria for the list? The webpage in question never says. I made this point explicitly in the edit summary that accompanied my original removal of that material.
• Lastly, the list in question is not indicated to be ranked in order of quality.

User:173.80.146.108, who is named Rob, responded to my message on his talk page with the following:

Okay, I understand that you don't believe that the "Every Story Ever" list on War Rocket Ajax doesn't meet the guidelines as a secondary source as you believe it is a "fan poscast." Fair enough. I disagree. The War Rocket Ajax podcast is a comic book and pop culture show that is reaching two hundred episodes this upcoming week. It is hosted by two people who, while fans, are also professional writers and comics journalists. Chris Sims is a writer and columnist for the aforementioned Comics Alliance, has written for Grantland - the ESPN/Disney-owned pop culture website, and is a comics creator himself (he is the writer of Sub Atomic Party Girls (a Monkeybrain comic) and has written for the Image comic Skullkickers). Matt Wilson, his co-host, also writes for Comics Alliance, is a regular contributor the The A/V Club, writes comics (Copernicus Jones, on Monkeybrain), and has written two books on comic book culture including The Super-Villains' Handbook. The War Rocket Ajax podcast has an interview every week, usually with a comic creator. Past guests have included Marvel and DC writers Rick Remender, Jonathan Hickman, Jeff Parker, Greg Pak, Jason Aaron, and on multiple occasions Matt Fraction. Based on these factors, the show rises above the level of "fan podcast" and into secondary source, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. As for the list, as noted, it is an arbitrary, subjective ranking of comic book stories and arcs. Listeners submit a story arc and Sims ans Wilson rank it against the previous submissions. This is similar to the WFMU/Best Show/Tom Sharpling "Best Song Ever" ranking, where Mr. Sharpling would rank a given song against a list of other, previously ranked songs, to arrive at a list similar to other "Best song of all time lists," such at the Rolling Stone 500. Including the WRA ranking in this section shows that some critics/journalists consider "Identity Crisis" to be, literally, the worst story of all time.

I believe the reception section, as currently formed, does not fully demonstrate the negative criticism the series has received in the decade since its publication. The specific negative criticism in the section as currently constituted, by Mr. Organ, concerns some of the art - art which he later states he enjoys, tempering his earlier negativity. Including the Comics Alliance quote provides context to the reader. Including the WRA ranking shows that some critics consider the story to be quite poor.

Regarding the War Rocket Ajax, Rob has addressed the issue of that site's reliability, but he hasn't addressed the other two points I raised about that list. Namely, how are those stories ranked? By quality? The issue is not that it's subjective, because all expressions of taste and aesthetics are subjective. The issue is that it isn't clear what exactly that list is a ranking of. Rob says that the WRA ranking indicates that some critics consider IC to be "the worst story of all time", and "quite poor". The problem is, the webpage doesn't say that. How does Rob make this interpretation? The passage claimed that IC was ranked "last" on the list. But while that story does appear last on the list, the list is not indicated to be ranked in any particular order, which is crucial to emphasizing such a thing. Rob, how do you know that that list is one of the worst comics? Again, that list includes Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, Top Ten: Smax, and the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby X-Men. How do we know it's a list of poor-quality stories? Who are the critics or readers who contributed to that list?

I have no problem adding to the critical reception section of the article, but there have got to be more prominent sources to use. Why not check Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Weekly Comic Book Review, iFanboy, The Comics Reporter, IGN, MTV Geek, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Complex, Publisher's Weekly, Ain't it Cool News, etc.? Nightscream (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the source is reliable enough for a critical reception section. The opinions in question come from named individuals with clear ties to legitimate outlets. On a side note, I think when podcasts are used as a source, the reference should include a time marker for the relevant bit so a particular claim can be more easily verified.

Your other two points are spot on. The title “Every Story Ever” sounds like they’re doing lots of reviews. If that’s the case, it’s on the bottom here because it’s the most recently reviewed book, not as an indication of comparative quality.

If the goal is for a reception section more representative of the general opinion, Comic Book Roundup is a good place to start. It’s like metacritic for comics. If we’re looking for negative opinions in particular, I found these from a Google search for “Identity Crisis terrible story”: [26][27] [28] For what it’s worth, it has a decent rating on Good reads Argento Surfer (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rob did not indicate that anyone during the podcast itself specified anything about the book; he only specified the list on that webpage.

And how is Funnybook Babylon reliable? It looks like someone's blog. And the content on Good Reads user-generated. Nightscream (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To the first point, sorry. I didn't investigate it too far because my workstation blocks that particular site.

To the second point, in short, it depends on what's being sourced. My personal standard for a reliable source is lower when I'm looking at something subjective compared to something objective. I may not use a particular site as a ref for the history of a character's creation, but (depending on how well it's written) I do think the same site could be an acceptable ref for how well the book was recieved. Ditto for Goodreads. It's user generated, but it's an accumulation of opinions, which seems just as valid as citing 8 "professional" comic reviewers.Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, so my two cents' worth: The podcast hosts sounds like reliable sources, though I guess all the editors here already are OK with that. As to whether their conclusion should be taken as reliable, they clearly are using hyperbole — no one's read "every comic ever" — so unless they're seriously saying they've read every comic ever then the very title of the rankings indicate that the rankings are not to be taken with great seriousness. If the hosts have a quote about the series, that would seem usable, but not the rankings. (And even a quote might not be usable if there are a plethora of higher-profile, more expert critics' quotes to choose from, no different than the movie articles using The NY Times, LA Times, Rolling Stone, Salon, etc. and not the Tampa Bay or Peoria papers.) -Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm wary of "Top" listings. Wikiproject Albums has gone so far as to place a general ban on "Top" listings due to their extreme proliferation, basically saying that any "Top Ten" had better be from a notable source and be significant. (In other words, "Top 50 Rock Albums of All Time" is worthy of inclusion; "Top 10 Euro Pop Albums Featuring Left-Handed Guitarists" is not.) Personally, I feel that there has to be some sort of explanation in addition to the listing; simply saying that this story arc was on the bottom of this list doesn't mean much to me. Plus, if there's no explanation, then as you say, how can we know this is meant negatively?--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

When adding material about the writers or artists that influenced a given writer or artist, are we required to restrict ourselves to only those sources in which the creator themselves states who influenced him/her? Or can we include sources in which others present their interpretations to that effect? Up until now, I've restricted myself to the former, but I have an instance here of the latter: In this interview, Gary Groth sees Walter Simonson influence in Todd McFarlane's work. Is it citable?

And if so, are we required to emphasize the claim's attribution in how we word it in the article? In other words, would we have say, "According to Gary Groth, McFarlane shows influence by Walter Simonson."? Or is it okay to simply mention Simonson without saying who made this analysis (which is typically the case in the Infobox, for example). Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we'd have to put that attribution. Groth would be an reasonable analyst for noting that McFarlane's work bears similarities to Simonson's, but it's just an outside guess how that similarity was achieved (McF could have been influenced by someone who was influenced by Simonson, or both could have been influenced by a third party.) Groth's guess should not become our guess. It would be different if Groth was saying that McFarlane had said that he was influenced by Simonson. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Added: You've either linked to the wrong page or misread something; I don't see any mention of Groth on the page you linked to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that a notable historian or critic is a better source for a writer or artist's influences than the writer or artist himself. Artistic influence is largely a subconscious thing, and I suspect that when asked about their influences some people just name off the creators they like. This is why, when the writer or artist themselves is the source, I tend to use "He/she has cited ____ as an influence" instead of "He/she was influenced by ___." But Nat brings up a good point in that the tree of influences can be hard to trace for an outsider. For wording, "McFarlane's work has been compared to Walter Simonson" might be an appropriate alternative. That said, reading over the relevant passage of the source, it sounds like the author is basing his statement on something McFarlane rather than his own interpretation. It's certainly not 100% clear, but that's what it sounds like to me.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the above-linked ComicsAlliance story with a Groth interview of McFarlane that I recently read. The ComicsAlliance story says of McFarlane's first issue of Spawn: "Though McFarlane drew inspiration from the likes of Walter Simonson, Michael Golden, and George Perez, the Frank Miller node is the strongest influence here, and it’s apparent." All of the creators so-named are already in the McFarlane article, supported by a cite of what McFarlane said himself, but the Simonson bit isn't. Is this citable?

"Artistic influence is largely a subconscious thing..." Not true. It's both conscious and subconscious. Different individuals have different levels of consciousness as to their own influences. Arthur Adams will name Michael Golden and Simonson as his main influences, just as secondary analysts would. You think Joe Madureira doesn't know that he was influenced by Adams? Or that early Bryan Hitch and Carlos Pacheco were influenced by Alan Davis? To say that historians would make good sources is one thing, but to say that they would necessarily make better ones is a bit over-reaching. Remember that analyses of art are largely subjective. I saw a lot of Arthur Adams in J. Scott Campbell's early Gen13 work, but after Wizard described Campbell as drawing like Jim Lee, Campbell himself wrote it to concur with my view, that he was "an Art Adams clone". Nightscream (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's citable. It wouldn't hurt to put attribution to who said it, but it seems like a significant comment on McFarlane's influences from a reliable source.

I think you misinterpreted my statement. "Largely" does not mean "wholly".--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This article was recently re-created without any references. It was previously redirected to Ultimates#Headquarters, but that section is no longer there. Should it be redirected elsewhere, deleted or are there enough sources to establish notability?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say just redirect it to Ultimates. The "In other media" section of the article is already replicated there anyway. It would be convenient if there were an appropriate subsection of Ultimates to redirect it to, but not really necessary.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have decided some articles especially Spawn and Savage Dragon articles should be merged or deleted if you wish to contribute I have started with The Dragon: Blood & Guts, Alex Wilde and Freak Force. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:HYDRA#Title and term change. 76.232.28.105 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again... would a character being mentioned in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. – but not actually appearing in the show as of yet – merit a mention in the article? My contention is that this is a trivial non-appearance, but I'm specifically trying to avoid edit warring on Griffin per this. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the context in which he was mentioned, and the level of importance that the mentioned seemed to confer upon him/her. Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it, as it was a trivial mention. I have also started a discussion regarding these sections over at the MOS talk, so please head there if you'd like to continue fleshing this out, because I feel it needs to be done. In the mean time, I think we can cite WP:CMOS#POP regarding these additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, part of the question is whether secondary sources have commented on the reference. In the case of the Griffin, they've at least acknowledged it, though it's definitely not as substantial as the Kree discussion referenced above. I've also commented on this in the MOS thread you started, but you're misguided in wanting a simplistic rule rather than a case-by-case determination of whether the reference should be included in the character's article. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That does acknowledge the appearance, but this line says it all: "John Garrett mentions Griffin in passing". 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I assume that I'm not the only one who has noticed that Newsarama links seem to invariably go dead, and without any replacement urls? Since Newsarama is such a vital source for information, and such a commonly cited one, is there a way to archive a given url before it goes dead? I've tried using the Wayback Machine to find replacement urls for ones that have gone dead, but sometimes don't find any. I know that there are other comics news sources, but there's not a lot of good ones, and sometimes, it hard or impossible to find reliable ones for a particular bit of info. I'm not too clear on how the Wayback works, but can an archive be made of a given webpage ahead of time? I'd like to do so with this story, which Newarama broke exclusively. I'd rather not rely on Bleeding Cool, whose repeat of the story indicates that it is taken from Newsarama, or Peter David's website, since that's a primary and self-published source. Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WebCite, you seek! BOZ (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to use that, but it didn't work. Nightscream (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Here you are: http://www.webcitation.org/6OOuFwNgC Archive date March 27, 2014. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So if I have to search for that page at a later date, how do we do it? Is there a search field somewhere on that site? Nightscream (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you expand on what you mean by search, and which page you mean, Newsarama or WebCite? The link I posted is a direct archive to that article, so you can add it to the cite web template as such: |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OOuFwNgC |archivedate=March 27, 2014 |deadurl=no - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean add the archive link to the citation in the article before it ever goes dead? Nightscream (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it the best approach to reword a character's power like this, with the only apparent intention being to reduce the total number of words used? To me, "weather resistant" does not explain it as well as it did with a few more words. There is also a talk page discussion at Talk:Storm (Marvel Comics)#Infobox. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As stated when it was discussed on the talk page, her "Resistant to weather and elemental effects" are talked in the entire page. If you have a source stating that she is indeed "immune" to weather effects, please add them. Otherwise, there is no reason to talk about this or have it mentioned within the infobox. As I recall in the series of X:Men Evolution, she fell out of the sky after a (Storm-empowered) Rogue struck her down with lightning. Skip to 16:52 in this clip for evidence, [29]. So unless she is faking it, I doubt she is "Resistant to weather and elemental effects". Please add a source to your debate and we can discuss otherwise. Marvelct124 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we don't use television shows to source how things work in the comics, because backstories/powers/events/etc are often different - sometimes very different. BOZ (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it was worth mentioning. Also, this was not used in the page, so it is acceptable here. Marvelct124 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So, perhaps, what might be worth discussing here would be, in the case of Storm's powers, what is the best phrasing? The "weather resistant" proposed by Marvelct124, the "Resistance to the effects of the weather and extreme temperatures" which was in place before his edit, or the slightly different "Resistant to weather and extreme temperatures"? Or none of those? I do recall that they explained how her body is resistant to extreme temperatures in X-Men Unlimited #1 where the X-Men fight Siena Blaze in Antarctica, but I don't recall what that explanation consisted of. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am personally quite fine reverting back to the original wording that was in place a few days ago. I am equally fine with that second proposed compromise wording. I just don't think that "weather resistant" really explains anything. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this character immune to the effects of weather? This is the big question. If it is true, please add a reliable source that states it. Otherwise, we need to remove it from the infobox. Furthermore, if she is immune to weather effects, it should be added to the "Powers" section. Infoboxes are meant to be brief. Marvelct124 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't what I thought I remembered, but it does ring some bells as to what I actually read way back when: "Storm tries to control the weather outside, but she is overwhelmed by the unnatural storm. Because her power tries to compensate for climate extremes, Storm’s skin is burning in response to the super blizzard; Xavier uses his powers to help her, despite the concussion he suffered." [30] BOZ (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is as it is stated in OHoTMU - X-Men (2004) handbook concerning Storm, "Storm's powers over the atmosphere enable her to breath at any speed, protect her from air friction, and grant her limited immunity to extreme heat and cold." All-New OHoTMU Update #1 (2007) replaces this line with, "Storm's body also changes temperature in opposition to her environment so that the colder the environment the warmer her body gets and vice versa." Hopes this offers some help. Thefro552 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that makes it pretty conclusive then. There may be a better way of explaining it in the infobox, but we certainly should not remove it. BOZ (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not conclusive. Do you have a source saying [in exact] that she immune to the effects of weather? Marvelct124 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Who has been saying that she is immune to the effects of weather? I don't recall saying that or seeing anyone else say it. I thought what we were discussing is resistance - something less than immunity. If the above posted by Thefro552 doesn't say that to you, then how exactly are you reading it? And you may have removed it from the infobox, but this matter does not appear to have been settled just yet. BOZ (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I made an addition to the powers section based on what was posted here in this thread. Since we clearly have demonstrated that Storm is resistant to temperature extremes, I also added that back to the infobox. The point of contention seems to be whether to include anything about "immunity/resistance to weather", I did not add anything about that. This idea is not clearly defined and somewhat vague, and also unsourced, so I am fine with leaving that off. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As a causal observer, I think the list of powers in the infobox are overly long. They should be trimmed to the character's most commonly recognized powers and further detail should be described in the body of the article. This goes for other character articles as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a point... in that case, it is debatable whether to keep not only the temperature resistance, but also the Energy perception, Ecological empathy, Latent magical abilities, and Telepathic immunity. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely, also the field is called "powers" so the skills should be removed as well. Most superheroes are proficient in fighting and being a pilot doesn't seem that notable in comparison with her actual powers. This isn't a resume.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Skills should only be listed in-lieu of actual powers like Batman or Black Widow, but even some those should be trimmed. I don't think this is meant to be an exhaustive list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we have been over this before numerous times, but just as a refresher, is a character being mentioned in a video game, movie or TV show such as this case worth including in an article if the character does not actually make an appearance? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been experiencing this issue over at Doctor Strange, due to his *SPOILER* mention in Captain America: The Winter Soldier *END SPOILER*, and it has been decided that due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, without a physical appearance, it should not be mentioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

...or without secondary sources commenting on it. The mention of Doctor Strange has been widely reported across the news, (e.g., here) because of its significance to reports that a film has been in development, and overall the expansion of the MCU has been getting significant attention (see the recent thread on the Kree being mentioned in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.). postdlf (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

But, more specifically, in the case of the case of Proteus, which I linked to, without any secondary source mention, I am assuming there is no point in mentioning this trivial non-apperance in the article. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it, yes. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple. When Proteus was mentioned in X-Men Legends, Moira MacTaggeret was talking about events that happened prior to X-Men Legends. I think he deserves to be mentioned under the 'Video games' section. Otherwise, it should be added into a "new" section (References in pop culture) on the page. Marvelct124 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"When Proteus was mentioned in X-Men Legends, Moira...was talking about events that happened prior to X-Men Legends." Um, so what? So what if a character is mentioned in one video game in the context of expository backstory, as opposed to in another context? If anything, that would seem to be even less grounds for giving weight to that mention, as that means the character is not only unseen but also not even part of the game's present narrative. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, do you have a personal beef? The "so what" comment was highly unnecessary. You should be able to state your opinion without being disrespect. You need have a little more respect for fellow editors. Marvelct124 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to be so sensitive, Marvelct. "So what" is just shorthand for "I don't see the relevance of that statement to the matter we are discussing"; there's absolutely nothing personal about it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this mention, because Marvelct124 was revealed as a block-evading sock. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the Marvel MAX line be considered an alternate universe, or is this argument correct? 2601:D:9400:448:8537:71C:23A7:60F8 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I know very little about the MAX line, but my impression was that it is set in the mainstream Marvel Universe. At least, I know that there are several events in Alias which are treated as canon in mainstream Marvel.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, and depends solely on if a writer in the regular line wants to use plot points from a MAX story. I can't speak to the linked example - I haven't read it. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been made regarding the appropriate level of generality of article title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is just a notice that there is a requested move at Talk:Hydra (Marvel Comics)#Requested move.--23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We used to add these notices here, but it looks like that has fallen by the wayside. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Man-Thing#Failure of WP:NOR, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and WP:V. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Commented there. And I will add here that speculation as to how she got the scar is most definitely original research. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I will comment there too, but just so the project watchers know as a heads up, "Man-Thing" gets a shout out from Maria Hill in the new Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode (it's in the preview released on their Facebook page), so, once again, people will undoubtable try to add that, when it is just a simple, irrelevant, Easter Egg mention. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is a non-appearance like this worth mentioning or is it too trivial? [31] 68.57.234.114 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's too trivial to mention. If it does get left in, it needs to be corrected. The scene with Stark and Ross wasn't after the credits, and it never specified Stark was with SHIELD. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it, so hopefully Artmanha will be willing to discuss it here. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That part of the article is about how S.H.I.E.L.D. is portrayed in a shared cinematic universe, where other films have direct influence to others. Anyone who watched The Incredible Hulk properly would know that S.H.I.E.L.D. is a part of it, eventhough it was not shown - only cited. There are several times on the film where is shown that S.H.I.E.L.D. is, somehow, there and operating indirectly with the plot. People who search on Wikipedia looking for information about it should know that The Incredible Hulk is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe where S.H.I.E.L.D. takes place. About the scene with Stark and G. Ross it is clear that when Stark says "We are putting a 'team' together" and the General replies "Who's we?" that he was talking about the "Avengers Initiative" as a reference to the Iron Man movie's post-credit scene, where Nick Fury appears. By that time on the Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline, Stark was already working for S.H.I.E.L.D.. And as The Incredible Hulk was one of the first movies of this shared universe, the "rule" of having post-credits scenes hasn't been settled yet, for that reason, the filmmakers decided to put it before the credits but with the same format and aspects of a post-credits scene. Artmanha (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The final scene (which should not be labled as post credits since it's precredits) is probably worth keeping so the Consultant short will make sense, but the rest is trivially minor, with no impact on any of the other movies. They don't even impact IH's plot. They're more along the lines of Easter Eggs. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a fair compromise. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A revised Request for Comment has been made regarding the policy compliance of title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion here (original here). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The website Artbomb.net is under review by WP:A&M as a potential reliable source for manga reviews. As there is potential for this to be a reliable source for comic reviews as well, I though to ping this group for their own evaluations. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Artbomb.net reliable source? 24.149.117.220 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled on this article Bananaman (radio show). I was just looking at this article's sources and the only one it has seems to refer to the TV show not the radio one. The article says that it starred Christien Pritchard as Elaine and Simon Harris as Gareth but there are no characters with such name in the Bananaman comic strip on which I assumed this radio show was based. So I am not sure whether this radio show existed and if it did whether it has any connection with the comic strip which the disambiguation article claims it does. Eopsid (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I forget if we have covered this specific instance here before, but at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, there is an appearance of a set of mechanical tentacles and a set of wings, which are most likely references to Doctor Octopus and Vulture. I do believe these count as trivial non-appearances in terms of mentioning in each character's articles, and thusly I don't think they have any reason to be mentioned there.

While we have been at it so frequently lately, it might be a good idea for the project to draft an "in other media" guideline so that people can clearly see what is and is not acceptable for that section. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Those artifacts were already seen in the first movie. In any event, we need secondary sources to justify mentioning them in this article. Nightscream (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what I figured. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As for adding the "in other media" guideline to the MOS, I started that discussion on the MOS talk, which you commented on, but that hasn't gotten much traction in terms of trying to work it out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I recommended starting an RFC on that (and still do) to attract more attention, although I would wait until the currently-running RFC is closed. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of equipment is trivial and not an appearance of a character. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, but I noticed that User:24.139.148.54 has made a number of edits to infoboxes, replacing the bullets with <br>. Is this the preferred method? To me the bullets look more readable, making it clear that it isn't just a block of text with poor punctuation and grammar (compare [32] to [33]), but I didn't want to revert all the edits if there was consensus for this change. —Ost (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The preference is to use Template: Ubl or Template: Plainlist as these can be modified at the source to affect all articles regardless of what browser is being used, while bare HTML code will not. So feel free to revert the IP. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in discussing whether the following Satan (Spawn), God (Spawn), Disciple (Image Comics), Redeemer (Image Comics) should be deleted or saved any contributions would be appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I forgot Cy-Gor Dwanyewest (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there's an RfC going on regarding Sonic the Hedgehog characters keeping their articles. It's here. I'm personally opposed to most of the proposed merges, but I figured I'd mention it to you all to get some wider perspective, i.e. from outside the Video games project, as that doesn't seem to be happening organically. And, hey, they're also characters in the Sonic comics and as such belong to this project too. Tezero (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)