Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

I just visited Fantastic Four and immediately saw something very curious in the infobox: a caption reading "The Fantastic Four #1 (Nov. 1961). Cover art by Jack Kirby (penciller) and unconfirmed inker." with no image beside it. Checking the article history, I found that the problem is this edit from way back in October 2013, in which User: Werieth removed every single image from the article (except the main infobox image), citing WP: NFC, while failing to remove the caption for the cover of FF #1. Werieth is a long-standing and highly active Wikipedia editor, but I can't help but think his understanding of WP's non-free content policy is worse than rudimentary, in part because all of the images he removed from the article are either comic book covers or promotional posters, and in part because none of the images have been deleted (in fact, all but one still has a non-free media rationale for Fantastic Four!). Removing image inclusions from articles rather than going after the image itself seems like trying to remove a weed by plucking off its leaves one-by-one without touching its roots.

I've gone ahead and restored the image of FF #1 so that we won't have a caption describing nothing, but I've left the other images off since this is a high-traffic article we're talking about, so Werieth's edit must have met with at least some degree of approval from the wider community. I don't suppose someone can explain this to me, since my understanding was that covers and promotional material almost always fall under fair use?--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any input here in four days, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and restore all the images which have non-free media rationales for the article. With luck, anyone who decides to revert me will provide some explanation here.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a community GA reassessment of Wanted. The article has had quite a fall from grace since its promotion in 2009, and I believe it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm putting out a request for some help over at Forever Evil. This event has just ended, and I have been adding plots to this page since the beginning. Having just finished, I know they are extremely long and take up a lot of the page. I have gone through on a few occasions and cut a good amount of it, but I would still like to get it down more. So if anyone out there who has read the event, or just parts of it, I would greatly appreciate the help to cut each of the plots down some. It would be helpful to get a new set of eyes on the page to see if anyone else can find some extra detail that can be taken out. The next task I have for myself is to cut down the reviews section, because that is humongous right now. Thank you in advance to anyone who can help me out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thamuz and Legion (Image Comics) are both nominated for deletion please give your thoughts. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I say no, but User:StarDustWind24 disagrees and does not have a RS to prove it. [1] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to say he does is another relevant question. I think it would generally be agreed that during the time his skeleton is/was laced with adamantium he would have some degree of supernormal strength on the basis of the adamantium in his skeleton. Our article contains right now the sentence "The adamantium also weights his blows, increasing the effectiveness of his offensive capabilities" citing Wolverine #2 (Oct. 1982). The question then would, apparently, become whether he had superhuman strength when his skeleton was not laced with adamantium, and I don't know if that has been specifically indicated anywhere yet. So it may be an open question whether Wolverine inherently has superhuman strength, but the adamantium skeleton would give him at least the effective equivalent of such. Hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The only info I found was [2] which says he has unnatural Strength, though not superhuman nor supernatural. He's as strong as the strongest human, but not more. Perhaps it could be changed from "Superhuman" to "Increased". --Odie5533 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't have superhuman strength. Saying he has superhuman strength because he has admantium in his skeleton is like saying that I acquire superhuman strength if I pick up a steel bar to hit someone. Yes, it would hurt more than if I hit them with my bare fist, but the steel bar doesn't allow me to lift even one pound more than I could without it. Wolverine #2 itself is quite clear that his skeleton has no bearing on his strength. As for noting "increased strength" simply because he's in good shape, as someone once said, the "Abilities" field isn't a resume. Our goal is to summarize what sets the character apart from normal humans, not give an exhaustive list of his qualifications for every possible vocation.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I have reverted the edits and am requesting that User:StarDustWind24 discuss this issue here. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The main point is that, with his bones covered by "Indestructium", he is immune to bone fracture. Between that and his healing factor, writers usually use him as an indestructible guy. And, as his adamantium claws can cut anything, there are few obstacles he can not pass. He is not super strong, but he can be used in a very similar way to a super strong character. To name some common examples, he can survive being in the core of an explosion, he can easily break into a fortified stronghold, or fight alone against some dozens or random mooks; not for the same reasons than Superman, but both ones can do such feats. Cambalachero (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've definitely seen him lift things that no ordinary human can lift.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, this was a topic when I first starting editing Wikipedia in 2005, and I got flamed for my position on the matter but a number of editors who apparently didn't think WP:CIV was important. :-)

What was pointed out for evidence, as I recall, was a number of instances of him exhibiting clearly inhuman strength. Two specific bits of evidence that I recall were that he broke the thick manacles and chains used to bind him by the Hellfire Club (or was it Magneto?) when John Byrne was drawing Uncanny, and another (which I remember more clearly) was that he was able to lift up an entire crowd of thugs attacking him in the first issue of the Wolverine ongoing series by Claremont and Buscema. These arguments/evidence were provided in the discussions on this archive of the Wolverine article talk page, though some of the links to the images are not surprisingly, dead.

By the way, it's adamantium, Cambalachero. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. "Indestructium" is a made up word for materials which are supposed to be indestructible. Cambalachero (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You're misremembering something about that first bit, because the X-Men fought the Hellfire Club and Magneto only once each during Byrne's run on Uncanny (#132-4 and #112-3, respectively), and in neither case did he break any sort of bindings. In #132-4 he was the only X-Man who was never captured, and in #112-3 he had to have Storm lockpick him free. Possibly what you're thinking of is when they were captured by Steven Lang in #99, he does bust out of his manacles. In that instance, though, it's implied that he breaks free by popping his claws to rip through the manacles.

I don't have Wolverine (vol.2) #1 at hand (though I can dig it out if need be), but I do remember the moment that you're referring to vividly. I've always interpreted that moment as Buscema using artistic license to convey the idea that Wolverine is taking on a whole mound of mercenaries at once, rather than him literally lifting that weight. The feat isn't acknowledged in Claremont's script, and it's not significant to the plot.

And there are certainly plenty of instances to show that he lacks super strength. In Wolverine (vol.2) #98, he is unable to break out of common chains, and has to slice the flesh off his own arm so that he can slip out of the manacle. In Wolverine (vol.2) #20, he gets stuck by his claws being jammed into a mound of coral. In The Scorpio Connection, Mikel Fury (a teenager with no superhuman powers) physically overpowers him.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

silverbulletcomicbooks.com is referenced in 157 articles. [3] The links to reviews and news no longer work, it just a page advertising something, the type of thing you see tossed up whenever someone buys an expired domain. This is the relevant Wikiproject to mention this at. Fix it if you feel like it. Dream Focus 10:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

One user has changed the lead sections of several articles which originally said something like "Superhero name (real name) is a fictional character" to something like "Real name, also known as Superhero name, is a fictional character". Looking to see if anyone has any input on that. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It seems like it's an attempt to treat fictional characters as real people, as if the superhero identity (which is how most readers or audiences will best identify and remember them) is a stage name or nickname and the alter ego is more "real" somehow. Revert away. postdlf (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Postdif. Go ahead and revert, and do place a template on their talk, or a post, directing them to the comic MOS or this discussion if they'd like to discuss further. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I second that. These edits are misleading, and go against WP:BEGIN. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I reverted almost all of them. Thanks. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the actors who might be cast in the role a violation of WP:CRYSTAL or should be listing them already? 2601:D:9400:448:8102:22D6:690C:4448 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the statement is simply that those two actors are being considered for the role, which is a sourced fact, but it's a fact which is extremely trivial even if one of those two is ultimately cast in the role. The only reason one would add it in to the article is the assumption that "being considered for the role = being cast in the role", which is indeed WP: CRYSTAL.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In the long run of the page, that information is not going to stay, as all the info will be replaced by a single sentence saying "X actor will portray Dr. Strange in the 201X film Doctor Strange, directed by Scott Derrickson and written by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer.[ref]" (All that is there now will go to the film article, which is being built at Draft:Doctor Strange (film)) But this is common practice in the film project to note actors the studio is looking at for roles. It is not saying they are being cast, only that they are being considered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please contribute to the debate regarding Thamuz and Legion (Image Comics) Dwanyewest (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spider-Man (set index) 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/Spider-Man (set index) 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. Spidey104 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Interlude65 (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this count as a WP:RS? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean The Hooded Utilitarian blog, no, that's just a blog. It could, marginally, be useful for some really non-controversial data, but even then it is hard to imagine that better, more reliable sources wouldn't be available, and those better sources would obviously be preferable. Some of the data might be accurate, but if it is at this point I would have to think that better, more clearly reliable sources would exist. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the edits. You obviously did not examine the article and an accompanying post that featured the source documents including National Archives photocopies of Gerber's termination correspondence and sworn court briefs from the lawsuit. That is about as incontrovertible as it gets. Additionally, the claim that Gerber left Marvel due to issues of "creative control" is not supported by the cited The Comics Journal article. It says Gerber was removed from both the strip and the comic book for reasons of lateness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.0.214 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Robert Stanley Martin seems like a published author on the topic of comics outside this blog, so I've no issue with using him. I did restore some quotes by Shooter and Gerber that this anon IP's most recent edit said already appeared in another section of the article, but which did not. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:ComicsCollab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been started at the above link to discuss removing the archive site Archive.is from the blacklist. Feel free to join the chorus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just added Teshkeel Comics to Template:Comic book publishers in North America. However, as I was going to add the navbox to the publisher's article, it occurred to me that maybe Teshkeel hadn't been added before because the navbox is supposed to cover only publishers based in North America, whereas Teshkeel is based in Kuwait. Previously I had always assumed the navbox covered articles on anyone who published comics in North America. Which interpretation of this navbox is the correct one?--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the template will get awfully long if we open it up to any publisher that has ever distributed comics in North America. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 19:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I'll go delete Teshkeel from the template.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion regarding Toad's possible appearance in X-Men Origins: Wolverine at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Trouble with IP user, for anyone who might have something to contribute to that discussion. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Stoshmaster has added unsourced source credits to Happy Tears, Crak! & Sleeping Girl. I have reversed his additions of Mike Sekowsky to Happy Tears, written by Bob Haney and illustrated by Jack Abel to Crak! and Tony Abruzzo in Sleeping Girl. If anyone can find WP:RSs to use for WP:ICs to source this content in these article that would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started an FAC for Clark Kent (Smallville). Please feel free to stop by and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clark Kent (Smallville)/archive1.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on Talk:Youngblood (comics) about merging characters.Dwanyewest (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on Talk:Cyberforce about merging characters.Dwanyewest (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The comic character infobox has a subcat that automatically sorts the character by publisher, e.g., DC Comics superheroes, etc. I noticed today that most of the Milestone characters had been re-listed as DC, so I edited the remaining characters (only three of them were left) to list as DC. But then I realized that the Wildstorm characters are still listed as Wildstorm, even though they (like Milestone) are now part of DC. This problem raises the question: When characters have been bought by other companies, should the infoboxes be updated to their current publisher, or should they stay with the original publisher? Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgable on coding for this, but if it is possible, it should add both publisher cats, not replace one with another. I also think that potential dual cats should not be used, unless the new publisher uses the character, ie if a former Wildstorm character appears in a DC title, then add the DC cat. But if they have only ever exclusively appeared in a Wildstorm title, just keep that cat. That would make the most sense to me. Because even though the publishers have merged, the character has not appeared with the new publisher. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to add a 2nd publisher into the subcat. I tried it, using the br/ tag to divide them, but then neither category showed up. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You could use a comma, like this. The br code seems to work fine on Solar (comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not the parameter I was talking about; in fact, the Solar article doesn't even have the full infobox listed. I'm talking about the cat and subcat parameters that come after the powers parameter. See Template:Infobox comics character. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just found on the template instructions this description of how to use the addcharcat# parameter: "Additional "<Publisher> <character type>" categories can be added with addcharcat#. Replace "#" with a number (currently the template is set up for 2 additional cats) and list the full category title. Please list the publishers in publication order." PROBLEM: I still can't get both categories to show up when I add |subcat2 = . Anyone here familiar with how to work the addcharcat# parameter? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a question regarding H.G. Peter and the creation of Wonder Woman at Talk:Wonder Woman#H.G. Peter. All comments are welcome. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've been editing articles, I've noticed a lot of instances, particularly in the fictional character biographies, where Spider-Man is referred to as "the webslinger", Doctor Octopus as "Doc Ock", Batman as "the caped crusader", etc. Besides being horrendously unencyclopedic in tone, we can't expect the general readership to be familiar with all the cute nicknames these characters have. I'm almost certainly preaching to the choir here, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw out a little reminder to keep things Wikipedian.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I fix those wherever I see them. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed a considerable change to this article at Talk:Black Panther (comics). Any input is welcome.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kurzon has been making some pretty sizable chops to the lead sections of character articles, so I just wanted to bring this here for discussion. Examples include: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the lead sections to articles on superheroes contain trivia and very current information. I decided to rewrite them into something more succinct and broad. Explain the character concept in 4 or 5 lines, focusing on essential and consistent details, and an overview of their media presence in 3 or 4 lines. Leave the trivia, character analysis, and current developments to the main body of the article. You must assume that the reader is somebody who isn't a comic book geek. Write something your grandpa would understand.Kurzon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of your changes have been removing real-world information/perspective and substituting it for in-universe stuff, which is what matters. || Tako (bother me) || 22:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The previous versions had even more in-universe details. If anything, I trimmed down the fictional description.Kurzon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You should consider leading with the real word info (first appearance, creators, etc.) then moving to the in-universe descriptions/characteristics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

While the lead section should be concise and to the point compared to the rest of the article, the point is not to be as brief as possible; per WP:LEAD#Length, longer articles may need three or even four paragraphs to tell the whole story of an article. The lead should briefly cover all the key elements of the topic. See the lead section of Spider-Man or Batman as examples of how the lead is handled on high-quality character articles, and what we should aspire to be doing on other notable characters. So in most cases for a character, you would want to mention the origin story in a sentence or two, same with the powers and abilities, another sentence or two for their most significant character developments (or more as necessary), a mention of some of their most important supporting characters and/or significant memberships in teams and groups, and that should be good enough for the story elements mentioned in most cases. We should be covering things in the body of the article such as who created the character, when did they first appear, what inspired the character's creators in developing that character, analysis by independent commentators and other creators who further developed the character, commentary on how that character has been used in other media appearances, and any impact that character has made on popular culture and the medium, AND also summarize these things in the lead. We should not fail to mention things that a non-comics reader would not understand, but we should instead endeavor to explain things to help them understand important aspects of the character. If we see something mentioned in the lead but not in the body, we should not remove it from the lead but we should make sure it is also discussed in the body; if it is too trivial for the lead, then move it out of the lead and into the body. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of these articles are just lengthy bits of trivia that cover many reboots and series. I think the general rule that the lead should be proportional to the article should be ignored here.Kurzon (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a fine rule, but of course it needs to be justified when challenged. I wasn't suggesting to cover trivia; see again what I was saying above, that we need to cover the more important pieces of real world information. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of them look like good edits to me. Especially Mystique. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't write about the characters as living people in the lead. In the real world, they are not people - e.g., Magneto is not a mutant. Magneto is a work of fiction. In the lead, say "that" instead of "who" and endeavor to avoid pronouns. "He" and "she" violate the guidelines on how to write about fictional characters in the leads, but "it" just looks silly.

From the Manual of Style: "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."[22] Because we violate that left and right in the character biographies, the norm evolved to adhere to MOS in the opening and get each article off to a correct start. The aforementioned quote is not the only relevant Wikipedia guideline on this. Notice the glaring dearth of superhero articles among the comics articles listed as examples of articles that doing exemplary jobs of adhering to real-world perspective.[23] (Of course, some of those articles may have gotten screwed up since their original inclusion on that list.) Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 10:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, that's what I was trying to get at. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

[24] I just don't understand this desire by User:Kurzon to keep readers less informed. 2601:D:B480:ED2:A80E:1C3A:E6BB:7205 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kurzon's edits are quite drastic, but, seriously, the leads of these articles need something to be done about them. The previous lead to Wolverine was just awful—the entire last paragraph was nothing but recentist peacocky fluff, and the rest of it is verbose and full of trivialities. Kurzon's version is inadequate, yet still an improvement. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What should I add, User:Curly Turkey?Kurzon (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a difficult question to answer—you should get familiar with MOS:LEAD for one.

A rule of thumb is that it should give a brief summary from each major section. The problem is that the article itself is a mess—it needs to be balanced and tightened up considerably. For such a major character the lead is definitely way too short, but "a bit from each section" in this case would likely be summing up a lot of trivial detail. The best approach would be to fix up the body and then figure out what would be most appropriate for the lead, but that would be quite a bit of work.

Looking at the contribution history, it looks like there hasn't been a primary editor or group of editors. Articles like this tend to be an agglomeration of numbers, lists, and trivia. There's also an issue that's been brought up by more than one editor—that the focus of the article is on the character in the world of comics, rather than a general overview of the character as a character, as one would expect (if one weren't a comics nerd).

As it is, the lead only sums up the character's in-universe aspects—it needs more out-of-universe stuff, and I suspect more in-universe stuff as well. Without a decent body to work from, though, it's hard to give more concrete advice than that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I find a lot of the writing in superhero articles is just plain awful; sperg-fests written by geeks who have trouble relating to the layman. I'm tempted to burn everything to ashes and start anew. I am no ashamed if my edits ruffle feathers. Maybe this will give the community the kick it needs.Kurzon (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So do it. I'm looking forward to seeing what yo can do with it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to rewrite an article from scratch, it's a good idea to start with a sandbox page---say User:Kurzon/Wolverine, so that the average reader still has a workable page to read until you've got your version built up to a certain degree. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Curly Turkey, I've started a draft at User:Kurzon/Magneto. Do you think I'm on the right track?Kurzon (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that your rewrite has very few citations. I added some of the sourced commentary that you previously removed from the lead; I feel this sort of thing should be retained in some form. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a lot of my references are specific comic book issues, and I prefer to mention these in the main text so as to provide context for the information. The details of Magneto's life vary so much from book to book, cartoon to cartoon, etc., so I ought to explicitly mention where this or that little fact comes from.Kurzon (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The references should be from thrid-party sources rather than the comics. Read up about it at WP:PRIMARY. Sometimes you'll find that something you consider important isn't covered in third-party sources. This means, unfortunately, that you'd have to drop that info in those cases. Sometimes it's best to find sources first, and then work up the information in the article from what you can find in the sources (less heartbreak that way). Of course, you have to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing. I realize the current Magneto (comics) article is chock full of refs to the comic books—that is not a model to follow and is a big issue with a lot of comics articles. Sometimes Google Books is a good place to find sources. If you find it difficult to find good sources for Magneto, it may be better to find a character that you have good sources for first.

Another thing—style-wise you'll want to avoid sentences made up of only a short single sentence like what you've got at the end there. It's okay in a draft if you intend to build on it later, but you'll want to avoid that when you move it to mainspace. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine if you want to list straight facts. I admit I have few secondary sources for the analysis. Still, I think my work is an improvement over the previous version of the article.Kurzon (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Limited use of primary sources for strictly factual purposes or for plot summaries can be fine, but an article must be based primarily on tertiary sources to establish notability, amongst other things. Primary sources should be used with extreme caution—it is far too easy to veer into WP:OR territory with them. As a rule of thumb, you should start with tertiary sources, and fall back on primary only if you absolutely must (again, for strictly factual information or straight plot summaries), and even then think twice about using them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the other comic characters, such as Spider-man, Batman, and Superman? They have fictional character biographies as well. Since the Magneto page has this removed, what about the other superhero pages? I don't care one way or the other if the fictional biography is there or not, but out of respect for both sides of the argument, why not just place the fictional character biography as a separate article, in the same way we have "In other Media" or "Alternative versions of"? That way, the main article will be cleaned up and there will be another version of the article for people who want to know about the characters' history. As it stands, however, I do agree that the fictional character biography sections of these articles are excessive, and will continue to get even more excessive as more and more comics come out (making the article unnecessarily long).Kinfoll77 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I would consider the fictional character bio a key part of the article, and would be beyond surprised to see it missing or in another article. It needs to be balanced and sourced, but it needs to be there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Which version of Magneto should I base the biography on? The comic book version, which goes through endless reboots, retcons, and alternate universes? The movies? The cartoons? It does not really make sense to me to pick one version of Magneto as the "official" version and dismiss the others as "alternates". Far better to list the character points that are consistent across all stories.Kurzon (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The main article should be an overview of the character; you definitely shouldn't be choosing a particular version, but you also shouldn't be picking and choosing which elements you consider to be consistent—that's the kind of thing edit wars are based on, when someone disagrees with your interpretation. That's one reason we rely on summing up what third-party sources have said on the subject. If Magneto is particularly complicated and hard to source, maybe it's best to start with a more straightforward character. You can always keep your own version of the Magneto article in your sandbox and work on it bit by bit until you've worked it up into something acceptable. Some articles take longer to write than others, so it's good to have more than one on the go for when you hit a wall with one. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on the mainspace from here on, not my sandbox. This way I'll get feedback from other people than you.Kurzon (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the great rush is, but whatever. Just remember that your mainspace edits raised concerns in the first place, thus this discussion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Fictional character biography should be based solely on the character's continuity in their most prominent medium (in Magneto's case, comic books), and that continuity from other media should be restricted to the "In other media" section or left out of the article entirely. That's not just the way it's done on comic book articles out of bad habit, either. Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and Master Chief (Halo) (a Featured Article), for example, all follow this same format. Plus, incorporating elements from multiple media in a single plot summary would be very confusing for what I had thought were obvious reasons.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we give weight to whatever medium the sources give weight to. Sherlock Holmes focuses on the prose works because nothing in other media have ever approached the impact of the original stories. On the other hand, we have the Popeye article, which gives considerable focus to the animation and does not shunt it into the "Other media" section (which does exist). This is what a reader would suspect, and what sources do. That's the key—don't just make stuff up based on your gut feelings or primary sources, start with a wide array of tertiary sources and figure out what the balance should be from there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NukeofEarl, the focus of the article should be on the character's most prominent medium. Also the problem with the bio sections is not that they do not include information from other continuities but that the lack of summation and over details. These bios should be written in broad strokes. We do not need to cover every encounter with a supervillian, just the most prominent ones or have lasting effects on the character. Even then the details should be kept to bear minimum, just enough to give the reader a basic understanding of the events. Another problem is recentism, where editors give more attention to current events then past ones. And ideally these events should contain thoughts/analysis from third-party sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Point of order: The topic of this discussion has changed considerably from when it was started. The section name no longer applies and is misleading. Also before the proposed changes spread beyond Magneto (comics) a larger consensus should be reached due to the divergence from the established manual of style. A Wikiproject with around 600 participants, should not be relegated by a couple of editors. Perhaps a m:MassMessage should be sent to every participant, informing them of this discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Following a discussion on the WikiProject_Comics talk page, I came to agree with other editors that there are major problems with how superhero articles are written. Honestly, they're a bloody mess, a massive sperg-fest by comic geeks who do not coordinate their efforts or work hard to relate to the layman. There are other wikis on the Web that are more appropriate for this.

Most glaring are the biographies. They are excessively bloated. They are centered around the mainstream 616 Universe, giving no regard to the other books, movies, and television shows. This is not appropriate, given that the movies and TV shows have a wider audience than the comic books, and that the "mainstream" 616 universe goes through endless retcons and reboots. Additionally, this section was not written appropriately for an encyclopedia, which should always be written from the perspective of the real world. The Manual of Style says: "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."

I have rewritten the biography section of the Magneto (comics) article completely. Instead of a biography, it attempts to list the plot points and character traits about Magneto that have been consistent across all the stories he has appeared in. It gives equal weight to all the comic books, the movies, and TV shows. I think this should be a template for all superhero articles.Kurzon (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems like it might work, but it's a significant departure from the standard and I'd like to think about it before giving my final opinion. Three things stand out immediately - One, this will take a long time to implement. Two, you're going to have a long, uphill battle on your hands against people who want to re-add the biography. Three, it will seem awkward when applied to characters who haven't been through lots of variations, like Savage Dragon, or characters whose other appearances are very minor, like Adam Warlock. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As stated above I agree that a lot of these articles have significant issues but I don't think this right approach. "Fictional character biography" sections are not inherently bad and most just require trimming. Also not every variation of a character has equal WP:WEIGHT. As NukeofEarl, pointed out special consideration (focus) should be given to the medium in which the character was created, which is the norm throughout Wikipedia not just WP:Comic. In fact different variations may have there own levels of notability like Batman and Batman in film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say we should give more weight to the comics just because they were created there? Besides, the comic books go through endless retcons and reboots. The biographies give little distinction to the changes and patterns that the character in question has gone through over its years of publication. My approach helps the reader appreciate how the character has evolved over time in response to cultural and editorial pressures. And it also frames it in the real world perspective.Kurzon (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The "rules" say no such thing, of course—you follow the sources. If the sources put all the weight on the comics, then it's likely you should too. What you're doing is an interesting approach, but you have to make sure that nothing's given undue weight, and that your interpretation doesn't fall under WP:OR. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were rules just the norm. And just because the biography didn't do something, it doesn't mean that it can't.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of (if not actual) OR is my biggest hangup. Like the line "The character of Magneto has appeared in a wide variety of media for over 50 years under the creative control of uncounted editors and writers." What variety of media was he appearing in 50 years ago? To my knowledge, the first incarnation of Magneto outside of print was a toy in the 80s. He didn't make TV until the 90s and Film until 2000. Why are the editors and creators uncounted? Are you sure they're uncounted? Do you have a source saying they're uncounted, or do you just not know the number?

I won't argue that most of your writing is true, but a lot of it isn't, and can't be, sourced. "In all portrayals, Magneto is aggressive, domineering, and vindictive." Do you have a citation for this? If not, it's OR to say "all," because you mean "all that I'm aware of." The rest of it has similar problems. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree even the most obvious generalities need to be sourced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an intrinsic problem with the Fictional character biographies either. Yes, most of them need extensive cutting down to size (something I've already been working on for quite a while, e.g.here), but they're no different than the plot summaries which appear in articles on movies and books. The Wikipedia policy of using the real world as the primary frame of reference means just that: you use the real world as the primary frame of reference, hence why Fictional character biographies are just one section of an article and they're labeled "Fictional".

Mind you, I think the style of character summation Kurzon has used for Magneto can be useful too, especially for prominent characters like Magneto, since their vast history and numerous retcons are hard to summarize into a concise and coherent Fictional character biography. Unfortunately, I think this approach won't work for 99% of comic book character articles. As Argento Surfer and TriipleThreat have noted, broad generalities need sourcing, and unlike the normal Fictional character biographies, they can't be sourced from the comics themselves because that's WP:SYNTH. With Magneto we can probably dig up some appropriate sources with time, but characters like Schizoid Man (comics), Black Bolt, Huntress (Helena Bertinelli), and even Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) just don't have that kind of in-depth character analysis out there, at least not in notable sources.

As to the character's prevalence in each medium, while it is tempting to think that (in Kurzon's words) "the movies and TV shows have a wider audience than the comic books", I don't know if that's actually true. Undoubtedly ticket sales on the X-Men movies are higher than the sales of any individual comic book in which Magneto appeared, but the character has been appearing in comic books for five decades, and the people who read Avengers vs. X-Men #12 are not the same people who read Uncanny X-Men #304, who in turn are not the same people who read X-Men #1. Even among contemporaneous publications, the same set of people were not reading Magneto's escapades in X-Men and his appearances in Defenders. And even if we assume that more people watched the handful of X-Men films than read any of a dozen comic publications over five decades, that by itself does not mean that Magneto isn't perceived by the general public as a comic book character. Far more people watched Elementary than have read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but no one would contend that Holmes is predominantly a television character and not a prose fiction character.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how many people saw films or read comics over the decades when I open article named Magneto_(comics) I expect the focus to be on his comics version. Wide majority of his publications are set in "main continuity" of Marvel comics (also known as 616 universe) so it makes sense that biography section focuses on those stories and other stories are mentioned "alternate versions" section. Furthermore Magneto had major role, if I'm not mistaken, in 5 X-Men films. I'm sure that if someone wanted he could find enough sources to create separate article for Magneto_(X-Men_films) to make clear distinction between comics and big screen version of Magneto. Similar approach has been taken with Superman and his Smallvile TV show version and I think it works out perfectly instead of trying to create some Frankenstein's version of all appearances in all possible media. BlisterD (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.146.217.66 has been going around editing articles about fictional characters, and removing all references to them being fictional, rewriting them to make it look like they are real people. See Scarlet Witch for example. I'm going to try to undo as much as I can, but please help me to make sure it is all cleaned up. 2601:D:B480:ED2:5C07:A115:562A:C0F0 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

While 109.146.217.66's edits are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, they are clearly not vandalism. He's quite apparently under the common misconception that because it is obvious these are fictional characters, that fact should not be stated.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You might be right - it probably is intended in good faith, but the user is also clearly misguided. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's only one person editing from that address, then it is a vandal. See page blanking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Character_(arts)&diff=prev&oldid=619267929. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Howard appears in a brief cameo in the film, and in an end-credits scene. Is a cameo role lead-worthy? [25] 68.57.233.34 (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. It gives the impression to readers that the significance of his appearance in the film is much larger than it is.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not lead-worthy. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; will remove it. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolverine (comics) was moved to Wolverine (character) after another requested move. Wait... again? I thought this was resolved already? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It was. The current title goes against WP:NCC. and this discussion. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fortdj33: MOS:COMIC has been reworded to conform to sitewide guidelines, as per the outcome of an RFC that you participated in. WP:NCC is in violation of that, and it has already been proposed that the obscure, little-watched, and redundant WP:NCC be merged into MOS:COMIC. Local consensus can't override community guidelines without broad community consensus, much as that irks certain members of WP:COMICS. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, for what it's worth the proposal you linked to, actually appears to suggest that MOS:COMIC be merged into WP:NCC, not the other way around. It should be noted that MOS:COMIC was changed by you, after you revised an RFC discussion, which was closed with no consensus. Just because the members of the comics project didn't feel like arguing with you a second time, doesn't mean that there is any "broad community consensus" for WP:NCC to be overridden. Personally, I still believe that "(comics)" is sufficient disambiguation for characters that originated in comics, but it will be interesting to see if any other editors are willing to weigh in again... Fortdj33 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Quit spinning, Fortdj33—the RfC did not close "no consensus" (as you are fully aware), it closed with a consensus that MOS:COMIC be changed, but no consensus on which of the two choices to change it to, and I quote: "but there is no consensus for which version of the change is preferred". The second version was identical to the first except for the addition of "—to signify the medium—", which was not added as there was no clear consensus for it (but there was a consensus for the rest of it). Why are you misrepresenting what happened? This is beyond exasperating. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm concerned with how Fortdj33 has represented your close of the RfC. Could you please clarify? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jenks24: As you closed the Wolverine (character) move that's being questioned here, and [Fortdj33 is accusing you of making th emove without consensus, would you care to weigh in? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: did you actually propose that "MOS:COMIC be merged into WP:NCC" as Fortdj33 says you did? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I misremember; it's been a while since I was discussing this stuff. Will be happy to revisit, as these pages and debates about them have progressed far enough that whatever I was saying back when might no longer be a valid position (or might be even more important). A common problem is that various topical NC pages have material in them that has nothing to do with article names in particular, and that material has to come out and put in an MOS sub-page (or just be removed if there's no consensus for it at MOS, which is often the case - wikiprojects insert all kinds of daft crap into topical NC pages, figuring no one will notice what WP:SSF stuff they are pushing). Similarly, topical MOS subpages often have material in them that is really specifically about article naming, and needs to be moved to a topical NC page (or just delete it if regulars at WT:AT are going to object to it because it conflicts with extant policy, another common problem in these wikiprojectual "rules" pages. So, it is likely that I recommended merging some stuff from one of these pages into the other, and likely that I would do so again where such scope problems and/or policy conflicts appear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that there was consensus to change, but no consensus for what to change to. This means you should not have changed the MOS, as the RFC did not result in that decision. Number 57 10:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: Could you please double-check that? The only change made was the one that was in both proposed changes, and the edit was made at your own suggestion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, good point... Apologies. Number 57 12:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asked about this on my talk page. I don't have much more to add. Suffice it to say that consensus can change and my reading of the discussion was that there was a rough consensus to move to "(character)". No one even made the argument for "(comics)" as an ideal title and I can only assess the arguments put in front of me. RM closures can be contested at WP:MRV. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I started a move discussion to move it back. Hopefully we can get more participation this time. If it is ever decided to change (comics) to (character) then it should be done on all the articles, not just one. Talk:Wolverine_(character)#Page_move_back_discussion.2C_again Dream Focus 12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Then you'll want to advertise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters as well. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• How do I put something on the article page information people of the move discussion? I notice in the history that wasn't done for the previous discussion. This is necessary to bring in more people to it to form proper consensus. Dream Focus 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Click the "Talk" tab of the Project page, as you would at WP:COMICS. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I mean at the Wolverine article. Dream Focus 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Power Ring (DC Comics)

A similar discusssion has been had over Power Ring (DC Comics) and Power ring (DC Comics), to change them to character and object respectively. To my understanding, it's been defeated several times. If that scenario doesn't warrant a (character) disambiguation, I don't think Wolverine does, either. It's also slightly misleading, because the article is primarily about the comic character, not all the Wolverines from all other media. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? The talk page in both articles only seems to contain discussions about mergers. Diego (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Diego. Where was that? I believe that that discussion is one that needs to be had. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Power Ring (character) is a solution there but Power ring (object) is still ambiguous. Though given the quality of that article... merge Emotional spectrum and Power ring (DC Comics) to Lantern (DC Comics). --erachima talk 19:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was on the article's talk page, but it's actually on mine, and it's not linked. Maybe User:jc37 can help us out, since he's the one who told me about it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That's not a consensus-forming discussion, and in any case Power ring (DC Comics) is not supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). That's the form for distinguishing between publishers, and in this case both articles refer to concepts from the same publisher. WP:PRECISION requires that the articles be moved to titles that are not ambiguous for their respective topics; there should be a proper move discussion at their talk pages (I suggest Power Ring (supervillain) for the character, and maybe something like Power ring (Green Lantern object) or Power ring (DC Comics object) for the other one). It needs to be related to the DC franchise, since Power ring (object) also applies to The Lord of the Rings (and the Nibelung, of course) and is thus still ambiguous. Diego (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no I didn't mean that was the discussion. That was where I was told there had been a discussion. It's been a while so I don't remember specifics, but for some reason I didn't push the issue. I'm still all for clearer names, whatever people may agree on. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Callahan,Kevin (Sin City),Ava Lord need alot of work as they have little or no sources.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think some articles below that should be deleted, if you want to save or delete please give me your opinions.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Zera (comics)

Overt-Kill

Impact (Image Comics)

Ballistic (Image Comics)

Jason Wynn

I would say keep Wynn and Overt Kill, not too familiar with the others. I'm surprised you think Wynn is a minor character, then again I've seen some of your other work so maybe not.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again concerning whether the page in question should be named Wolverine (character) or Wolverine (comics). This has long been a contentious issue—the page has been moved back and forth several times, and has had several discussions at both Talk:Wolverine (character) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). The outcome will likely have repercussions throughout WikiProject Comics, especially in light of the result of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation.

There are also concerns regarding WP:CANVASSing for the discussion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The saga continues! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous editor posted a merger discussion template on Diana Prince. The main discussion post is at Talk:Wonder Woman#Merge?, there's an older discussion on the Diana talk page as well. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Merge redundant guideline material. Input from members of this WikiProject would be helpful. Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Make sure the weirdo who changes article names slightly, imports a copyvio article and then pushes to merge or delete the original gets that memo.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we require a valid reliable source to state that a superhero is Jewish? Mistery Spectre has added these categories to a few different character articles. He has added them to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch,[26][27] but with no source to confirm this, and their being Jewish is not mentioned at any point in the article. With Iceman, he does provide a source,[28] but I raised a concern that this source ([29]) is not at all authoritative and probably not reliable either, and suggested it would be better to find out what issue he was supposedly identified as Jewish. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say we need a reference to an issue identifying them as Jewish at the least. Also, in Iceman's particularly case: Though I know it's in common usage, I've never bought into the rule that "If one or more of your ancestors is Jewish, you are Jewish." I don't have any Jewish ancestors that I know of, but I can say with confidence that I certainly wouldn't accept people identifying me as Jewish just because I had a great-grandfather who was Jewish.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will only confuse the Jewish roots of Jewish religious beliefs, otherwise it shaped reductio ad absurdum, and we need to remove all national categories of articles about people of mixed origin. Should we open the debate as "if the father\mother is Chinese people, is it possible to call it Chinese"? Reductio ad absurdum in its purest form. Not to mention the fact that the category is clearly indicated "Fictional characters who are Jews or of Jewish descent." Mistery Spectre (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect - the category is "Jewish superheroes". The more important question is do they identify as Jews? If they do not, we should not be making the decision for them. 2601:D:B480:ED2:5411:31DC:6F6E:7CA7 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Here I am half Russian. That is, if I'm out in the open in plain text is not declared "I am a Russian," no one will be able to write about it, even in the presence of sources that one of my parents' Russian? this is nonsense. I do not know, as in English, or in Western culture, but I always thought that ethnicity can not be changed, or so it is possible to agree to the demand sources to race or gender. That is the source, where Kitty Pryde itself identifies himself as a woman, for example? Otherwise, we can not write about it?. Mistery Spectre (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is not an ethnicity or gender.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That is, you still do not understand what I am talking about nationality? I mean, I do you so stupid, I think that religious beliefs are passed from parents? :) Besides, I had already warned about the possible confusion of religious beliefs and nationality, every English is one word, with the category is intended for both cases. Mistery Spectre (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

People can be ethnically Jewish... Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that the category is intended to conflate the religion of Judaism with being ethnically Jewish. Indeed, we don't seem to categorize characters by ethnicity at all; note that there is no Category: Black superheroes, Category: Asian superheroes, Category: Hispanic superheroes, Category: Slav superheroes, etc.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that term "jew" - etnic and religion, not racial. In particular, the category of "fictional African American" or "fictitious Mexicans" we have. As for the "I do not see it because of nationality," I want to say "but I do not see that there is talk about religion." As you know, in the English language are synonymous, with this in reference to the specified category. Or are you still continue to argue, do not even understand the subject? Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't either. And I wouldn't apply the label to the articles being questioned here. But I think Mistery Spectre may have thought it was for the ethnicity, not religion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Do any stories mention the character specifically being Jewish? After all, these are fictional characters. They only exist in stories. They won't get Tay-Sachs disease unless a story says they do. Logic of the sort - if their parents are X they must also be X - doesn't apply to fictional characters, unless the story wants it to. Did you know Storm (Marvel Comics) has blue eyes, like all of her African tribe? --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand you correctly, if the parents character spanish, the fact that he himself was a spanish, you need a separate sourse, because "everything is possible in the story"? Really? About the fact that racial origin Storm is not obvious, even if it has the appearance africans, I say nothing, so surreal logic is beyond my comprehension. Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the challenge I am having with this. If the characters identify as Jewish in the comics - ever, at any point, in any story in the comics - I am perfectly fine with identifying them that way here. Until such a story is printed, this is original research as far as I am concerned. If there has been such a story, then we need to find out which issue addresses this. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again I ask you to understand that the term "Jew" is primarily talking about belonging to a nationality, and not just about Jewish religious beliefs? And also, do not you think that require a separate plain text sources on the Jewish ethnicity of the character, whose father is explicitly stated in the comics as a Jew, is the reductio ad absurdum and exaggerated bureaucracy? Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone understands that Jewish can refer to either an ethnicity or religious beliefs. It's not a nationality, that would be Israeli (or Israelite, depending on the era.) These two categories are intended only for characters who are affiliated with the religion, and not the ethnic group. The category pages should probably be edited to make this clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the voice of reason in this debate). Well, if the category "Jews superheroes" speaks only of nationality, then I will not object to its removal. Of course, except the first, where ethnicity is mentioned in the description of the category. Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, how about the source on Iceman? Do we consider adherents.com a reliable source for this purpose, especially when we don't have a note about the actual comics issue this information supposedly comes from? 2601:D:B480:ED2:A47F:59E:6622:E23C (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not. We need the story. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the above linked matter. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian Nottingham,Rapture (comics),Zera (comics) these are articles for deletion if you wanna delete for or against these articles be my guest. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The GCD has recently revamped their search engine. Most (if not all) of the templates and links that currently exist that link there will still work, however they could likely be made better. One that needs to be looked at is Template:Gcdb_imprint because Imprints have been deleted at the GCD. Mostly they have been replaced with Brands and Brand Groups. Character and Credit searches still have to be done as searches rather than pointing at a specific page, that's still in the future.

One new search is a Google-like search of (almost) everything. That's the main standard search now. So if you search for "Hulk" you will get all the appearances of any character called Hulk plus any series with the word hulk in them plus any synopsis where the word Hulk is used plus one publisher from Brazil because the notes on that publisher mention "Hulk". You can then (on the site or through the URL) narrow it down. The search is not as literal as it used to be too. "Wolverine Son Canada" will find the comic "Wolverine: Son of Canada" (where you used to have to include the colon and the "of" to make it work).

I'm not even sure how to find all the templates that link to the GCD. Bookcats (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is he a superhero, an antihero, or both? [30] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

He's been both. The antihero depiction is the original, and perhaps more prominent one, but certainly in his own series he's been portrayed as straight-up heroic for considerable stretches of time. To pick a more recent example, in the 2012 Defenders series he was definitely treated as a superhero.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I figured. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Which picture is better for the Gorgon (Inhuman) article? This one or this one? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The first image contains Gorgon in the corner of a cover, where he is not the main focus of the image. Per MOS:IMAGES, the image should be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic" and images where the subject in the image is "too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious" should not be used. The second image, is from Marvel.com [31], and clearly shows the subject of the article. I may be biased, since I uploaded the second image, but it is clearly more suitable. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the second image complete or has it been extracted from another image? If it is complete, I would go with the second image. Reason being, derivative images further infringe on copyrights. We should use the original image as the author released it when possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What if that second image is only part of an image? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed that Cyberface and Overlord (comics) be merged into Vicious Circle (comics) anyone who wishes to discuss this for or against please discuss at Talk:Vicious Circle (comics). Dwanyewest (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had resolved this(?) a couple of months ago, but Kurzon has resumed gutting the lead sections of character articles to a bare minimum.[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Was I wrong to think that the previous discussion led to a consensus that such changes are not necessarily for the better? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had resolved that Kurzon's less were too short, but still better than what they replaced. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that was your position, but that may be a generalized blanket statement regarding the result of the discussion, especially if the edits haven't been examined in detail. I would prefer to see more input from Takuy, TriiipleThreat, Argento Surfer, Doczilla, Kinfoll77, NukeofEarl on the results of the previous discussion, and whether we achieved any kind of consensus (and if not, can we reach one now). 68.57.233.34 (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"I know that was your position": it's telling that you would cast such aspersions when an examination of the discussion in question reveals nothing even remotely resembling your supposed "consensus". I do see an awful lot of you getting worked up about the "gutting" of cruft. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be that there was no consensus in the previous discussion (either way, to keep Kurzon's edits, or to undo them) as there was agreement with both approaches, so perhaps my recollection was inaccurate - you should be able to see from my initial question that I was uncertain. Thus, I started a new discussion here. I could say that you seem to get pretty worked up whenever anyone disagrees with you about anything, but your emotional states are not what I came here to discuss. As I look over your reactions in the previous discussion, I note that you were not fully satisfied with Kurzon's edits (your words, "quite drastic", "inadequate", "way too short", and "needs more out-of-universe stuff" to pick a few) and you tried to give him some advice, which he does not seem to have followed. What would be most helpful from you at this time would be something less along the lines of "well, I want to keep the baby but it is hard to get it out of the bathwater, so good riddance to all of it", and something more thoughtful along the lines of "well, I think this, this, and this which were removed from the lead of Captain America need to be reinserted, but this, this, and this are better off removed because of this reason". (He is also discussing this with Bastun at Talk:Captain America, by the way.) If you are willing to put a bit of work into that, I am more than willing to put full faith in you to get these lead sections in order and I will drop my complaint if Kurzon is willing to compromise with you. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So either I do the work of sorting through the cruft that obviously needs to go, or you declare the cruft gets to stay? Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid—Kurzon is well within his rights to do what he's doing. I see Bastun waging a war to keep the cruft, and when Kurzon calls his behaviour "lazy" (which it is), Bastun responds by calling that an "attack". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. Do you see anything he removed from the leads of any of those articles that is worth keeping? If so, would you care to identify it? Or are you content that there is nothing worth restoring? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not having you foist this gargantuan task on me—I have other tasks on my plate. If you see something worth keeping, then put it back in. Simply reverting Kurzon's good-faith edits as Bastun has done is agressive, counterproductive, and counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why the hostility? I'm just asking a question at this point. So you are unwilling to even look for one item that you would keep? That's not a big task. I am trying to work with you, because collaborating is part of the spirit of Wikipedia. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you're not too busy to look at them - [37] - geez, that's all I was ever saying, but I get a hostile tone from you instead. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why the hostility?: perhaps a reaction to repeated attacks on an editor's good-faith attempts at improving articles as "gutting"? Or your persistent personal comments directed at me? It would be "collaboration" if you focused on specific details of the edits you thought could be improved, rather than an attempt to build a "consensus" to stop Kurzon. I'm speaking as someone who a few years ago was a newby learning the ropes who got piled on by the aggressives in this Project who didn't like me fiddling with "their" articles. Only by sticking up against this aggression have I since managed to produce my eighteen Featured Articles (and another current FAC)—all done despite the hurdles this Project has set in the way. I won't have this Project tell yet another greenhorn to kindly fuck off. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If the chip on your shoulder is working for you, then no need to change it now. Happy editing. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"chip on your shoulder" is stunningly remarkable spin from an "editor" who has now wasted two—count 'em two—threads trying to incite a pile-on on another editor's work. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

getting rid of extraneous details is one thing, but he deleted magneto's entire character history and replaced it with his biased analysis of the character. You can improve an article without erasing the entire thing. DrBat (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So bring up the specific issues with him and try to improve the article. We're having such a conversation at Talk:Captain America now. The answer is not to mindlessly restore all the cruft and then try to drive away the editor with a Project Talkpage hatefest. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Kurzon is actually not unreasonable, you know. He was able to talk some things out on the Captain America talk page, and I have faith that he will accept Curly Turkey's edits to that article as a compromise. If you show you are willing to work with him, he will probably compromise with you too. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My big objection stylistically is how some of these changes treat the characters as living human beings, violating the requirement that we stress fictional nature in the openings. "character who" = wrong. "character that" = right. Along those lines, some are worded in a way that makes it sound like they are fictional within their fictional universes, and that is incorrect. They are fictional within our universe. That's why articles will say "a fictional character, a superhero that" instead of the simpler "a fictional superhero that". My bigger objection in terms of working together as part of Wikipedia is that no editor should charge through so many articles inserting changes that have inspired arguments. Settle the argument on a few select cases before imposing one's own preferences all over the place. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, this opens up a number of issues:

• Many of Kurzon's removals have eliminated such in-universe cruft as "Steve Rogers was purportedly assassinated in Captain America vol. 5, #25 (March 2007), although he was later revealed to be alive" from Captain America.
• Can you point out where the discussion took place to settle on "a fictional character, a superhero that"? Aside from being groan-inducingly bad writing, I fail to see how "a fictional superhero" could possibly be interpreted as implying the character is somehow not a fictional character.
• "character who" vs "character that": not only Hall-of-Shame–worthy hairsplitting, but following this inconsistent logic would require us to refer to characters as it rather than he or she, which is obviously unacceptable.

If Kurzon has made OR or PoV edits, they should be dealt with (I beleive he's been told about this before). I still maintain that his removal of reams of cruft is on balance beneficial. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A agree with Curly Turkey, "a fictional character, a superhero that" is appalling writing. "A fictional superhero" is perfectly clear. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest "a superhero" is sufficient as everybody knows superheroes are fictional. Referring to a character as "that" is also bad English, as "that" is for inanimate objects, not people, even fictional ones. I think the insistence on "a fictional character" and "that" is a pedantic over-reaction to the requirement to write from a "real world" perspective. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

His changes to Magneto also have a lot of original research and POV (one example being he talks about Claremont "softening" Magneto's character and writes "Magneto is grandiose, fond of great displays of power and spectacular acts of terrorism" before including Morrison's quote about how he's a "mad old terrorist twat") . --DrBat (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Curley Turkey, Doczilla, do either of you have a link to a Wikipedia policy page supporting your view of how the word "that" is used? I've searched through a half dozen pages now and can't find anything that says either way.

I don't see the problem with "a fictional character, a superhero that". It's a standard form in writing: start with the general, add comma, and then proceed to the specific. It's a natural way to introduce a general reader to a topic they're not necessarily familiar with. And you guys do realize that Kurzon himself uses this form in some of the edits linked at the top of this thread, right?

In general, I think Kurzon's removals all have problems which make them unusable as is. For instance, in Emma Frost he removed all reference to her being a villain, which is unquestionably her most well-known depiction. Granted, the previous version was too in-universe, even campy ("Frost has evolved from one of the X-Men's most dangerous foes to one of its most central members and leaders."), but that's still a part of the character that needs to be mentioned in the lead. I also agree that his edits lean towards an in-universe focus; he uses very specific details on the in-universe stuff, while replacing all out-of-universe details with generic statements like "The character has made frequent appearances in X-Men books since their beginning, as well as in a number of television, movie, and videogame adaptations." You get the impression that he used the same template for every article's first paragraph and then just filled in the blank with the character's name.--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Since "a fictional superhero" means "a fictional character, a superhero", what advantage does the latter form have? We don't see, for example, "Isaac Newton was a person, a scientist who". Nobody would tolerate such writing—it has poor flow, it's unnatural, and it insults the intelligence. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally have no preference between "a fictional character, a superhero" and "a fictional superhero" except when it says something like "a fictional superhero in the Marvel Universe." Within the Marvel Universe, the character is not fictional. The difference between "who" and "that" is not splitting hairs. That distinction goes to the heart of how we're supposed to write about fictional characters. "Who" is for people and "that" is for things. In the lead, even more than with the rest of the article, we're supposed to avoid treating them as living human beings. They aren't people. You really can do that without using the ridiculously looking pronoun it, mainly by saying "the character" or the character's name. Kurzon has been turning these articles into trimmed down, in-universe cruft. If you cut only the meat off a steak, you're left with something even fattier than before in terms of overall content. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So to be clear: you are opposed to using "he" or "she" to refer to fictional characters? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Characters are (usually) people, not things. They are humans with gender who speak and act, not inanimate objects. Using who, he, his, and so on are completely appropriate. It's also a common usage - people talk about TV and movie characters with 'he' and 'she' all the time. Repeatedly avoiding pronouns in a lead to avoid calling a character it will also produce some very clunky, awkward sounding leads. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

More accurately, characters are constructs. They cannot be observed or interacted with except in the format presented by the writer. Since they are constructs, not people, they are definitely not "who's", nor do they have gender or any other characteristic. They do not eat, sleep, breathe or talk, or have any legal rights, because they exist only in the minds of their creators, and then collectively within the minds of the consumers. Now, within the fictional worlds that they inhabit, they do everything that people do and more, so referring to a character in-universe as "he" or "she" is perfectly valid and is commonplace. Usually when people refer to what a character is or does, they are referring to that character within the bounds of its fictional universe. We don't refer to a fictional man or woman as an "it" because we tend to identify with characters are if they were people, but they are actually things. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried some google searches to find out if there's a consensus on fictional characters being whos or whats outside of wikipedia, but the vagueness of the words return very useless results, and the ones which looked promising were all written as being 'in universe' - they didn't talk about the idea of Maria, they just said what she did. In hopes of avoiding a long discussion on this, let me ask this - is anyone out there so adamantly opposed to referring to James Bond as a 'he' in out-of-universe material that you'll take the time to go fix his/its article? And do we really want to cater to the hypothetical wiki reader who can't figure out from context that Superman isn't a real person? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any descriptive work on the English language that indicates the usage of "he", "she", or "who" is in any way restricted to non-fictional figures, nor am I aware of any style guide that makes such a recommendation. Such a suggestion is certainly at odds with common usage, both formal and informal. If such an approach is to be adopted on Wikipedia, it will require a consensus from the greater community, which it currently doesn't have. If anyone thinks it's at all likely to gain such a consensus, then please propose it formally via the proper channels. Personally, I think it'll go nowhere but the Hall of Lame. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Kurzon's edits were well intended and mostly well executed. There are a few places where he took out too much (I think being parapalegic is worth mentioning in Prof X's lead, for example), but I think most of these should be corrected manually on a case-by-case basis. I don't see any that should be outright undone. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That could be a worthy subject of an RFC, even a wide-ranging one if necessary. It might be a good idea to have one. The way I write about the character depends on whether we are describing the plot or not. For example, if I am describing James Bond in action, I might write "In the first scene of the movie, Bond sneaks into the plane and he knocks the guard unconscious" or something like that – in that case, personal pronouns and other language flow naturally to describe him as a fictional person within the context of the plot. But if I were writing out-of-universe and referring to the character as the fictional construct that he is in the real world, I would say something like "The character has appeared in dozens of movies and novels" rather than saying "He has appeared" (I would never call a character "it" unless the character is genderless and referred to that way in the stories). I suppose there is no mandate to write one way or another, but to me it makes sense to refer to a non-person as a non-person, and I know I am not alone in that opinion; I just don't know whether I am outnumbered, which is why I think an RFC might not be a bad idea to open a wider conversation and seek an outcome. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not part of this project, so I'm not clear on what exactly the lenience is given in regards to trivia, but this article appears to go off the deep end in non-notable cruft. I recently tried to clean up the extended list of powers, being that they were all redundant to the already-present statement of "all of them", but was immediately reverted -- in fact, a later editor eventually duplicated the list within the article proper.

I have no intention of becoming a regular editor of Wikipedia, and won't be making an effort to stay involved with this article, so I thought it would be a good idea to bring the issue to the notice of the WikiProject.192.249.47.186 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that article had already been deleted, as the "One-Above-All", and someone created it again with this different name, to avoid detection. This one will surely be deleted soon. Cambalachero (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed Marvel Tails be merged into Spider-Ham. If you have an opinion, for or against, please post it here. Thank you. Spidey104 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone else make a comment? We only have one (besides my original statement) so far. Thank you! Spidey104 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Some user TheIsland123 claiming to blocked my user page without user's grade. That suspected user 24.92.149.98 was edits with no proper referencing to notable, reliable source, ultimately unusable in this article Power Ring's story was no good with no comics source and again. There is another Owlman's story is not clarify, Anti-Monitor's story has no comics source, and this Ultraman's story is not proper with clarify. I'm asking to watch the user TheIsland123 and 24.92.149.98 its edits good and proper story.--Bsuwogltfam (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

TheIsland123 also just planted a similar vandalism accusation on the talk page of an editor who hasn't even made any edits to Wikipedia in over seven years. I'm going to post a warning on his talk page. If he keeps it up, we can report him as a WP:Vandalism-only account.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Was Beyonder to The Beyonder (Marvel comics) a good move? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a clear case of unnecessary disambiguation. Additionally, articles on characters are not supposed to have articles in their title, e.g. we place the Joker's article at Joker (comics), not The Joker. Just to update anyone reading this thread, the article has since been moved again to The Beyonder (comics) (which, while an improvement over the previous title, is still inappropriate for the same reasons).--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the disambiguation is unnecessary. I only moved it to The Beyonder (comics) to improve the disambiguation of the title, because moving it back to Beyonder or The Beyonder at this point would take a requested move, and I figured it was better to wait on the outcome of this discussion before making a formal move request. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Should it be moved back, or do we need a discussion? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone be able to make a judicious trim to this plot dump added within the last week or so? [38] 68.57.233.34 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to this post, I took a look at the article. I think I was able to trim a pretty good amount.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NukeofEarl. Would you be able to take another look at this one? [39] 68.57.233.34 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The bloat continues. [40] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"? that you may be interested in. 11:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes/hands over at List of films based on Dark Horse Comics properties? We've got a two editor situation, the other editor being an IP who repeatedly adds films that do not, in my judgment, match the purpose of the list (and who has thus far refused to engage in discussion of edits in any form.) It would be handy to have more than two editors on this, so that consensus can be reached. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted his edits there and on the Dark Horse films template. Not sure what else I can do right now, since you've already posted on the talk page and directed the editor to the talk page both in your edit summaries and on his talk page. On a side note, the editor similarly added films not based on comic book properties to List of films based on Marvel Comics and List of films based on DC Comics, and those edits were immediately reverted. Not sure why he's chosen to be more stubborn with this particular article. Clearly he's a newbie editor, but that doesn't explain his refusal to communicate.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you or anyone else wants to voice comment on other items on the talk page (such as the suggested move of the page), I encourage it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bucko

I've created a new article on graphic novel Bucko.

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Bucko.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of getting as much input as possible, I thought I'd post notice here that I have proposed that List of X-Men enemy teams be merged. The discussion for this proposal is at Talk:List of X-Men enemies#Merge proposal.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Myself and David A are currently having a dispute on how to title categories in the Marvel Cosmic template. Currently we are the only ones involved in the discussion, so having other opinions would be helpful. The discussion can be found here. --Spidey104 19:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this has come up before - maybe I even brought it up - but can anyone put an end to this edit war? Maybe we need a superhero FAQ or something?  ;) 68.57.233.34 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

He's strong because he is constantly packing around a bunch of Adamantium, but he isn't superhuman strong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the consensus from the previous discussion is that he does not have superhuman strength. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, thanks, I did remember seeing that before. I have reverted and referred to this current discussion. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear lord, not this again. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be declared that he doesn't possess superhuman strength when the article is rife with cited examples of the character performing superhuman feats of strength, all of which are part of mainstream Marvel continuity.

It doesn't matter what anybody's opinion is. Do Reliable Sources say he has superhuman strength? No? Then, tant pis, it stays out. Yes? Then it goes in, even if everyone here disagrees. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for Chester Brown's graphic novel I Never Liked You (1994) for Featured Article. Please take part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Never Liked You/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Don Thompson in the Comics Buyers Guide wrote a negative review (maybe more than one) of Chester Brown's Yummy Fur circa 1989–1990. Does anyone here have issues from around that time? I'd love to use it as a source. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to understand what this user is saying, but it is pretty clear that he is trying to insult me and is not being very nice on this thread on my talk page. I previously encountered Mistery Spectre a few months ago edit warring over the Jewish identity of a few superheroes and started the now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 48#Jewish superheroes, which, I thought, appeared to have resulted in a compromise.

Apparently there is still an issue regarding Iceman, based on edits like this. I thought it was pretty clear, based on the end of the previous "Jewish superheroes" thread, but I will bring it here for discussion rather than continue something unproductive on my talk page.

Can adherents.com be used as a reliable source to determine that Iceman is Jewish, or do we need a citation to an actual story in the comics? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me guess, you again can not (or pretend that you can not) distinguish the Jewish roots of the Jewish religion? Besides which again going to swing any sources with any mention except direct quotes from the comics? But, I like what you're asking, "Could this be the source" rather than raze mentor is arguing that "it is not the source." On the other hand, as I understand, Irish roots do not require any sources, or to confirm that he was a Catholic? Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, baby - [41], [42], [43], google. Now, I hope I can calmly affix categories with sources, not afraid to get on the crazy anti-Semites bureaucrats. Although, wait, if I have to put the category of "Englishman" or "Irish" from me will not require a whole heap of sources that character Anglican, Catholic and devoted to this multivolume work at Harvard? Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's better. The panel that matters is from Iceman #1, where he says "My dad's Irish-Catholic, my mom's Jewish. I was the only kid in Hebrew school who got off for St. Patrick's Day! That was anotehr joke, by the way." Now, which part was he joking about, the "extra" day off of school, or the whole thing? We don't know, and it was probably never addressed again. I don't know of any other story that addresses his ethnic background, and I didn't see anything else in any of those other links, so I guess this is the only one we have to go with. Unless there is serious objection otherwise, I will remove the adherents.com link and switch it to just a citation to the comic. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So my words about anti-Semitism were true, once even came across a direct source of such extensive efforts to find in them something wrong. Well, okay, I'll tear down all the national category of other articles if it upominyaetsya in the works no more than "I am a Jew," or "I am a Frenchman." Maybe they all generally joking. where the source of information on the source of information? Those are the rules. And nothing that I did not lead the scientific work of Doctor of Science for 1000 pages? Seriously, it's idiotic. Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be so blunt, Mistery Spectre, but I have a hard time making any sense out of your posts. The grammar is incoherent and the references to antisemitism are quite inexplicable.

Anyway, I agree with 129.33.19.254 that that panel from Iceman #1 is much too ambiguous to use as a basis. Though it might be clearer in context - does anyone here have that issue to refer to?--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, MS is primarily a Russian spearker. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote in question only really indicates (1) that he had a Jewish mother, which is good evidence, but not sufficient to qualify as proof, and (2) that he went to as Hebrew school. Unfortunately, I know in the city I live in, I think the majority of some of the students in the Catholic schools here aren't Catholic, and the same is true of some of the other religious primary and secondary schools. It is possible, maybe not likely, but possible, that his parents chose to send him to a Jewish school because it was maybe the best school they could get him into, not necessarily because the school reflected his own beliefs. So neither of those would in and of themselves necessarily be considered sufficient to indicate that Iceman himself could be described as an adherent of the Jewish religion. Also, unfortunately, the ambiguity of his statement that "it" was a joke or implicity a lie, without identifying what "it" was, compounds the problem, and ultimately weakens the case. By saying this I am not saying that there isn't a very good chance that the creators in question made him say those things as indicators that he was Jewish, that might well have been the reason. But the evidence we have, and it's ambiguity, isn't quite sufficient for us to be able to say here that he conclusively is an adherent of Judaism. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying he's an adherent of Judaism, I see them saying he's Jewish, which is a cultural identity that passes along the maternal line. If one's mother is recognized as Jewish, then one is recognized as Jewish. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This comment from Argento Surferin the previous discussion comes to mind: "I think everyone understands that Jewish can refer to either an ethnicity or religious beliefs. It's not a nationality, that would be Israeli (or Israelite, depending on the era.) These two categories are intended only for characters who are affiliated with the religion, and not the ethnic group. The category pages should probably be edited to make this clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)" It would probably be best to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism regarding the intended usage of the category, based on the possibly inaccurate assumption that they were the ones who created it and do the most work to maintain such categories. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, actually. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

He attended "Hebrew school" ; in the US, that term is most commonly used not as the equivalent of "Catholic school" (i.e., a full replacement for public secular education) but as the equivalent of "Sunday school" (religion-specific training that supplement other education), so it seems he was being raised in the religion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Or at least being educated in it. However, not intending to come across as too lawyerlike (although I am certain I will do so) I have heard of several children of parents of disparate faiths who have, as a compromise between the parents, attended "religious education" of the faiths of both parents, with the intention of the childen deciding on their own as an adult. The fact that the character mentions attending one school in what is fairly clearly a joke-like comment of some sort does not necessarily mean that it was the only one he attended, or that he necessarily still holds to the beliefs of that schooling. And once again allow me to apologize for coming across as to obsessed with details in this.

As someone who is not particularly active in the comics articles, I think one thing that a more active editor definitely could do is maybe contact one of the creators involved, particularly the writer of the story in question, and ask them whether they might be willing to post on their blog or elsewhere a clear statement regarding what they intended the comment in question to mean. With such a clear statement, I am fairly sure that would allow listing with at least a "according to (creator)" provision. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea too, which would settle the matter - anyone know of J.M. DeMatteis does any blogging like that? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

His Creation Point blog might have something on it, I don't know. Sorry I didn't check to see who the writer was before posting my last comment. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant. Unless you can find Wikipedia:Reliable sources writing about Iceman's religion making an actual difference, we shouldn't either. We can't write everything about a character just because a comic writer said as much in an offhand line. I would imagine we could find a line that says that the character votes for Republicans or Democrats, prefers Blondes or Brunettes or Redheads, prefers Chinese food or Mexican, has a favorite color of green or red or blue, drives a Ford or a Toyota ... none of this matters, it's not worth the space in the article that writing about it would take. Has there been a story where either his religion or his ethnic heritage is a major plot point? Has there been an article by someone writing about Iceman where they go in depth about his ethnicity or religion? If not, we shouldn't write about it. (Note that this doesn't mean trivia is always irrelevant - for example, that Superman prefers women with the initials LL has been mentioned multiple times in stories about him, so is worth a sentence in that article.) --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Given what Argento Surfer says above, it might be useful if someone were to get a good Russian speaker to translate some of what has been said here for the person who raised the original question. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:DC Comics' shared universe films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• keep Clearly a topic of interest. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Members of this project might be interested in Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Requested moves. BOZ (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it time for a Featured Article Review (and possible delisting) of the Featured Article, Batman? Please join the discussion here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A team-up is not a partnership. Batman has teamed up with just about every DC hero. Zatanna is not and has not been his partner. I'm not going to re-revert someone who feels the revision comment should ask me, "Have you followed the comics at all?" Revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&oldid=prev&diff=636716255 Outside input there would be greatly appreciated. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't read the Batman comics, so I can't offer any input on the dispute. It may be best to just let this one go, since it's just a single infobox listing. At any rate, I hope you won't let yourself get too upset by the "Have you followed the comics" comment, which was probably made without any thought, much less malicious intent. I myself have made even more ludicrously ignorant comments without thinking.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Karn (Marvel comics) should probably be merged somewhere, but I have no idea where. Help me out on this one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm firmly of the opinion that articles with no claim to notability and no useful content should be deleted, not merged. But if you really want to merge it, the traditional target is List of Marvel Comics characters: K.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that character's even notable enough for the list. Maybe a redirect to Spider-Verse or to the relevant plot section of Superior Spider-Man. Also, both articles have lots of "Earth #xxx" references. Do the comics reference these numbers, or are they all fan made? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the Spider-Verse comics, but the Spider-Woman installments, at least, are very meticulous about identifying the Earth number for each universe.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the article should probably be merged to List of Marvel Comics characters: K, rather than being deleted. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Per this IP edit there is a claim that she can be called bisexual, but it is not clear from the content of the article that this is the case. 50.141.204.194 (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not unless you have a reliable source stating so or she self-identifies as bisexual. Say if she was in a same-sex relationship: she could be bisexual, pansexual, gay for a period of time, who knows. There's a whole spectrum of sexuality and some say its not a constant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I will revert and sent them a link to this discussion. 2601:D:B482:3970:5C05:10D6:FE8B:5482 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerning infoboxes, I think it would be appropriate to add links for all sub-headers and not only 'Publisher,' 'First appearance,' and 'Created by.' For instance, link 'Alter ego' to its same-named article or category, 'Notable aliases' to pseudonym, and 'Abilities' to List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction. I bring this here rather than diving in myself because I am not certain how many templates are used within this project (Template:Superherobox and Template:Infobox comics character being two of them.) Thoughts? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A globally banned Wikia troll calling himself "BeyonderGod" and various other Wikia handles, who has a fanatic obsession with the Beyonder character, and has used extreme levels of abuse and harrassment outside of Wikipedia in his agenda to market it everywhere, keeps coming to the Wikipedia article of his namesake to insert false contradicted claims that the character is absolutely omnipotent and can perform any feat without effort.

Thus far he has used the following guises here at Wikipedia to distort the article with misinformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BeyonderGod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OmniverseGod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.147.223.6

As I am getting tired of repeatedly cleaning up from his vandalism, I would greatly appreciate some help and advise. Thanks. David A (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, I have encountered this editor "BeyonderGod" previously in the Wikia community, where he got himself permanently globally blocked after 3 months of constant relentless completely unreasonable trolling, edit-warring, harrassment, long extremely vulgar homophobic slur insult tirades, sockpuppetry (HagoromoOtsutsuki, OfficialRikudouSennin, likely others), widespread lying plagiarism of a previously created community (the Outskirts Battle Dome), etcetera, and he has a massive fixation for both the character Beyonder and the term Omniverse, and almost consistently calls himself an almighty God who lives in heaven in his various handles. Most of his more severe stuff, including a written guide in how to successfully troll people, was deleted by Wikia staff, but here is an example of his usual fare towards my other handle name: http://definithing.com/100284/antvasima/ To me, it is fairly obvious that all of these handles seem to be the same person, but he hasn't yet performed his usual infamous behaviour here, beyond the misinformation-mongering, creating nonsense articles or writing minor threats. David A (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, David A. Have you tried WP:SPI for cases like this? 50.141.204.194 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but since he didn't exactly do vandalism, but rather repeated insertion of false extremely slanted information, it didn't matter that they all seem to be the same person. It is good if the Wikipedia comics community is aware of him however, as he was the by far worst and most fanatic troll that I have ever encountered in the Wikia communities. David A (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

He now openly irrationally edit-wars with me and another user reverting his slanted badly spelled misinformation on 3 different pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BeyonderGod David A (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to provide more elaborate information about the background to this:

"BeyonderGod"/"HagoromoOtsutsuki"/"OfficialRikudouSennin"/likely otherswas first banned from several wikis that he has participated on for systematic multi-wiki trolling vandalism, harrassment, and continuously insulting unreasonability.

He was permanently globally blocked by wikia staff for several months of the above across several wikis, as well as plagiarising the original Outskirts Battle Dome wiki name and widespread systematic lying about his ownership across several communities (his wiki was deleted when the real owners complained), long disgusting homophobic slur texts inserted as insults on other people's user pages, singlehandedly edit-warring to extremes with entire wikia communities, and a written guide in how to successfully troll people, and another about the people who get emotionally hurt and/or exhausted from his absolutely relentless neverending trolling, whom he consistently call "butthurt", naming me by name.

In addition, he has already created various power listing wikis, and they continuously kept a very lacklustre quality with lots of apparently deliberate inaccurate information strictly to troll fans of different franchises.

After his global block, he has continued to spam several communities, including ComicVine, Spacebattles, Killermovies, and even Deviantart. Constantly spamming about the Beyonder and systematically slamming other franchises to cause hurt feelings for their fans over a few thousands of separate posts.

List of his trolling and harrassment on the Powerlisting wiki alone, back in mid-September, with lots more to follow in the 3 months since: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Antvasima#List_of_BeyonderGod.27s_trolling

He admits to doing lots of trolling vandalism to "get rid of competition": http://factpile.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:BeyonderGod/Admin_ship

His usual trolling homophobic slur insults, and comments about me being a "butthurt" systematic victim of his trolling (due to my severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is extremely taxing for me in the long run): http://definithing.com/antvasima/ https://imgflip.com/i/dio9g

Here he ignores the global Wikia ban with several of his school network's auto-generated ip addresses to systematically troll and harrass me again: http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.230.108 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.5.190 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.228.91 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.228.85 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.4.140 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.50.191.153 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.230.115 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.230.114

He has also created various nonsense-pages on Wikipedia, which were deleted.

Given all of the above, I would greatly appreciate if some members of the Anime and Manga Wikipedia community could please attempt to mediate on this page, as I am very mentally exhausted from having to constantly deal with him for over 5 months, and do not wish for this to drag on for another half a year or more.

To put a stop to this, in an attempt to compromise, I have attempted to accommodate him on the Beyonder article by letting his last edit stand with simply attempting to fix the grammatical structure.

However, there is a conflict remaining on thw following anime-related talk page. I would greatly appreciate if somebody fair-minded, reasonable, and objective could step in and find a final solutoon to the problem, perhaps preferably an administrator. Since he objects to the term "omnipotent", perhaps it could simply be removed from being used in the article, and let the rest stand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Tenchi_Muyo!_characters

Thank you very much for any help to resolve this matter. David A (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I know its a faniste but it seems to have legit interviews with DC comic book writers [44] so can it be used as a source? Dwanyewest (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, with a caveat of what it's being used to source. Something minor that provides additional context would be ok, but something major that would add significantly to an article should theoretically be covered by a more reliable source. For instance, a writer may say what inspired a story element on a smaller fansite, but a company's not going to announce a new book on one. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, Category:Villains with own comic book title was created a few months ago. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly removed[45] "Bad girl art" and "Good girl art" as comics genres.

The articles, Bad girl art and Good girl art, have a lot of OR and/or synth. I think if these are to be restored as "genres," there needs to be more sources discussing them as genres.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an neutral notice for interested editors re: Murray Boltinoff. Should the article include cited mentions of Boltinoff having a faulty memory? I do not dispute the citations themselves or their reliability. I wonder about the necessity of mentioning the problem itself. Poor memory is a common occurrence. Is it of encyclopedic note? Would we make note of someone being bald or wearing glasses? It seems rather close to WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Please comment at Talk:Murray Boltinoff. Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk of commenting on whether or not it should be Hal Jordan or Green Lantern in the infobox24.38.188.96 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Silent Hill (comics) has a reception section where Atop The Fourth Wall is cited as a reference. I haven't spent a lot of time with the comics section of Wikipedia, but I'm guessing he wouldn't be considered a valid review source. It also says that it's been "widely panned", but provides no evidence except for two reviews, and it's also written in a way that mentions the reviews but looks like POV. I would have gotten rid of it, but I thought I'd check here first. I'm mainly curious about the Atop the Fourth Wall as a source thing. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to view ATFW from work (yay for filters!), but a couple quick Google searches for 'Silent Hill Scott Cieincin reivews' returned ATFW coverage as the top results. Absent anything else, it should be usable as a source in a reception section. Those books are too old to be on comicbookroundup.com (a review aggrigator), but that site seems to suggest the ones by Tom Waltz were well received but not "acclaimed". The section (whole page really) could certainly use a rewrite. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mainly was curious because Linkara (the person behind Atop the Fourth Wall) is in the same boat as people like The Nostalgia Critic, Spoony and Angry Video Game Nerd, and I've seen people say not to use them as sources (which I agree with, since, with rare "so bad its good" exceptions, they focus on "snark" and negative reviews for the sake of laughs). Also, in the music section there's a rule that says, "A section should be dedicated to an overview of the critical reception of the album, as documented by reliable secondary sources such as reviews, books, or reputable articles that discuss the album" and "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Linkara writes, produces and edits his own videos with no editorial oversight.

Linkara is pretty much the most popular internet personality who focuses on comics (mostly thanks to his association with The Nostalgia Critic and Spoony), and he seems to be especially popular with people who don't regularly read comics, so most of his reviews will get top hits on Google, unless it's about something that's really well known, but I don't think he'll ever meet the standards to be considered as a professional reviewer. I'd also like to add that it's pretty much the only instance of a link to Linkara's site on Wikipedia, and that it was added pretty recently by an anonymous editor with no other edits.SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! With that in mind, it does seem like the article would be better off without a reception section until better sources can be found. I'll remove it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, The Nostalgia Critic, Angry Video Game Nerd, and Atop the Fourth Wall are no more review programs than Tool Time is a home improvement program. In many cases, they even have a statement to the extent of "This is a comedy show, not a review program" right on their website, not that that stops the occasional editor from trying to add them to articles as a professional review source.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The previous sections were inappropriate, and I apologise. Again, as per Wikipedia praxis, I would like to request help with outside conflict resolution from the related Wikiproject on the following Talk page, as discussion did not reach a solution. My apologies for being a bother, but help to find a consensus would be very appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beyonder David A (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the single issue editor in question keeps making badly spelled and misleading edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonder&curid=31514&diff=639781784&oldid=638648338 David A (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about the editor's latest change. Outisde input to reach a consensus would be very appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Initially, the Lady Liberators were a single-issue joke in The Avengers. Basically, the Enchantress pretends to be a female liberator, and creates a team of female superheroes with mind-manipulation stuff (all so that Roy Thomas could voice his rejection of feminism, saying through Goliath that "You birds finally learned your lesson about that women's lib bull!"). If it had been just that, probably it wouldn't deserve an article; but the team was recreated some years ago at the Hulk comic book (this time, as an actual superhero team, even if without their own comic book).

However, I have noticed that the members of that initial team (Medusa, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, and Wasp) all mention the Lady Liberators in their "Team affiliations" entry of the superhero infobox. I have no problem with listing it for the members of the current team since its recreation, but should we list it for the characters who have only been part of it during that joke issue? Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If it had actually been a joke issue, like a chapter of "What the-?" or a Spider-Ham title, I'd agree with you. But no, I don't think your personal view of the issue in question is a valid reason not to include those characters on the team roster. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The article for the Columbia Comics character The Face is extremely short and underdeveloped and there is so much information missing from the article, the character's publication history and fictional character biography are severely underdeveloped and more information should be added to them. Also it does not have enough citations that show the article's notability, if anyone is able to work on these issues (I have contributed to some portions of the article) we can bring this article up top its full potential.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A bigger issue is that a good portion of the article was subjective commentary blatantly plagiarized from The Face's article on Comic Vine. I went ahead and fixed that. For the moment I've left in the Alex Ross quote sourced to the Comic Vine article, but since Comic Vine is a wiki, isn't it an unreliable source? I ran a selection of the quote through GoodSearch, and the only results are the Wikipedia and Comic Vine articles, so that is more than a bit suspect.

As far as getting more sources, the obvious place to do research is Alter Ego. That said, I tried a search of the Twomorrows site and came up with no useful results, so apparently the mag has yet to do an article specifically dedicated to The Face. That doesn't rule out there being a useful reference somewhere in their back issues, though.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone ever notice that the personality of most comics characters is at best weakly discussed in most articles? Granted, with some of the older characters, who have been through multiple writers and variations, there might not be that much by way of consistent character to discuss, but it also seems to at least me anyway that just describing what characters in various stories do without providing the sometimes personality-based rationales for their actions makes it harder to follow and understand the character history in at least some cases. Maybe the standard "powers and abilities" section could be expanded a little to cover any particularly notable and unique personality characteristics of the characters? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that would open a door to a lot of subjectivem, controversial, and excessive info. If you come across an action in a FCB that would be more clear with the addition of a personality-based rationale, I suggest just adding it to that part of the FCB. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, personality-based statements would fit in the FCB or equivalent section much better than anywhere else. Even there it should rarely be needed, since character's personalities are pretty much defined by their actions and motives. As an example, here's a selection from Roderick Kingsley: "A thug named George Hill reports to Kingsley that he has stumbled upon the secret lair of Norman Osborn, the Green Goblin, in hopes of earning a reward. Instead Kingsley kills him to make sure that no one else gets wind of the discovery." It would be redundant to add "Kingsley does this because he is ruthless and extremely careful", because those traits should be obvious from his already stated actions and motive.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems there's some confusion about what this character's first appearance is. One part of the article Pitt (comics) says it's Youngblood #4; another says Pitt #1; still another, Spawn #1. And before I edited it, the article also cited an issue of Gen 13 as Pitt's first appearance. I don't know enough about Pitt to say which of these is his true first appearance (except that the issue of Gen 13 is clearly wrong, since it was published years after Pitt got his own series), so can someone edit this article to make it consistent on the matter?--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ComicVine actually lists the character's first appearance as Wizard Magazine #16! [46] However, they also confirm his appearances in Pitt #1 (January 1993) and Youngblood #4 (February 1993). Since it appears that Pitt #1 came first, I would say that's his first appearance. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me out with a dead Newsarama link? This citation in the Jupiter's Legacy article is dead, and I can't find a replacement to support the material in question, which is important. I tried using the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine, and although I think I used it correctly, I couldn't find an archived link. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not find the link on Wayback Machine either. It looks like although the author is still a contributor on Newsrama, several of his other articles are no longer active on Newsrama either. You may wish to contact the author and see if there is an archive of his contributions to the site's content. Luminum (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up that a user is going through several Marvel comics pages and removing third party sources from the intros. They usually involve removing appearances of the subjects in third party lists of "Best" characters, etc. (such as IGN, Wizard (magazine), and Comic Book Resources) with the argument being that a "geek journalist's opinion" is either "not relevant" or "not insightful". I've reached out on the talk page for one of the recent changes (Cyclops (comics)) to see if the issue of WP:Notability and WP:INUNIVERSE can be reached with this editor, but I've also been informed that this is a reoccurring issue on other pages such as Galactus, Charles Xavier, and Magneto (comics). Keep your eyes peeled if you see similar edits and try to reach out to the editor. If it continues to be a problem, or edit warring begins again, we may need to escalate it appropriately.Luminum (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

He has also tried to simplify the introduction text on the Galactus article, while removing a reference. David A (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

He's at it again? It's also been Iron Man, Captain America, Emma Frost, Wolverine (character), and possibly others. 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that he has been blocked twice before for edit warring, so it may take him a lot to learn. 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When challenged on how short his lead sections are, this is his response. 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, based on his comments about notability [47], the editor clearly does not understand what constitutes WP:Notability and likely has not taken the time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia editing policies. If this continues, I would recommend escalating it to the 3RR Notice Board.Luminum (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I also just restored the lead to Emma Frost, along with its relevant sources. I left an edit summary note for editors to review WP:Notability and WP:Lead. Let's hope they do. Luminum (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Luminum. For the sake of reference, this was previously discussed in July of last year and then again in September, with no apparent resolution but lots of complaining. The cuts include these (some have been undone, but he has returned to most of them to make the big chops multiple times): [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could check out this page for tips on how to deal with it. David A (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point, we have two reverts on the Emma Frost lead with no response on the points in question, despite outreach to the editor. If it passes a third, I recommend taking it to the 3RR noticeboard.Luminum (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after reading through the previous instances of this sort of editing, and thinking further about WP:Lead, I've decided to reinstate the later lead write up created by Kurzon (with a slight addition of the out of universe characterization of the character from introduction to present in broad strokes: introduced as a villain and later added as a reformed protagonist). I moved the relevant notability sources to where they would ideally be in a good article: a reception section. As a suggestion, the citations about character popularity lists should be kept because they maintain WP:Notability, but it is probably unnecessary to list them out as they were in the leads. If they simply demonstrate character popularity, then I suggest that they should exist as citations tagged onto a statement about the character's popularity. For example, on Emma Frost, I wrote "Emma Frost is one of Marvel and the comic industry's most popular characters." and cited the popularity lists from various third party publications. Multiple citations (within reason) also go toward to substantiating popularity as more than just the character making a third party's list one time. I will likely end up doing this to Cyclops (comics) as well.

In Emma's case, I used her appearance in a "Top Sexy" list to support a subsection about her appearances and place in discussions about sexuality in comics, specifically depictions of women's sexuality and sexualization in comics. It supports other sources about the defining/recognized characteristics of the subject. This also a bit easier for this subject, because Emma Frost appears rather frequently and naturally in third party publications analyzing sexualization of women in the medium, and those sources and issues have been added to the article.

All of this to say that I was able to find what I think is a more constructive way to integrate the limited lead for its clarity, but maintain the third party sources in a more appropriate location. I disagree with Kurzon's tendency to hack and slash rather than integrate appropriate Notability sources (sources are usable, have purpose, and need not be found again just because Kurzon has the self-stated predilection to "burn to the ground and start again") and most especially disagree with their unwillingness to collaborate with other project members. It's clear that though Kurzon's edits are generally in good faith, the editor incorrectly cites Wiki policies, which leads me to believe there's a gap in understanding while making those good faith edits, and the editor's unwillingness to respond to those concerns with other editors doesn't help. Ultimately, I find it more productive to integrate it on my own with my understanding of Wiki policy, maintaining the positive aspects of Kurzon's edits and ensuring other Wiki policies aren't violated.

If you notice, however, that the editor has changed a comprehensive and generally good lead simply to make it more concise, and you cannot reach a conclusion with the editor, still consider looking to notice boards for ways to address the issue. As far as I am now concerned with Emma Frost, this is not the case (the lead wasn't great to begin with and revisions to the article have been needed for a long while). A change like this on an article lead like Batman, however, would be concerning. Hopefully we will not see that.Luminum (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Luminum and Tenebrae! 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of a controversy over recent repetitive deletions of references at the Galactus article. I would appreciate if other, more experienced editors could visit the Talk page to contribute with their take on the problem. Thank you. David A (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, a user is removing information about Lee and Kirby's difference of opinion on Galactus' later appearances that's sourced by The Kirby Collector from TwoMorrows. He's claiming the source is biased, and that Wikipedia shouldn't reflect opinions. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:LinkSearch/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/ shows a lot of links which have died. http://www.ign.com/top/comic-book-villains/ links to the same dead pages so I don't know whether it's temporary or permanent, but it appears from https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/1.html that the links may have been dead for a long time. The pages can currently be found at http://www.ign.com/top/comic-book-villains/X.html where X is a number, e.g. http://www.ign.com/top/comic-book-villains/1.html. Maybe it's suited for Wikipedia:Bot requests but I don't work on comics or bots and just wanted to inform you. Many other url's at http://comics.ign.com are redirecting to a replacement page at http://www.ign.com, but not the top 100 villains. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe that the members of this project need to be aware of. The RFC itself is really related to astronomy articles... and according to this sub-thread the proposed change not intended to impact comics article like Marvel Universe or DC Universe.

Yet, from my experience, sooner or later some well intended (but over zealous) editor is going to misunderstand that intent... and will try to "conform" all the comics articles to a lower case "universe" (because "that's what the MOS says"). I am leaving this note so that editors who work on comics will know what the intent actually is/was... and can link to the relevant discussion when the inevitable happens. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for confirming this role? 2601:D:B480:ED2:B1FE:426A:B8FA:EA58 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, but it's backed up by articles in The Economic Times and UPI. You can try replacing the Stitch Kingdom reference with one or both of those.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Without speaking to the reliability of Stitch Kingdom, the sources that NukeofEarl offered as replacement fail verification. The Economic Times article cast doubts on the veracity of the information by use of the question mark and word "reportedly". The UPI source likewise uses the word "reportedly" and traces the information back to blog sites like SchmoesKnow.com.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I didn't take the time to read through the entirety of the articles. I had assumed that a respected news source wouldn't publish an article that says nothing more than "We heard a rumor that...", at least not on something as trivial as the casting of a supporting role in a movie. My mistake.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the content, and added a link to join the discussion here. 2601:D:B480:ED2:B1FE:426A:B8FA:EA58 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We have been using Stitch Kingdom as a reliable source for a while now, on multiple pages, and this source in particular is being used at the Age of Ultron and MCU film actors pages. The info itself actually comes from Disney, who Stitch Kingdom I believe sells products for, or something like that - Disney released a series of promotional images to Stitch Kingdom, and the caption for the Andy Serkis image reads Andy Serkis as Ulyses Klaw, or something like that, so it's not like the people over there reported a scoop or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is any uncertainty over whether this is a reliable source, we can bring it up at WP:RS/N. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Adamstom.97 feels that "the discussion concerning this is going nowhere", I have brought it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Stitch Kingdom. 2601:D:B480:ED2:B1FE:426A:B8FA:EA58 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's going down on Talk:Deathstroke.Zythe (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Correctingsection0062 appears to be replacing a reliable source with a questionable one, and claims that "Sources are not accessible and they are antiquated." diff. Thoughts? 2601:D:B482:DD00:C03E:CA5:CC3:7768 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:OFFLINE would be helpful to you in the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I have reverted and offered the user to discuss the changes here. 2601:D:B482:DD00:BCE9:BFE1:F01C:F402 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now the user is reverting instead of discussing.[64] Can anyone assist please? 2601:D:B480:ED2:118A:AEB7:2F1C:4D06 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, since there's nowhere to discuss this but in here I would like to address some of my points that was given. First of all, I would like to state why I deleted the previous link. The link was an offline source which is fine, but it had absolutely nothing to the point given. Secondly, I would now address the whole situation. If you go to Black Cat's talk page there was this user named "Mike Castle" who saw this mistake and discussed it. Me being a long time comic fan I looked at the erroneous mistake which stated that Black Cat was a thief, cat burglar, and had an on-off relationshipship with Batman prior to Catwoman doing the same. This is wrong and that's why I came to fix this. I know that Frank Miller changed the character a bit, but Catwoman was still a thief, cat burgular, and had an on-off relationshipship with Batman prior to Black Cat's existence and Miller's alterations. But the wikipedia article states the opposite which I want to correct. I added two valuable sources that really contributed to the reality. All the aspects that Black Cat has in the comics, Catwoman had first except for the black cat suit which I pointed out on my reverted page. I don't wanna commence an altercation but I honestly thought people knew about this. In the end the fact here is that Catwoman was a thief, a cat burgular, and had an on-off relationship with Batman before Black Cat had these aspects and that's why Marv Wolfman was asked about it. In that case the last line of that paragraph contradicts the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctingsection0062 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way you should take a look at these old comic images within this article. ^[1] Those images not only show that she was a thief but that she also had that on-off relationship with Batman. Also, those comic images were way before Black Cat made her first apperance. That link is another valuable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctingsection0062 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we know who originally added the Back Issue! reference? I haven't checked, but weren't NukeofEarl and/or Mtminchi08 doing that? Would anyone else be able to check a copy? BOZ (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the Back Issue! reference, but it doesn't say anything about the Catwoman similarity. A good place to check would be Back Issue!'s cat people issue (#40), as according to the summary, that one has features on both Catwoman and the Black Cat.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind - I was looking at the wrong paragraph when I thought that Back Issue! was somehow involved in this edit war. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The changes made were simply not correct and your sources clearly show the original Catwoman was a pickpocket in a dress. Unlike Black Cat and Spider-man, who actually were involved romantically, Catwoman was rebuffed romantically. The modern version of Selina Kyle in skintight black, climbing from buildings with cables, a gymnast of olympic degree, and romantically involved with Batman, did not remotely come to comics until the 80s, almost 10 years after the Black Cat appeared. THIS IS A FACT. Please show any images predating the Black Cat's appearance that show Catwoman wearing a skintight, low cut BLACK outfit, scaling buildings and ACTUALLY dating Batman please before you add erroneous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.244.53 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no facts here, simply a fan's opinion. Make it simple- show a picture of Catwoman the year Black Cat came out. Show a picture of her now. The character design of Black Cat proceeded Catwoman by 9 years. THIS IS A FACT. Simply liking Catwoman does not erase this. Nowhere in the comics until Frank Miller's Year One, was Catwoman presented in a skin tight black catsuit, showing significant cleavage, scaling buildings and in a relationship with Batman. Yes, she pined for Batman but again, Black Cat was actually in a relationship with Spider-man. Please escalate this if you want. Catwoman was a supervillian who drove a "CatCar". She had trained circus lions and tigers. She wore a dress and took part in pick pockets and bang robberies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.245.170 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention of a user who's been editing several Marvel movie pages with his own fan fiction and made up characters. his ID is 24.228.215.91 and he's basicly made up his own superheros and listed himself in the credits. Metropod (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks! As part of the Yorkshire Network GLAMwiki project we have had images donated by Shandy Hall, historic home of Laurence Sterne. This includes work they commissioned from contemporary artists and - most relevant to this WikiProject: Martin Rowson. I hope you find them useful!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:1,023 KB
• 

If you'd like to talk about any other works related to Shandy Hall or any other museum in Yorkshire please let me know! Cheers PatHadley (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to get some opinions from everyone on what should be done with this info. The brand (imprint, marketing, whatever you want to call it) is ending in June, but the continuity established in Sep 2011 is still continuing (somewhat in some titles). I've already created a mock up of listing the publications, much like the current List of The New 52 publications, here but should we continue adding info to The New 52? Should a new article be created, or maybe just add info at DC Universe? Thanks for the opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it to the New 52 page. I'm not familiar with much of the DC side of wikipedia, but how do articles handle pre/post Crisis material? It seems like that could serve as a guide. Other than that, I would suggest waiting to see how/if DC decides to brand the books going forward. In the meantime, you can always add them to List of DC Comics publications. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is conflict at Quicksilver (comics) with an IP user insisting on adding "Toys and games" to the "In other media" section. Besides the fact that toys do not fit the definition of media: "Means and institutions for publishing and broadcasting information," the material is unreferenced. This all smacks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. There is no way we can list every toy or game that has ever been manufactured for these characters. Thank you for input.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, you are correct in that toys and video games would not be considered media. They are considered merchandise. As with other comic book character articles, we can say that "Superhero X has appeared in Comic Book Company Y-related media and merchandise." The addition of toys, video games, and all the other numerous merchandise in which the character has made appearances is too cumbersome for the reader. JosephSpiral (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends on the character. For some (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man) it would obviously be an enourmous list that would border on trivia. For minor characters, being included in a toyline or game can help establish a degree of notability. If I came across a short article for a character with few comic appearances, I'd be less likely to merge them to the Characters in Marvel Comic lists if they had other media/merchandise sections. I think Quicksilver's well on the safe side of notable though, so that doesn't apply here. A single line saying there have been toys seems sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Another user keeps making very badly spelled edits to his favorite character page. However, I have had problems with him here and outside Wikipedia for over 6 months by now, so I don't have the energy to deal with him anymore. It just isn't worth it. David A (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BeyonderGod reported by User:65.126.152.254 (Result: ). 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

He is at it again. David A (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

He is back messing up the structure of the page again. David A (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a very minor proposal at Captain America's talk page. It's been a while since I first posted, I haven't gotten a response and it is a small thing. I suppose I am trying to draw attention to it. Respond there if you are going to. DangerousJXD (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Are similar nicknames provided for other characters, like "Supes" and "Spidey"? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. –DangerousJXD (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a debate about which image should be used for the character box for the Spider-Man article. Please post your opinions on the talk page so this can be resolved. If there is a Wikipedia policy regulating this stuff that would be very helpful. Thank you! Spidey104 20:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of The Comics Journal #203? I'd like to see if there's anything in Bob Levin's article in that issue "Rice, Beans and Justin Greens" that would be worth working into the Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for the Canadian artist Laurence Hyde's wordless novel, Southern Cross (wordless novel), as a Featured Article Candidate. Please contribute to the review here. Thanks! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of original research in the Fictional mass murderers category. For example, for comics characters alone, we have Galactus, Jean Grey, and dozens of others (I can make a list if you need). What criteria are we using to determine which characters belong in that category? 50.141.204.194 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That they have committed genocide on sentient civilisations? David A (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And, at least in Jean Grey's case, it's hardly OR. The crux of Shooter's dilemma and the plotting of the Dark Phoenix Saga (and later reintroducing the character) revolved around having the character commit an act of mass murder. There's not a lot of OR going on when Jim Shooter describes the character as killing billions of people, a genocidal killer, and compares her actions to those of Hitler:

"I personally think, and I've said this many times, that having a character destroy an inhabited world with billions of people, wipe out a starship and then—well, you know, having the powers removed and being let go on Earth. It seems to me that that's the same as capturing Hitler alive and letting him go live on Long Island. Now, I don't think the story would end there. I think a lot of people would come to his door with machine guns..."Luminum (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying. In all fairness, I am not so sure that we can apply human terms like "murder" to cosmic-level entities. 50.141.204.194 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If characters in-universe refer to those actions as murder, then within the narrative the character is a murderer. If editors, creators, and analysis of the character/story refer to those actions as murder/murderous, then we consider that to be a depiction of a murderer. Splitting hairs like this does indeed begin to step into OR.Luminum (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Stone (Marvel Comics)#Recent split of content. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Artist Francis Tsai passed away yesterday. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The "Fictional character biography" section in the Professor X article is extremely lengthy and overly detailed. This section alone is longer than the rest of the page combined. It would be helpful if someone can take the time and edit it to make it concise. I want to thank, ahead of time, whoever can complete this task. JosephSpiral (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take a shot at it. I condensed a lot of the Jean Grey Fictional Character Biography section a while back. You may want to look at that as a guide, if you find it helpful.Luminum (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the time due to my work schedule. A big thank you to whichever brave soul can improve the Professor X article. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote the article Tarpe Mills on french wikipedia. I don't understand why his name is spelled Tarpé on en:WP. On Lambiek and the book Comics through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas by M. Keith Booker it's written Tarpe. Someone could explain this choice ? Thank you, --Olivier tanguy (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's Tarpé Mills in such RS sources as Don Markstein's Toonopedia and The Library of American Comics book Miss Fury : Sensational Sundays 1944—1949 by Tarpé Mills, which shows her signature bearing the accent mark. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jhenderson777 and I recently created a new article: List of Spider-Man storylines. It needs to be reviewed by someone who is not the creator and extra eyes on it to see if there are mistakes we missed would be good too. Thank you for your help! Spidey104 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For years, as far as I know, we have been using "Superhero X is a fictional character" in the lead sections of character articles. I am not sure why, but JosephSpiral has been removing the word "character" from a bunch of articles. Do we want to make sure the lead clearly says "fictional character", or not? 2601:D:B480:ED2:2D34:DE1D:A688:317A (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but a discussion a while back determined that the "Superhero X is a fictional character, a superhero" wording was hopelessly ugly and insulted the intelligence, when ""Superhero X is a fictional superhero" means exactly the same thing and reads far better. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I preferred fictional character because it avoided the hassle of identifying character alignment in the narrative, especially since comics have long moved into the anti-hero/villain-turned-hero territory. The most objective description in the first sentence of the lead would be character, except in special cases where a character is primarily understood to be a superhero (iconic characters like Superman, Batgirl, Batman, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, Spider-Man, etc., who have never really significantly been portrayed as villains). But it becomes less obvious for characters like Dr. Doom, Galactus, Magneto, Emma Frost, Poison Ivy, Quicksilver, or Catwoman. In those cases, the characters have relatively significant runs as villains and superheroes, and it would leave it up to an editor to decide how to describe them. Removing the burden and turning to "character" solves that issue, while later sentences can make the distinction of being sometimes villainous or heroic characters in the medium.Luminum (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I too agree that "fictional character" solves the "how do we classify this one?" issue, and felt it was simple enough for years, and I felt that addressing it right off in the lead sentence gets that out of the way. It is not so much that people might think it is a real person (although with some folks, you never know) but that we should be writing about fiction in an out-of-universe manner. When we are talking about a person, we say "Bob Smith is a ..." policeman, firefighter, author, porn star, drug dealer, or whatever. When we are talking about a fictional character, we should be leaving that as unambiguous as possible. Is Superman a superhero? No, he is a fictional construct, because as far as I know superheroes don't exist. They don't have occupations, or personal lives, or hopes and dreams, they just have stories where writers assign those things to them. So we say that he is a fictional character, and then that within the context of the stories he is depicted as a superhero (or whatever language works best). BOZ (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As Curly Turkey pointed out, "Superhero X is a fictional superhero" means the same thing. "Superhero" is a noun, and therefore, a noun such as "character" should not follow it. One or the other should be used, and using "superhero" is more specific and sounds better. Thanks for bringing this point up, 2601:D:B480:ED2:2D34:DE1D:A688:317A (talk). JosephSpiral (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen some that say "A fictional character in the Marvel Universe", which is even worse. It sounds like the article's about a character in a comic book read by Peter Parker, not co-starring Peter Parker. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Curly Turkey said. Just chiming in. --DangerousJXD (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I support using "Superhero X is a fictional superhero" as the standard. Spidey104 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why we need the fictional adjective. Are their people who believe these are non-fictional people? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is simply for Wikipedia's formal categorisation purposes, and as such I do not mind the practice myself. I also prefer to index the characters according to the alignment that they are most notably currently known. Doctor Doom for example, has not been known to operate as a superhero, and the character has been recently shown to monologue that altruism and compassion are alien to him. That is quite unambiguous as far as I am concerned. David A (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Character" seems hollow an inefficient to me, as once "fictional" is in place, just about any other word that indicates that the topic is an animate being would carry the information that they were a character and more. While "villain" and "superhero" may well be suitable for many occasions, there are many other words that can be applied should there be discomfort with that as a blanket descriptor. "Dr. Doom is a fictional monarch", "Catwoman is a fictional burglar", "Captain America is a fictional veteran", etc. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair point as well. We can't call everyone "superhero" or "supervillain", as it does not fit for every character. And that's not even considering characters like Aunt May, Gwen Stacy, etc. Consider that characters such as Silver Surfer, Namor, Deadpool, or the Punisher have been referred to as superheroes (if they wear a costume, have a codename, and fight bad guys, are they not a superhero?), and that term may fit better for some than others, but it can be an oversimplification and even a bad fit for some. Some, like Captain America, are indisputable, but it is not always that easy to classify. BOZ (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I just don't balk at "character". That's what a fictional protagonist/antagonist is: a character. The next sentence should probably address the specifics of the role, but we're dealign with a medium that is indefinite. American comics do not end, by nature of the industry, and inevitably, characters will change or be explored in diverse ways. Emma Frost is a prime example: For decades she would have been categorized as an unambiguous villain, but one writing decision in the 90's and now she's one of the most prominent of the X-Men superheroes in various media. "Character" is a good way of addressing the topic in an easy way (including characters with no such alignment due to being a side character or being in a genre of comics without heroes and villains), and allowing the nitty gritty (or not so nitty gritty) to be dealt with in the guts of the lead/page. Let's also remember that even though these characters and the concept of "superhero/villain" are easy for us, were someone wholly unfamiliar with what a "Captain America" is to look up the subject, the first thing they should understand is that the subject is a character in a fictional body of work. Whether the character is a protagonist or antagonist (i.e. the basic concept of "superhero" or "villain") should come later. And little is lost if that info comes by way of the second sentence.Luminum (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The words "superhero" or "supervillain" should be used after the word "fictional" when it is about a superhero or supervillain. Hence, "Captain America is a fictional superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics." However, when it is not for a superhero or supervillain, then "character" works fine. This is for characters such as Aunt May and Alfred Pennyworth. The word "antihero" can also be used if the character is a defined antihero, such as Deadpool. When using the words "fictional" or "character," neither should be linked, as this is overlinking. See articles on Shakespearean characters, as they do not link those words. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are dynamic and always changing. If a character was once a supervillain but is now a superhero, it should say that they are a superhero. Furthermore, this format of "(X) is a fictional (A, B, C, etc.) appearing in American comic books published by (Y Comics)" can be used not only for characters, but also comic book teams, locations, weapons, corporations, etc.JosephSpiral (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see "fictional character" than any hero or villain classification. As noted, those can be fluid (in film articles we specifically avoid identifying characters as, for instance, protagonists or antagonists), and in a well-written article a reader will be able to evaluate the character's alignment without us pigeonholing it for them. DonIago (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I would leave out "fictional" and simply have "character," since a character appearing in comic books would be fictional. The opening sentences shouldn't be too wordy and should read well. There's no reason to have "fictional" in there, also. Again, "superhero" and "supervillain" should be used when they can, and if not, "character" can take their place. A reader should know immediately what type of character it is. The comparison to other works of fiction regarding protagonists and antagonists does not apply here. Comic books rely heavily on the idea of superheroes and supervillains and the duality of good vs evil. The reader should know right away what kind of character it is, and where they appear. JosephSpiral (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the wording is "fictional superhero" or "superhero character"—they mean the same thing, and the Project should not be disallowing one or the other. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, that's not quite true—there are fictionalized characters out there, like Louis Riel and William Gull. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your argument that my comparison doesn't apply, but I'll defer to other editors on that, and if the character's portrayal has generally been unambiguous I wouldn't argue the point in any case (nevermind that I don't do much comics-related editing in any case :p). Otherwise it sounds like we're essentially on the same page, no pun intended. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Comic books rely heavily on the idea of superheroes and supervillains and the duality of good vs evil." This is false more often than it's true. There are countless comics that don't feature superpowers at all, let alone assign the characters a binary role. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be determining here what noun must or must not be used to describe a character—that's for talk page discussions to decide. On a particular page, if "superhero" is apropriate and has consensus, then use it; ditto "character" or anything else. "Character" is the perfect fit for, say, Popeye, even if some have called him a superhero; to call Superman anything but a superhero is obviously unacceptable. There will obviously be grey areas—if Batman is a superhero, then why not Punisher?—and those cases should be worked out case by case. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling Superman a "character" is "obviously unacceptable"? Why is that, exactly? DonIago (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my intended meaning was "any other kind of character". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

1) I agree with Curly Turkey in that the talk page is where the issue can be resolved as to whether the character is a superhero or a supervillain. If neither applies, "character" can still be used. I do believe in the dichotomy of good vs bad in the genre of comic books from the Golden Age of comics until now. 2) I also agree that Superman is considered a superhero first and not seeing that in the first sentence would be odd. 3) There is the issue of supervillains who do some good or are currently in a hero role. I think we should still refer to them by what they are most well known to be. For example, the lead sentence in the Doctor Octopus article says he is an "occasional superhero." While that may be true, I still think he should be listed as a supervillain only and "occasional superhero" should be removed. Somewhere else in the article, where it's more appropriate, his siding with good can be mentioned. What do others think about this? JosephSpiral (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think having long lists of every role a character has ever played cluttering up the introductory lead sentence is a bad idea. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed "occasional superhero" from Doctor Octopus's article and also for Taskmaster, who had antihero listed along with supervillain in the lead sentence. JosephSpiral (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)