This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I may have asked in the past but does anyone have any good examples of In Other Media articles because the Joker in other media article is a bomb site and I want to gut the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of for that article would be to remove all the section headers and convert it to a dot * format. In other media articles tend to be messes.★Trekker (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, here we have another WP:COMICS problem—virtually every "in other media" article (that is not a redirect) is a superhero-related article ("other" being opposed to "comic books"). These will all have to be renamed—fictional characters are not inherently a part of any medium, as every other WikiProject seems to recognize. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, great, this incessant vomit inducing parade from you is on again. The reason the comic characters are portrayed as the main versions most of the time is because they blatantly are, almost all the time adaptions don't have remotly enough time or presense to matter compared to it. You're also way wrong about]] your assesment, many film characters relegate the characters apperances in stuff like novels or comics to short sections (or doens't even mention them at all in some cases) becuse it makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, look! The superhero crowd insists semantics and sitewide standards don't apply to them again! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The name comes from the article being split from the main article's "in other media" section, so I think issue is just tunnel vision, not a disregard for sitewide standards. Do you have a suggestion for what they should be called? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Sherlock Holmes article has a section called "Adaptations in other media" but the main article for that section is called Adaptations of Sherlock Holmes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Argento Surfer—how about something simple like Portrayals of CHARACTER X? A character can be portrayed in MEDIUM X without being an "adaptation". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm down with that. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

To the original question, James Bond is a GA article with a strong Adaptations section. It might make a good template. If Joker in other media were renamed Adaptations of the Joker, you could add a section on comics with a main template. That would indicate the comic article is a daughter of Adaptations of the Joker. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Both Sherlock Holmes and James Bond focus on the literary characters and as such exclude books from their respective adaptation sections. Likewise, I do not see the need to include a comics section to "Adaptaions of the Joker" as they were adapted from the comics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed either, but its inclusion seems harmless and (I assume) would satisfy CT's ownership issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat: The James Bond article does not focus on the literary character—note the italics: it is about "The James Bond series" of novels. The article on the literary character is called "James Bond (literary character)". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the point is the article does focus on literature and lists adaptions from that medium after that, which is exactly what the Comics project does.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the difference is that the Bond page lists the adaptations as a section. You're working on a stand-alone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just tackling the misconception that WP:COMICS is alone in its treatment of articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat: No, not even remotely. One adapts a work, not a character: one adapts Hamlet, not Hamlet. If you write a poem with Odysseus as the hero, it is not an adaptation; if you use an episode from the Odyssey as the base work to develop a screenplay, that is an adaptation.

That's a separate issue, though. A character is not inherent to any medium, therefore "other media" as a title element is problematic. WP:SUPERHEROES assumes that superhero characters are inherently part of the comics medium, and thus every other media appearance is "other". We don't see this with other sorts of characters, as I demonstrated above; we don't even see this with other characters with that emerged from comics: no Popeye in other media, no Snoopy in other media, no Tintin in other media, no Astroboy in other media—and that is not for lack of potential content or sources. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just silly. Of course you can adapt characters. I already gave you a couple of examples and there are lot more, though most use the prefrace "Adaptations of". Even Hamlet as in your example has been adapted in derivative works (see Prince Hamlet#Other versions). If it's the article/section name that's problematic, we can change it to "Adaptations of" but the format/ structure would stay the same.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Prince Hamlet#Other versions doesn't contradict anything I've said, and I don't know why you think it does—but as I've said already, that's not even the issue. Why not respond to that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:HÊÚL. has been repeatedly inserting the name "Arthur Centino"[1] into the Longshot article as his supposed real name. (As have IP editors who add the name with a "citation needed" tag, without providing a source.) The only reference I can find to this name in the article is under the Ultimate Marvel section. This version of the character differs in his origin from the mainstream Longshot in that he is just another mutant, and that is his real name. The mainstream Longshot is an artificially created being who was never given a name other than Longshot, and as far as I can see he never went by the name Arthur Centino, so inclusion of that name in the infobox seems inappropriate to me. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been using a bot to clean up bare URL references, especially in the List of Marvel Comics characters. In so doing, I've run across more than one instance of editors using Comic Vine as a citation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Comic Vine a user-generated wiki and thus unacceptable as a reliable source? --GentlemanGhost (converse) 01:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

For the most part yes, Comic Vine can't be used. Though if it is linking to a news, preview, or review article from the site, that could be sourced. But based on where you're cleaning up, I'm going to assume the sources are to the wiki portion of Comic Vine. An external link to a character's entry on Comic Vine, however, would be acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, the wiki portion is what I'm referring to. News and reviews would clearly be more acceptable. I wasn't sure if the wiki part was open to edit, though it looks like it is. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 03:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I just finished a long re-write of this article. Any thoughts on more I could do? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic work. I made a couple minor adjustments. The publication subsection seems a little flimsy. You mention a TPB but not a year of release. At the time, collected editions were fairly uncommon. I don't have any reliable sources, but My Comic Shop shows there were multiple editions, including a hardcover and a Titan Books edition that had multiple reprintings. The single issues went through 2nd and 3rd printings. This CBR article may have something worth including, but I'll leave that up to you. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the copy on the infobox image calls the story a "best seller", but the article doesn't. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice of a discussion re: the Talk:Frank Miller (comics)#Proposed split for the bibliography section.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how it works on articles on Marvel, DC or any other comics, but it doesn't seem like anybody is prepared to apply Wikipedia policy on articles related to Judge Dredd. The amount of fancruft is absurd. There are far too many articles on characters and other aspects of the series that have no independent, real-world notability, or are simple plot summaries, but any attempts I make to propose them for deletion or merge them into reasonable articles are instantly reverted or closed for no consensus, with no reference to whether or not they comply with policy. Some serious effort is needed to make Wikipedia's coverage of Judge Dredd and related media even vaguely encyclopedic, and I can't do it on my own. Can I get some help? --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a split request on Judge Dredd and am looking into improving that article and others related to it, just not had time yet. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought your recent round of PRODS were well chosen. Did you ask User:Andrew Davidson why he opposed them? His edit summary did not explain much. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There is definitely a huge issue on wikipedia with comic articles that are essentially just plot cancer. There should be more focus on publication history, reception and sales.★Trekker (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone's free to chime in on the move discussion.★Trekker (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I realized that the information about Iron Man as a character specific to the MCU is dispersed across multiple articles, and not comprehensively well-treated in any of them. I have created Iron Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a test case for this concept. If we can have an article on, e.g., Luke Skywalker primarily as a character appearing in an arc of films, I think we can have an article on the specific portrayal and character arc of the main MCU characters in the MCU. If this is agreeable, then I think there should be similar articles on at least Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye, and probably on any other MCU character that appears in a certain minimum number of films (I would say five, including at least one that is an ensemble or has a different MCU character as the lead). bd2412 T 02:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In its current state, I don't think this is a worthwhile article. We should not simply be readding existing content on the character simply in a central location. (I've looked quickly and I feel this is the case, apologies if it is not a straight copy/paste.) If an article like this should be created (which again, I feel as is it should not), some of the existing content should be copied, but a majority of it should be new and specific to the resulting article. The crux of these articles are on the commentary/reception information for the character, not simply describing what goes on with them in universe with their appearances. As it stands, BD2412, I feel you should move it back to one of your sandboxes and continue its work there until it is in a better state. Additionally, you're going to want the article to exist, if at all, at Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe), as it is a character article, like Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Draft:Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe), to leave it more open to participation by other editors. I disagree with some of your thoughts here. It is useful to the readers to have a single place "describing what goes on with" a particular character in a unique iteration of that character. There is no place in Wikipedia that does this specifically for MCU-specific Iron Man. I also disagree with your removal of the "relationships" section, as these are defining of the character, perhaps more in this context then in the more dispersed arena of comic books. What that section needs is substantial further development. bd2412 T 12:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Re the relationships section (what is now "Interactions with other characters". That is 100% trivia in its current state. Without critical commentary discussing these relationships, that's all it will be. You pointed to the Luke Skywalker as an example article you were looking at, and nowhere in that article is there a section like this. I'm not saying outright this info should not be in the article, and it may be useful to see how these relationships/interactions help shape the character of Tony in the MCU, but as is, it is just a trivia section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I find that relationships-type sections are invariably trivia, and almost always based around original analysis. There's no reason for that type of content not to be covered under a general discussion of the character's in-universe qualities (in most cases, including the Luke Skywalker example, this is the "Appearances" section), and giving it its own section puts an inordinate focus on in-universe content.-NukeofEarl (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a participant from Russian Wikipedia. I noticed that for WikiProject Comics there is no template: infobox comics location for articles about fictional places in comics. We have such a template present and used in articles about places from comics (cities, planets, fictional buildings, such as Stark Tower and others). I suggest that you create this template by translating the template from Russian Wikipedia or by creating without translation at your own discretion. Write what you think about it. Bogolub / (Talk (In Rissian language)/Talk) 16:39, 27 september 2017 (UTC)

@Bogolub: We have a generic ((Infobox fictional location)). We do not need one specific to comics. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I understood you. Just suggested the idea of creating a template and nothing more. But to create or not the proposed template is not for me to decide, let others think about this idea and more experienced ones users English Wikipedia. Bogolub / (Talk (In Rissian language)/Talk) 17:01, 27 september 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the general infobox fictional location template seems to work fine.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I would like someone who is experienced in messing with the infobox for comic book objects to modify it so that it sorts DC Comics weapons into Category:DC Comics weapons rather than Category:Fictional weapons. Similarly to Category:Marvel Comics weapons, there should be enough for its own category to prevent clutter._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Is "script-o-rama" a reliable source? [2] [3] [4]

As an aside, this user seems to be using some abusive language in edit summaries, and even made at least one death threat against Argento Surfer, and another one in Spanish. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:415B:97E:A341:787A (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't view the site due to an internet filter. A news search for the url didn't bring much back. Does the website include an about page explaining how they access unproduced scripts? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be a personal blog site where some happens to be posting unsourced scripts. Does not seem reliable to me. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the main page and "contact" section both make it pretty explicit that the site is a one-man operation, and to be considered reliable by WP standards a source needs some form of editorial oversight. So yeah, not a reliable source.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. For what it's worth, the abusive editor has been blocked for a few days, but will undoubtedly be back for more, in case people can help keep an eye on these articles. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of article refer to Selene as a mutant. I found this a little baffling, because I've read the entire run of New Mutants and all the contemporaneous issues of Uncanny X-Men and don't recall her ever being referred to as anything other than a goddess. Checking her article, it too says she is a mutant with no sourcing or even any indication of when her identity as a goddess was retconned. While that of course means little, I'm wondering if this isn't another case of readers assuming that any super-powered character associated with the X-Men titles is a mutant. (Indeed, when I searched the archives to see if this issue had already been discussed, the one reference to Selene which came up is this sentence: "Selene is much older than most of the gods, displays vast powers, and is even worshiped by some characters, but she is usually assumed to be a mutant and not a goddess.") Should I go ahead and remove all claims of Selene being a mutant? Alternatively, if someone here knows that she has in fact been established as a mutant, could you edit her article to make it clearer when and where this happened?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever read a comic featuring her, so I can't be much help. For what it's worth, the article has said she's a mutant since the first edit twelve years ago. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The Deluxe OHOTMU entry for the character specifies that she is a mutant, for what that's worth. --Killer Moff (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that helps, in that it gives me enough clear doubt to conclude that I should hold off on any changes. I'll just have to remember to keep an eye out for anything more about this. Thanks.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello I noticed that an anon has removed content from the Iron Man (2008 film) article calling it vandalism. The removed content doesn't look like vandalism to me, however I don't know that much about Marvel comics or Iron Man so I thought I'd post it here for others to check and (possibly) undo/revert. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 16:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure by "vandelism"[sic] the editor was referring to his own edit, not the content he was removing. His edit left three completely random sentence fragments; no offense, but you don't need to know anything about Marvel Comics or Iron Man to recognize that that's not a good faith edit.--NukeofEarl (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#RfC regarding some wording and interpretation of sources. It would be great if we could get some more opinions over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just checking to see, but are Category:Avengers characters and Category:X-Men characters appropriate character categories? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

These categories have been deleted at lease twice before. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, what about Category:Spider-Man rogues gallery and Category:Batman rogues gallery from the same user? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:2C21:6AAF:4A47:7698 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The Spider-Man cat has already been deleted as WP:G4. I'm not sure why the Batman wasn't taken care of at the same time, but I've marked it for deletion as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Back in 2007, I remember there being a kerfuffle about the surprise death in Captain America #25 and how retailers weren't prepared for all the sell outs - except for Wizard magazine. Apparently they were told about it ahead of time and ordered lots of extra copies. Our article doesn't mention anything about sales, and Google's failing me. Does anyone else remember this? It's possible my memory is making it a bigger deal than it really was. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There's an IP editor going around and changing the numbering in a lot of series articles. I'm not familiar enough with some of the series to verify his/her changes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been following some of them. The edits are definately well-intentioned, but the user is frequently breaking infoboxes when adding new titles. Whoever it is doesn't seem to understand formatting or edit summaries. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably a WP:CIR issue. My suggestion would be to revert when necessary, and maybe try to reach out to the user to offer them guidance. If these edits are becoming too frequent or overwhelming to revert, WP:ANI is standard (as a final resort, of course). It's not obvious vandalism, so WP:AIV is out of the question (unless they are ignoring warnings). It's not a single article, so that rules out WP:RfPP. You were correct to alert the WikiProject, as now users can keep an eye on it. DarkKnight2149 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The user appears to be a newbie. Unless they have used other IPs in the past, I think informing them of what they are doing wrong is the way to go. DarkKnight2149 16:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I recently created this article and would like to try and bring it up to GA-status. Would anyone like to assist? JOEBRO64 19:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I found some high quality reliable sources for it. I will copyedit and contribute if I have time. Good luck with GA. Paste Magazine iO9 Uproxx interview Vulture Christian Science Monitor Forbes Huffington Post Nerdist Comics Beat Comics Alliance Bustle interview Argento Surfer (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Would someone from WP:COMIC mind taking a look at The Adventurers (Comic) and assessing it? It's a new article and it looks like the creator is also new as well. I saw this post at the Teahouse, so decided to take a look at the article. I'm not sure whether this would be considered notable for a comic book, but the sources provided to not show the type of WP:SIGCOV needed for general Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ((u|Argento Surfer]] for taking a look and also your post on the creator's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion that may interest this project, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 19#Marvel characters by alphabet. It is a discussion about navbox templates that group Marvel characters whose name start with a giver letter. For example, ((Marvel Comics characters (F))) lists Falcon, Fandral, Fantomex, Firebird, Firelord, Firestar, Flatman, Forge, Dominic Fortune, Frankenstein's Monster, Frog-Man, Emma Frost, Nick Fury, etc. Please help achieve a clear consensus for either deleting or keeping them. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources? [5] and [6] 76.231.73.99 (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, that IP user has been blocked for bad behavior (again, more death threats). 76.231.73.99 (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be an error in the Books section of Fantômas. See Talk:Fantômas #Two books merged in translation?. (This note is going to WP:WikiProject Fictional characters, WP:WikiProject France, WP:WikiProject Comics, and WP:WikiProject Novels.) Thnidu (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Some years ago there was a crossover event in Marvel, where Galactus was displaced into the Ultimate Marvel universe. As far as I know, the whole event is just "Cataclysm". It is composed by the "Hunger" miniseries (Galactus wreaking havok in the cosmos), "Cataclysm: The Ultimates' Last Stand" miniseries (Galactus comes to Earth and tries to consume it), tie-ins for the 3 ongoing Ultimate comic books, and "Survive!" with the aftermath. There was no article about this. And, unrelated to all this, there's Batman: Cataclysm, and Cataclysm (comics) redirected to it.

I started the article at Cataclysm: The Ultimates' Last Stand, the name of the second miniseries (it is, after all, the "main" one, all the others are setup, aftermath or secondary episodes of it), and redirected "Cataclysm (comics)" to Cataclysm, a DAB. It was the most easy way to arrange things to get started, but now that the article is written, should I leave it there, or should I move it to "Cataclysm (Marvel Comics)", or something like that? Cambalachero (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think your article could stand at Cataclysm (comics) with a hat note to the Batman storyline. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS. You can vote on it here-Thank you --Deathawk (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure; are comicbookmovie and screenrant reliable sources for this? [7] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is is this trivia or is the face on a side of a mountain worth mentioning as if it is not trivial? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:B98D:E642:D588:15B4 (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is trivial. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have done some work condensing the Green Arrow page. Feedback welcomed and requested. Etzedek24 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Comics

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to have stuff added to it all the time, I'm betting most of them are not from the show or are just made up nonsense. Not a single one of the examples are cited, so is there anyone who wants to help trying to figure out which are real?★Trekker (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I would ditch the lot of them as WP:TRIVIA/WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and merge the reasonable prose to Robin in other media. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the article has survived an AFD and I do think it's a notable subject. What it needs is a cleanup.★Trekker (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I would ditch the list and change the article's title to "Exclamations by Robin" or something like that. ~Mable (chat) 06:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd ditch the list and move any notable/sourced examples to the prose. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does this list even exist? How is it even remotely notable? Delete the whole thing. This should be a minor note in a Characterisation section at Robin (character) or Dick Grayson, not an article unto itself. DarkKnight2149 19:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"it's a notable subject" Why? It is in the format "Holy ... insert noun here", have little overall relevance to the plot, and are a humorous element in a series that was already played for laughs. As quotes go, they are not The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: @Argento Surfer: @Maplestrip: @*Treker: I propose that we remove the list, and merge the general subject matter of the article with Robin (character)#Portrayals, using the few citations that are listed. It being an article itself with such few sources (and including a trivial list) is just overkill. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The 2013 AfD got a lot of attention from editors outside the comic bubble, and ended as a nearly unanimous keep. This should probably be discussed in a wider forum. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Then we should open such a forum. I'm not suggesting that we simply delete it; just that we selectively integrate the valuable information from it into applicable articles. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged both articles with merge templates and opened a merge discussion. I suggest all further comments be made there. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team)#Association of the Guardians of the Galaxy (2008) and Guardians of the Galaxy (1969). I ask to take part in the discussion of the proposal to combine 2 articles. Thanks! Bogolub (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We have an IP editor who has been warned repeatedly and blocked for edit-warring, and is known for using rude and abusive language in their edit summaries. I think we have been here before with this person. That said, is there anything worth keeping in what they have added to articles such as Absorbing Man[8], Zzzax[9], Electro (Marvel Comics)[10], Doctor Octopus[11], and Sandman (Marvel Comics)[12]? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:89EE:EC4F:DF0C:7DE1 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've reverted all of them. After repeated attempts to engage the editor in the past, he's clearly not here to collaborate. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I also removed some material that was there before him. If vulture was considered for Spider-Man 4, that belongs in an article talking about Spider-Man in film. A character being considered for a movie that never got made isn't notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

An IP has been adding unofficial tie-ins to the infoboxes and other parts of Marvel crossover articles for a while now (example). I've tried to engage him in discussion, but never get a response. To make matters worse, the IP is making no effort to format the new additions. The address is also changing - the most recent is 111.10.111.242, but 183.228.255.231, 111.10.111.148 and 183.228.253.244 have also been used, among others. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The scope of the article Celebrity comics seems to be unclear. While the opening sentence says, "Celebrity comics are comics based on the fame and popularity of a celebrity", the list of examples in that article goes well beyond that to include seemingly any comic book based on a TV series. Clearly something like DC Comics' The Adventures of Bob Hope or The Adventures of Jerry Lewis should count, as would the 1970s comic strip Inside Woody Allen, since they were based on and licensed from real-life individuals (albeit as fictionalized versions of their on-screen personas). So should the NOW Comics and APComics versions of Mr. T. But the comics versions of shows such as Star Trek, Hogan's Heroes, and Get Smart were based primarily on the plot and characters of the series, not on the cast members themselves, yet they are listed as well. And I can't explain the inclusion of the Rugrats comic book and strip under Celebrity comics, since Rugrats is an animated series and is not based on any resemblance between the characters and its voice actors.

So my question is: Does "celebrity comics" have the broad meaning implied by the list found in the article, or have Wikipedia editors misunderstood the concept? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say one or more editors have confused "celebrity" with "licensed". Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a feud going on over the historical importance of American Flagg! I see it is rated as of low importance. How are these decisions made?

They're made by any interested editor who follows the guidelines. American Flagg might be a mid, but I agree with the current assessment of low. The article needs to show it had a significant and lasting impact on later works/creators than it does now to sway my opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter much either way, especially when it comes to the difference between low and mid. It's not worth edit warring over, anyway. This importance variable isn't used for anything other than people making decisions on what articles to work on. Don't worry too much about edge cases. ~Mable (chat) 16:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have print resources that discuss John Constantine at all? I'm currently working on a draft version of the article and need some sources that discuss his characterization, abilities, and biography. JOEBRO64 14:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One of the Bleeding Cool Magazines had an article on him along with Swamp Thing and other horror characters. #5 I think. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to track down a scan. I don't really know much about the Hellblazer/Swamp Thing lore—yet for some reason, I know way too much about the publication history and authors. (Probably because I grew up reading DC Comics Year By Year.) JOEBRO64 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Do any of us know why the bot that tracks (re)assessments (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality log) hasn't updated since December 27th? Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Moves have been requested for Ultimate Nick Fury, Ultimate Captain America, Ultimate Iron Man (character), Ultimate Spider-Man (character), Ultimate Thor, and Ultimate Wolverine. Is there anyway we can consolidate these requests into a single discussion since they all appear to be based on the same rationale? @NeoBatfreak: --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

yes - Template:Requested move#Multiple related move requests Argento Surfer (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good source that says comic publishers started collected popular storylines into tpbs in the late 80s/early 90s? I'm having trouble finding one. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I will look through my collection of scholarly works and let you know what I find. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 19:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...single volumes reprinting material previously published as popular comic books were a phenomenon that dated to the beginning of the 1980s." Gabilliet, Jean-Paul. Of Comics And Men. University of Mississippi Press. Original 2005, translation 2010. 99.

If you'd like I can take a picture of the pages and email them to you. Gabilliet's book is excellent. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 20:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that line is sufficient for my purpose, but I'll add that book to my to-read list. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Revival (comics) has been listed as a featured article candidate three times, but still isn't attracting many comments. I don't really want to list it a fourth time, and would appreciate any comments from editors who have the time. Guidelines for comments are very simple, and can be viewed here.

Any interested editors can leave their comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive3. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Are these template needed? They are essentially unused and have no documentation. I've left a message with their creator, but I likely won't be getting a timely response, as they only made 6 edits in 2017, all on August 12th.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also ((Comics story arc redi)).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, they're not needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

All 3 have been nominated for deletion @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 25#Template:Comics prop redi.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've noticed a lot of edits being made to comic-related pages by User:Lola danvers, and they appear to be of poor quality on one end and SPA promotion for what appears to be a self-created universe on the other. I am going to template their talk page with a warning, but you may wish to look at their contributions to quickly revert some edits. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 18:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a page they've edited, I could try to keep track of them.★Trekker (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Trekker, good to see you again. Check out Darkseid, The Losers (comics) among others. I found it easiest to go to their userspace because it automatically redirects to their contributions. Hope that helps. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 19:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make sure to notice if they start editing outside of their userspace again.★Trekker (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice that there are discussions regarding the fair use of File:Evangeline Lilly as Wasp in Ant-Man and the Wasp.jpg and a possible replacement. The discussions can be found out Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 24#File:Evangeline Lilly as Wasp in Ant-Man and the Wasp.jpg and Talk:Hope Pym#File:Evangeline Lilly as Wasp in Ant-Man and the Wasp.jpg. All opinions are welcomed. Thank you.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we've been here before with this article, but is this reliable? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to the book that's mentioned, but there's no mention of Zzzax in the IGN or UGO article, only in the film review that's cited. One of the links is also dead. Seems like a case of excessive citations to me. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 04:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the sources that were dead or flat out wrong--the book source is proving harder to verify. The copy I looked at on Google did not have page numbers to match up with. It's borderline right now--but could be in the book. I'm not familiar with the film. If someone else reaches a different conclusion, that's ok. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at that. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history for the editor who restored it after your removal, I suspect he saw an IP remove cited material and did not investigate any further. This material, and the similar material added to other pages, is not from reliable sources and is still trivial on character pages. If a good source can be found, it belongs on Hulk in other media. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So no objections to me removing it, then? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is probably the same death-threat issuing IP hopper who has added these numerous times before; see also at Absorbing Man and Electro. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, my first thought when I saw this thread.★Trekker (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I fully support this kind of thing being removed from character articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If the ethnic or national origin of Meggan (or any other character) is not given in the comics, should we assume said origin based on how the last name sounds, where "stupid" authors "deserve to be corrected", as asserted by User:Torpilorul? [13] Is such an assumption WP:OR or "common sense"? [14] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:6109:FD09:758C:A861 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is most definitely OR, unless verified by a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed for something like this. It's been discussed a couple times before. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that WP:CATDEF comes into play here. Whether or not she is characterized as being of any race or nationality, I don't think any of these features particularly define her as a character, certainly not so that she is reliably and consistently discussed as such by third party sources. But on the whole, I'd agree that reliable sourcing is needed. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (comics)#Requested move 20 February 2018 TarkusAB^talk 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know where to look for reviews of pre-2000s comics? I'm having a bit of trouble finding reliable reviews about The Books of Magic. JOEBRO64 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You could try to limmit your search to before that time with the google tools. Or look in books.★Trekker (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you looking specifically for reviews from the time of publication? If so, I suggest browsing CBG, Comics Interview, and Amazing Heroes from the era. I found a few articles giving critical commentary that are more recent. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Film Atom certainly seems to insist so.[15] The question is, would that be a correct description? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:50CB:F84:6989:1D85 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Characters can be both at different times.★Trekker (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

From the limited amount of stories I've read with her and a quick skim of the article, it seems inaccurate. Definitely not defining. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

She's not described as such within the article, so I don't see how it can apply. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

She is a mercenary and leader of mercenaries. Whether she fights for or against the heroes typically depends on who is paying her.

She is somewhat similar to the male character Paladin, who is also a mercenary. He is sometimes depicted as a hero, sometimes as a villain, but typically simply sells his services to the highest bidder. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am in the midst of a massive rewrite and ambitious expansion of the article Professor Pyg, but I'm a bit behind on my comic book reading (Money, money, money). If someone could add Pyg's publication and character history from DC Rebirth to User:Darkknight2149/Professor Pyg#DC Rebirth, I will dance at your wedding. DarkKnight2149 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, he as only appeared in Nightwing, in three issues part of the "Nightwing Must Die" story line. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone could add that publication information to the section and a brief summarisation of the fictional events involving Pyg, it would be greatly appreciated. As I said, I would do it myself but I'm too far behind on my reading. DarkKnight2149 19:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I've added in events. Pyg's appearance in Nightwing #17 is just on the last page, so I excluded that. The bulk of it is in Nigthwing 18. His appearance in #20 is during a hallucination Dick has, with him becoming Deathwing and killing Pyg for his hand in getting Damian (supposedly killed). I excluded that given it was a hallucination and not one that will come to pass. Let me know though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Much obliged. DarkKnight2149 20:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just created the page Milk Wars and need some assistance filling out the plot synopsis and reception section. Help? JOEBRO64 14:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a little bit of reception now. Can add more later. Plot I'm really bad at and can't really help with.★Trekker (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read it so I can't help with the plot, but I can offer some generic tips for the reception section.

• Comic Book Roundup is a review aggregator that can offer quick looks at reviews for various comics by series or by single issue. This is often useful for locating negative reviews to balance out the review section.
• Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections has some tips and identifies common pitfalls for reception sections.
• In addition to doing a Google search for reviews, try visiting reliable review sites and using their local searches to look for the comic title. Sometimes they sneak some analysis into longform articles instead of standard reviews. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, a website often cited by this Project, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Punisher supporting characters seems like a content fork from List of Marvel Comics characters, but I thought I'd gauge opinions before performing the merge. I haven't looked, but I suspect there are other lists like this floating about. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think lists like "List of X supporting characters" are pretty good to have, but would be better of if they were treated like the TV series character lists which are much better.★Trekker (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If there aren't any sources which are not primary, the article should be merged or redirected or AFDd. That one is a prime candidate for one of those options. --Izno (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I created a page about 1930s-1960s author Ray Bailey [fr] (Stripper's Guide, Lambiek) on the French Wikipedia. As he is linked on a dozen of pages here, maybe someone could create his English page? Kokonino (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: There is also an even lesser-known British Ray Bailey.

I just blasted this article with an ion cannon from space and am unsure if I missed any interviews with Marv Wolfman or George Perez about its creation, or reviews (I couldn't find many). Does anyone know if there's something I missed? JOEBRO64 19:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Back Issue #82 has an article about it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it, #84 was a Supergirl-centric issue that discussed the impact of her death. I'll look to see if it has anything relevant. Wizard #26 and #36 discussed the event in the lead up to Zero Hour: Crisis in Time, which was intended to be a sequel to CoIE. Some of the Perez interviews in Comics Interview leading up to The Infinity Gauntlet discussed CoIE as well, but I don't know if any of that would be useful for the article. I'll did through these and see what I can find.

Amazing Heroes #66 and 91 have articles on the series that were written during publication, but I don't have either of them. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

An article for Vision (Jonas) was recently created but does not appear meet WP:GNG. I redirected it back to Vision (comics), where the in formation was kept before but was reverted.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I was also skeptical about that one. @Voicebox64:, do you plan to expand the article in coming days? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That was actually @Namenamenamenamename:, Voicebox just created the original redirect. In any case, after a quick google search I don't see enough reliable third-party sources about the character that would qualify as "significant coverage".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this upcoming one-shot notable enough for its own article? I redirected it to the relevant section of Wolverine (character), but it was restored and expanded today. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it does appear to have coverage from IGN, CBR, Hollywood Reporter, and Newsarama, among others, so I think it'd pass the GNG. I don't do much with Marvel (I work more on 1980s/90s DC-Vertigo stuff), but I do think someone could make a decent article using those sources. JOEBRO64 19:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Were the current page moves to Northstar (Marvel Comics) and Dazzler (Marvel Comics) good moves? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:E1A8:6B86:487D:7B7D (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There are several other ones by the same user, those two are just the most notable characters. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:E1A8:6B86:487D:7B7D (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, and I had previously failed to notice Longshot (Marvel Comics) and U.S. Agent (Marvel Comics). 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:E1A8:6B86:487D:7B7D (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In Dazzler's case, there are at least three Marvel characters with that codename:

• Dazzler/Burtram "Burt" Worthington. A super-villain and paternal uncle to Warren Worthington III. See: http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Burtram_Worthington_(Earth-616) and http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix6/dazzler_worthington.htm
• Dazzler/Alison Blaire. The female superhero.
• Dazzler/Kimberly Schau. A government agent with electric powers. Used briefly as a supporting character for Cloak and Dagger (comics). See: http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Kimberly_Schau_(Earth-616) and http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/xforce1.htm#Dazzler Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't using their civilian identity as disambiguation be the best choice in cases like this?★Trekker (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

yes. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but only if those other characters have their own articles.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also Firestar (Marvel Comics). 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:39FF:888E:D03E:CE5A (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

They had to be moved because their names were clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that word. That said ,there seems to be some confusion in the naming guidelines. Currently they suggest using (character) unless needing to otherwise disambiguate, but another section says use (comics). In my opinion it should be reversed, per WP:CRITERIA the disambiguation should use the comics universe they are from as (character) is often less recognizable and can also often be confused when another comic universe introduces a character of the same name. That is the policy at WP:VG (see: Cortana (Halo))._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be ok yes, but there is a specific very incessant editor who keeps railing (maybe they've stopped by now) against that, so you'll have to fight them if you try that.★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it would be nice to come to a consensus that we can edit the guidelines page at WP:NCCDAB as I recently had one of the moves reverted by an editor to (comics). If everyone agrees that characters should be disambiguated by fictional universe then it doesn't matter what one editor says, per WP:CONSENSUS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure the consensus that they forced was to use (character).★Trekker (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The last major conversation took place here. The (character) dab is preferred over (comics) because many characters have had one or more eponymous comic books. This practice also brings the comic project in line with other projects. If there are multiple characters sharing a name, then they should be DAB'd by another alias (Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner)) or by publisher (Alpha (Marvel Comics)). Argento Surfer (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel like disambiguation by real name is overly confusing. In the majority of cases, a disambiguation refers to a book, movie, game or failing that, fictional universe the character originates from. People might confuse "Kyle Rayner" for a comic book rather than their real name. In my opinion simply using their real name in that case is the best idea, as it currently is at Kyle Rayner. The only disambiguation that should be used for characters is by fictional universe if there is confusion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that when the real name is well known. That's not the case for the Dazzler examples above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up. This character was originally merged. I boldly unmerged thinking the character is indeed notable enough for an article. If anyone knows how to improve it. Feel free to do so. I can’t do too much in the time being with just touch screen material. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

When we upload a comic book cover, should we use the cover as it was published (with the titles, logos and other stuff), or a textless version of it? Which one suits the non-free content rationales better? Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it depends on the purpose of the image. If it's used as an example of a character's appearance, textless is fine. If it's representing the publication, then it should include identifiable pieces like the logo. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the old discussion at Talk:Les Mauvais Rêves#Requested move, I assume it is all in order to move these all back to the English titles now as they have all been translated[16]. However, what additional disambiguators should be used for Les Mauvais Rêves and Bad Dreams (comics) as they will both need to be moved to fully disambiguated titles? --woodensuperman 09:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Les Mauvais Rêves#Requested move 20 April 2018, and also Talk:L'OuvreTemps#Requested move 20 April 2018. --woodensuperman 08:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made a concept page for the above article, located here. If the concept is good, I would like to expand the page and make it an actual article, but I need some feedback first. Since the page is protected from creation (due to notability problems that I believe have since been resolved) sysops will need to be on board with this. Thanks - J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 19:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a decent stub, but still has serious notability and sourcing problems. At the moment, I don't think it passes WP:GNG as TV tropes is not a reliable source, and the website itself is not a secondary source. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello.

The last few character biography sections of the Thanos page are extremely bloated and need to be shortened down significantly. Help would be very appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanos#Fatal_Sickness David A (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a trivial non-appearance? If not, and it should appear in the article, then does it not need a source to be included? Emir of Wikipedia seems to feel that it is both non-trivial and does not require a citation, so I want to be sure if I'm not misjudging the situation. 24.196.89.218 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including it, because the event isn't seen, but can also see including it because it is the next plot progression for the planet in the film, despite it only being stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I could also go either way depending on the argument. The line there currently seems fine to me. I would be more concerned if there were a whole bunch of these, or we were trying to make an even bigger deal when these are just brief mentions. It does seem reasonably significant, which is the majore reason I would support the mention despite the event not being shown. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also for a bit more context at the time I reverted the plot for the movie wikilinked to that article. I thought it would be confusing for a wikilink to have no mention of what it was linked from. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I did add a citation needed tag for the line, as it seems to be the standard that we have citations for inclusions in films. 24.196.89.218 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a citation. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts on what I can do to make this GA-level before I submit to that process? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a discussion to remove a portion of the Naming Guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Removal of outdated guidance. Input from interested editors would be appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As the hammer, a weapon for Thor and not Beta Ray Bill, appears in the movie, does it merit inclusion in Bill's article as seen here? 76.231.73.99 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No - this is the same category as Doctor Octopus' tentacles being shown in Amazing Spider-Man 2. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just reading the Wonder Woman article and I noticed a few unnecessary links like Wonder Woman pointing to Department of Antiquities which is a disambiguation page and to Gotham Museum of Antiquities that is a museum in Hancock, England. Also in the cite articles there are Youtube commentaries as references. Maybe someone can take a look at the article. --MaoGo (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Originally when the first Captain America movie came out, there was a lot of talk that the glowing blue Tessaract was the Cosmic Cube. However, as the MCU series progressed, it became more and more clear that it was actually one of the Infinity Gems, specifically the Space Stone. User:JDDJS says that the sources support the Tessaract being both[17]. Looking for additional commentary. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Several sources describe the tessaract as an adaptation of both: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wanna write an article about an upcoming comic. Do they accept upcoming comics articles here? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: Unless the upcoming comic already has significant coverage, we usually wait for publication to create the article. Which one are you looking to write about? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Yes, it has enough coverage in trusted and verifiable sources. I will ping you when I submit it. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've long been curious about the usage on Mantis (Marvel Comics). If we've clearly got sources by Steve Englehart saying that he used the character under different names while writing for other companies, then I do agree that we should include this in the article in some way. However, is the best way to do that by interrupting the Marvel storylines with this information and they saying "Marvel history resumes" as if this was somehow allowed or supported by Marvel? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to remove that from the biography section and make it a brief section of the publication history than I am to change the name. Regardless of Englehart's intentions, Marvel owns the copyright to the character and events that occurred in comics by a different publisher don't really matter. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I did exactly that: [23] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there really no Neil Gaiman related userboxes? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

...what would one be? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This user...

• enjoys the works of Neil Gaiman.
• is one of the Endless.
• has buttons sewn into their eyes.
• drinks at the tavern of the White Horse.
• is your worst nightmare: a pumpkin with a gun.
• thinks the sunsets are bloody marvelous, you old bastard.
• thinks Grendels mother looked pretty hot.
• made a star go crazy.
• resides at the heart of the Dreaming.
• know about uru.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pick a favorite and suggest it here. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is only loosely related, but I did make this userbox here. JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Deadpool 2 article has Jack Kesy as Black Tom Cassidy in the cast list; the rest of the characters have citations for their actors, but this one doesn't. A later portion of the article says "Jack Kesy also joined the cast, as Black Tom Cassidy." and there is a citation for that, although the headline for that article is "'Deadpool 2' Sets Jack Kesy As Villain: Could He Be Black Tom?" so that confirms the actor being in the movie, but not his role. So my question is, can anyone find an honest-to-God WP:RS which says that Kesy plays Black Tom? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing you should bring up at Talk:Deadpool 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but sometimes discussing issues here (especially since this is a broader issue of "shouldn't all cast members of a film include citations for the actors") generates more response for a general consensus, or that someone may be able to assist. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A not great source (it is from before the film's release and is not that confident) has been added to the listing now, and a better source should show up soon. But there is not some special reason for not sourcing this one character or anything, the page is just going to be going through a lot of changes for a while since the film has only just come out. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A user appears to be changing the infobox image at Riri Williams without discussion despite warnings. Any assistance is welcomed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A number of registers and IP editors have been adding information suggesting that Jake Gyllenhaal is, or will be, or is scheduled to be, or is expected to be, or could maybe possibly who knows whatever, going to play Mysterio in the Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel. Right now the only citation I was seeing is from Variety from a couple of days ago, showing that they he is being "eyed" for the project, based on the headline. The article from Variety says he "might have" gotten the role and notes that he is only in talks. That to me makes it a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation to even include him in the Mysterio article at that point, but maybe interested editors like User:Cairnpent, User:SSuper64, User:Jman98, User:DisneyMetalhead, and User:Ironman7777 can explain why they think this unconfirmed possible role is worth including when we normally do not include unconfirmed castings? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It definitely should not be included at Gyllenhaal's article. IF anything at the Mysterio page, it would have to be worded as such: "In May 2018, Jake Gyllenhaal entered negotiations to play the character in the sequel to Spider-Man: Homecoming.[citation]". But even that isn't necessary until it is fully confirmed (or the prospect passes, in which case it become something like how Campbell's info is listed). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it shouldn't be listed at Gyllenhaal's page. Listing on Mysterio page can mention that Variety reports the character will be the villain of the film, and Gyllenhaal is in early negotiations to portray the character.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Until it's confirmed, it shouldn't be at the character page either - potential appearances are just as non-notable as non-appearances (like Doc Ock's tentacles in ASM2). That's why the stuff about Ben Kingsley being in negotiations to play Vulture in Raimi's aborted Spider-Man 4 was removed from the Vulture page, even though it was sourced. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template ((Transclude lead excerpt)).

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Came across http://www.tcho.fr/serie/agito-cosmos (also on ComicVine) and was wondering what people's thoughts were regarding whether or not this French comic is notable enough for an article. Searching French sources is sort of hard in regards to recognizing popular publications. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't search too hard, but there seems to be a complete lack of English sources on it. Has it been translated to English? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories such as Category:X-Men characters are routinely recreated and deleted. In this case, the speedy delete by Ebyabe was declined, so is there a next step or do we let the category survive this time? 76.231.73.99 (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You can renominate it for deletion again at WP:CfD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I saw that as well; though this iteration may be more acceptable as it's not limiting inclusion to specific media renditions of the characters. Then again, I question how one specifically defines a character as an X-Men character versus simply a character who appears in the X-Men media. The category could use some inclusion criteria. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the creator of the category was a confirmed sock of User:CensoredScribe. I submitted the user adding the category to pages for further investigation. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And they've been blocked, as well as two others. Would this category fall under WP:DENY? And shouldn't the category be listified anyway? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case it should be speedy deleted per Db-g5. Also it might help if you manually remove the category from any articles first. That many articles usually throws up a red flag.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Also Category:Batman characters. How prolific they are. DonIago (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Most if not all manual reverts done. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems Category:Batman characters may be legitimately established. If that's the case, I have to ask, what's the difference between that category and X-Men characters, beyond that X-Men appears to have been established by an editor who was a confirmed sock? Put another way, is our only issue with the category the editor who created it? If not, what makes one of these okay but the other unacceptable? Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there also a discussion (DC teams as well) about all of these types of team categories awhile ago with consensus stating that they should be listified rather than categorized.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Think we should initiate a CfD on Batman characters based on your findings? DonIago (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I reckon the Batman Characters Category should go. It's very undefined.Are the characters I deem Batman characters the same ones that you think are? What makes someone a Batman Character? Appearance in a Batman comic book, or related media? So is Superman therefor a Batman Character? Given the nature of these interconnected characters, I don't think it's a useful categorization. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks KM. If I start a CfD will you speak up on it? Not sure I'd be able to do that immediately, FWIW. DonIago (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Doniago, If I'm around. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I should note that there is a Category: Spider-Man characters and we haven't much issues on that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the distinction between digital comics and webcomics. The discussion can be found on the Webcomics Talk Force general discussion page. ~Mable (chat) 10:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to properly format things so a reference can be within a note? (If this is even possible.) For the Free Comic Book Day article I'd like to have the two references for this year's FCBD go inside the note. Thanks! Spidey104 13:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

like this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War has been nominated for deletion. Users are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War. Tutelary (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a question on the floor (and often on the ceiling) at the talk page of James Gordon Jr. about the spelling of his character's name in the comics. Was it James Gordon, Jr., with a comma before "Jr.", or James Gordon Jr. Thanks Randy Kryn (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a recently started effort to remove the ethnicity of the character from the lead sentence in the Silk (comics) article. I thought it was standard to include that information in the lead and there are other examples where it is. Is there a guideline or something that specifically addresses this point? Thanks! Spidey104 15:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any specific guideline about this issue, but I notice that the ethnicity is neither cited nor repeated anywhere in the body. That indicates to me that it's not a defining feature and probably isn't lead worthy in this case. If it has been a significant point of discussion by sources and cited material about her ethnicity is added to the body, I'd be willing to reconsider. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It is discussed in the articles talking about her potential film. Spidey104 15:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Then it's citable, but the lead should be a summary of the article. If the article doesn't mention Korea, the lead shouldn't either. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that there was no article about the time-displaced X-Men, so I made it. They clearly have independent notability, and have been in several comic books and crossover events. I have made an overview of the editorial history, but it may be expanded. The article would also need a plot overview, as I'm not familiar with the whole run. Cambalachero (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Venom (comic book), 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. Cambalachero (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet is currently a candidate as a Featured Article. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this something that should be included in the Thanos article?[24] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I see three sources cited. It needs to be better clarified, however, as the article currently doesn't explain the banning at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate to the Infinity War article than the character article, but either way it should be better written. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any good reason at all to include this[25] as has been done in several articles? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that really shouldn't be a thing.★Trekker (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, OK, so it looks like User:BornonJune8 has added that template to a bunch of articles. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries. (This doesn't affect comics per se, but comics-related films, TV, and voice-acted video games.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've just created Frank Giroud. Feel free to expand it with more referenced info, and/or to create the red links. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey nerds,

I have been working through the backlog of assessments and have been noticing a lot of...rather subpar articles. That's not a reflection on any one of us by any means, but there are a great many solo articles for very minor characters that consist largely of plot and nothing else of real encyclopedic value. After briefly mentioning the idea to Argento Surfer, I decided to go ahead with a rudimentary notability scheme in order to improve character and series articles. You can find it at WP:NCOMIC. I'm hoping to see what you folks think would help us out in that department. We're the coolest part of Wikipedia. Cheers, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be easier to expand and try to promote Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) to guideline. It's about works of fiction and elements from such works (such as characters). Cambalachero (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My views can be found here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rtkat3:, who will probably want to have a say. I know his views differ from mine. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You might have a point there @Cambalachero:. Also, I have noticed that certain minor characters from each of the List of Marvel Comics characters pages had their entries there deleted by @Namenamenamenamename: causing those who are part of groups to be redirected to pages like the Savage Land Mutates, the Nasty Boys, and the Death-Throws to name a few. Though some editors have redirected some villain groups to the Features of the Marvel Universe pages in the past. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You have my full support, but good luck trying to persuade editors to even consider notability when it comes to comics-related articles. I've beat my head against the Judge Dredd-editing community more than once. Far too many articles on characters, gadgets, settings and other background elements of the series that have no real-world notability and no prospect of ever having it, and when you propose deletions or merges, numbers always seem to trump policy. Elsewhere, articles like Line (comics), that take a generic English word as it is used in a publishing context and act as if it's a very specific phenomenon than needs its own article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"My views can be found here" I would disagree with one of your proposals, but I am neutral on the others. "The character is linked in-line by 15+ other articles." Several Wikipedia articles are not properly wikified and contain few or no links to other articles. They mention specific people, characters, geographic terms, companies, etc, but no editor bothered to add any link. On the other hand, some internal links point to the wrong article or concept, due to mistaken disambiguation. Just checking on the number of pages linked puts too much trust on our articles being properly formated. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

When the number of links is borderline, I review the links. That's not meant to be just a counting exercise - it's a neutral, measurable way to judge how important a character is to the wider fiction. I'm skeptical that there's an appreciable number of mentions that don't get linked - in my experience overlinking is far more common. Also, if an editor writing a summary in article A doesn't link character B, then perhaps that's an implicit opinion by the editor that the character doesn't warrant an article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"I'm skeptical that there's an appreciable number of mentions that don't get linked - in my experience overlinking is far more common."

My experience is the exact opposite. Walls of text with no link to view, and very few categories. We even have Template:Underlinked but we are swamped. Currently Category:All articles with too few wikilinks incudes 17,178 articles and has a considerable backlog. Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative metric for deciding if a character who is not independently notable should be put in a list or deleted? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The same as with any other article topic. How often do they turn up in Tertiary Sources? : "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying characters shouldn't be included on a list unless there are enough sources to justify a stand-alone article on them? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. Per WP:CSC, most lists should not be exhaustive. Given the sheer volume of characters that could appear, it's the most feasible of the three options presented there, although I do recognise we're not bound by that. --Killer Moff (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's an awful idea. From WP:LISTCRITERIA, "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" Argento Surfer (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Argento, I suspect this is one area where we're going to disagree, even though I generally respect your opinion. Again, given the sheer size of the topic, I think that WP:LISTN says it best. "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." I do understand where you're coming from, but my general opinion on this is that the non notable characters are best suited for another wiki. Also, in my experience, putting them in a list is just an invitation to host the extended bio on a list page. --Killer Moff (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there's lots of discussion on this. I don't think I'm necessarily interested in trying to expand fiction notability, but rather provide us here with a guideline for deleting or merging articles. Maybe in the future, as I've seen some WikiProjects cited in the context of actual notability guidelines, sports in my case. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• My tuppence is we don't need it. Having worked long and hard on WP:N, I think that's enough and has suffered from instruction creep. I don't agree with any essay that tells people an article should be deleted, fwiw, that's a direct contradiction of the editing policy. Hiding T 17:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• This deletion discussion seems like a good test case. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey folks,

I had moved Draft:Gotham (season 2) to mainspace because it appeared nearly identical to the complete season 3 article, but an editor has since moved it back saying that the article is still not complete. I'm going on a business trip so I can't give as much attention to this, but could someone who is perhaps more familiar with TV pages take a look and see what I might have overlooked? Would be much appreciated. Cheers, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 10:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Brojam:, could you explain your thoughts? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The draft was improperly moved to the mainspace using copy and paste. Also this draft is very low on production info compared to Gotham's season 3 and season 4 articles. - Brojam (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So have it in mainspace and let editors expand it. There's no deadline, after all, and the article is complete by any other standard. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't really mind even if I think there's WP:NORUSH to move it, but at least move it properly at WP:RM. - Brojam (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a controversial move, though. It's just you objecting. WP:RM even notes that it shouldn't be used except for new/nonconfirmed users to move from draft to mainspace. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a technical move. - Brojam (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

All content which is notable to be in mainspace should be in mainspace, this draft nonsense isn't good for anything but making less people likley to edit it. Editors should stop acting "ashamed" of incomplete or flawed articles, if it's notable it's notable.★Trekker (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

We have WP:Manual of Style/Comics, the top half of which is naming-conventions material. Then we have WP:Naming conventions (comics), a competing comics naming convention. This is a silly WP:POLICYFORK. Having a combined guideline is thus proposed, based on successfully combined MoS/NC pages in other topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that we typically name articles about non-comic appearances by comic characters like "[character] in other media" (Avengers (comics) in other media, Hulk in other media, and Joker in other media are just a few examples). In my opinion, this is ambiguous naming because it's not clear what "other" media is referring to. Should we rename these "[character] in non-comic book media" or something similar? JOEBRO64 21:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Superman has (franchise media) but I don't think that is any clearer and could mean comic books too. I too am curious of better name titles myself? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe this got started because those articles were split from the main article when the section got too large. Editors at the time just re-used the name of the section, then it became ingrained. I haven't put much thought into it, but my first impulse would be add a brief section on comic appearances with a see-also or main template pointing at the comic-focused article. Then it could be renamed "[Character] in media" or something.

Pinging @Curly Turkey: - I know he has opinions on this. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Argento Surfer's got it right—in a comics-focused article, "in other media" makes sense because we already have the larger comics context. Once these sections are spun off into their own articles, the context disappears and the titling becomes problematic, as TheJoe64 says. Perhaps something like "[character] appearances by media"?

Such articles should include all media, inlcuding comics (summarized and linking to the main comics-related article). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"[character] appearances by media" is my favorite suggestion so far. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

bump JOEBRO64 23:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777, Argento Surfer, and Curly Turkey, any opposition if we start moving? I think we've got a consensus that the articles should be renamed (I think "[character] by appearances in media" "[character] appearances by media" should suffice), but I don't want to be too bold. Do you guys think we should seek other opinions first? JOEBRO64 23:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777, Argento Surfer, and Curly Turkey, looks like the ping was messed up JOEBRO64 23:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer something prettier, but I have no opposition to the proposal in lieu of a better one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer "[character] appearances by media", as I proposed above. I don't see a problem with going ahead, but don't be surprised (or too worried about it) if some of them get reverted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, that was actually what I meant... not sure why I said the other one. JOEBRO64 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Avengers outside of comics would at least be a huge improvement over the current title of that article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm new here. I've created a draft article for The Magic Order comics that came out last month.

Please go to Draft:The Magic Order to edit or review the article. I have tried to submit but unfortunately this was refused. Any help or advice would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirab (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There seems to have been tons of JL stuff added to tons of "other media" sections of the DC character navboxes, I've had it told to me many times that team ups stuff and minor apperances should not be included in these navboxes. Same reason the Avenger films aren't in any of the individual Marvel character navboxes. Some people have opossed this recently.

These are two of the ones who are affected by this. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the Batman one and would appreciate if more people chimed in, I fear this might turn into an edit war otherwise.★Trekker (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Amy Rose, 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. JOEBRO64 11:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The article The Parallax Man has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is about a comic book title that was never actually published or even solicited. Additionally, there are no active plans for its publication. The article remains largely unchanged since its creation in 2005, with its last update being made by a bot in 2014. The title and what history it has is already mentioned within its writer's own article. There are no significant contributors and the article's creator hasn't been active since 2014. The article remains unsourced since its creation and there's a lack of information in general that could be added to this article to make it more than a stub.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NJZombie (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what page and panel of Underworld Unleashed #1 that Carapax appeared in? I didn't see him either on pp. 30-31 or on p. 36 panel 1. Any help at all is appreciated.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Idea Mechanics could use some expertise, or at least some sources. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See my edit here:[26], any opinion on using that as a source? Also, Gaiman commented on that WP-article: [27]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That site was nominated for an Eisner Award, so yes - it is very reliable. Also - the information you removed was also available in the WaPo source just in front of it in the article... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks,

Would anyone be interested in putting together a drive/edit-a-thon to clean up the DC character lists? They're...not in the best of shape, especially when you compare them to the Marvel lists. I figure since we've been starting to sweep up the character articles that this was a logical progression. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I support the idea, but doubt I'd be able to participate in a scheduled effort. I edit from work and my boss would probably be suspicious if I added "DC character list clean up" to my calendar... Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I had nominated this page for GAN, but my pre-GAN review copyedits turned into a pretty big cleanup operation, so I think I'm going to recuse myself of ability to review it. Anyone else is welcome to. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Has something happened to this site? It never seems to work anymore.★Trekker (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the Superman article, and in this article I want to use the term "comic magazine". I want to do this to distinguish between the various types of comic books Superman appears in: periodicals, one-shot graphic novels, newspaper strips, and collected editions. I see the term "comic book" as a catch-all term for those more specific types. However, some other editors reject my approach because in America it is the convention to call all comic books "comic books". I would like to present some arguments why an exception should be made in this case:

• I want to use the term "magazine" in a section of the article that breaks down the publishing franchise into its components (periodicals, one-shots, etc.). For this I need more specific terms than "comic book".
• In countries other than America, "magazine" is often used to describe comic books released periodically. In the UK, 2000AD and The Beano are described as "magazines". In France, Spirou is called a périodique de bande dessinée (comic periodical).
• Historically, even American comic books were called magazines. See, for instance, the cover to Action Comics #37.
• The Wikipedia disambig page for comic magazine suggests the "comic book" is American slang.
• There is no explicit rule in the MOS that bans "magazine". The main argument that editors have used to support "comic book" is commonality, which I think is a weak argument.
• I do not think the term "comic magazine" will confuse readers, even American ones.

Kurzon (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that there are magazines that talk about comics, without being comics themselves, such as Wizard (magazine) Cambalachero (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• To rebut the arguments Kurzon presents:
  • There is currently no breaking down of the publishing franchise, nor would the term comic book here be contentious when used within context and where clarified with terms such as one shot and collection.
  • Superman is a topic with strong ties to the US so we use US usage as per WP:MOS. Other countries usage therefore does not apply.
  • Comic book has far wider usage. A google search for the last 14 years finds almost no instances of the term comic magazine [28]. A track of the two terms since 1800 shows that comic book is the most popular term. [29]
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Most dictionaries do not refer to it as slang.
  • The MOS does explicitly state we strive for common usage and the language that is most closely tied with the subject: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation
  • There is no need to use comic magazine when the term comic book does not cause any confusion.

Hiding T 16:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

My own rebuttal:

• Google search statistics do not give any context for the terms it lists. A given use of the term "comic book" might be for comic books in general, not periodicals specifically.
• Using the word "comic book" may not cause confusion, but that's not really the point. The point is to clarify the nature of the comic books in question. "Comic magazine" carries a more specific definition: it means periodicals.
• I fully intend to add more information on the various other types of comic books to the article: trade paperbacks, collected editions, graphic novels, etc.
• "Comic book" is a colloquial term. "Periodical" is the more formal one. It's certainly the term used in all court cases I've come across, and industry insiders also use the term periodical. DC Comics was once called "National Periodicals Publications".
• To go back to Google search statistics: the word "cop" is more popular than "policeman". Should we, by Hiding's logic, eliminate all occurrences of the word "policeman" in favor of "cop"?

Kurzon (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Since no-one is discussing the cop and policeman articles we can disregard that argument. Since a comic book is a periodical by definition, we can disregard that argument as well. Google search statistics do add context as can be seen in the links provided. They also show zero searches for "comic magazine" so it's disingenuous to suggest it as a defined term. Perhaps a link to a dictionary defining the term "comic magazine" would help. Can you provide one as I can't turn one up. I have no objection to mixing the language up; I object merely to the idea that we ban the term comic book from the Superman article through the personal preference of one editor who based on the arguments they have presented above does not seem to understand what the term means. While we discuss what court transcripts say, I guess it's important we note that the Senate investigations into comic books in the 1950s preferred the term comic book to comic magazine. Hiding T 12:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to ban the term "comic book". I just want permission to use the term "magazine" in parts of the article where I want to make a distinction between periodicals and other types of comic book. I know it's not the most common term but it will not cause confusion and in fact help clarify what I'm trying to tell the reader. Kurzon (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The term "comic book" is not confusing, but "comic magazine" is. As I said, it can also make reference to magazines about comics. Cambalachero (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is also used as a term within the profession to refer to comics-carrying periodicals that are larger in cover dimension than the standard comic book. Mad, Heavy Metal, Savage Sword of Conan, etc., would be deemed "magazines" as a contrast to Detective Comics or Archie. As such, it is best avoided if one is intending to include the most standard format. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, you'd have to explain the usage which would go against the point of making it simpler. Most people will understand 'comicbook', or 'comic book', or if referrering to a single one, 'issue'. BTW, in the UK we tend to refer to them as comics. They sometimes appear on magazine stands but only because newsagents don't have comics sections. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, since the consensus is clear, I will make minimal use of the word "periodical" and "magazine" in the article. Kurzon (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Periodical" can be used as an adjective, so if I use the term "periodical comic book", I can explain their nature as well as introduce foreign readers to the American definition of comic books. Kurzon (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

When possible, I think a more specific description than periodical could be used for variation, such as "monthly", "quarterly", "annual", or what have you. It's tough to set a guideline for something like this though, as the best description really depends on context. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to research why we stopped calling them "comic magazines". I suspect it has something to do with money; perhaps taxes or postage fees. Kurzon (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There’s an RFC at Guardians of the Galaxy (film) that could use some more eyes. —AdamF in MO (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi... first time here... so not blame (too much :) if isn't the best place to post this question... (and i'm not native english.. )

I copy here a question that i've written in red skull's Talk ...

Seems a bizzare question but.. when exactly was first mentioned the real name of the Red Skull?

In comics books of '40 ,AFAIK, the only real name mentioned is "George Maxon".. (the '50 we know are fake Skull, so unimportant).. the classic Tales of Suspense#65-66, (May, 1965) shows the history of Red Skull (but without names)...

(AFAIK) the first run that explains details and names are the comic books about Mother Superior, the daughter of Red Skull .. aka Captain America #298-300 (1984).. where is revealed that Red Skull is Johann Shmidt.

Some following "official" books, as OHOTMU of 1987 (and 1989 and more), filed "red skull" as Johann Shmidt ... Ironically even some of the references mentioned in this page, actually show Shmidt instead of Schmidt ... like marvel.com and marvunapp.com. A good reading about the "identity problem" of red skull (and cap) is http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/rskul2.htm.

For some reason (that i don't know, and i'd LIKE to know) the "Schmidt" variant was became famous.. since the comic book "Red Skull: Incarnate" (of Pak, 2011) uses Johann Schmidt, instead.

There is some run that predates Cap#298-300 that reveals Schmidt as real name? --Spiderscai (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References #4 and #6 in this article need to be merged into Reference #4 a b. If anyone can do this, please do. I've tried to do it and can't. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Malcolmlucascollins: done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer:Thank you, thank you, whoever you are! Now, if I can just get the two References in Underworld Unleashed, the two References in Neron (DC Comics) and the two pairs of References in Hell (DC Comics) merged, that would be great! Could you do all this for me, please? The information for all of them is on their respective talk pages.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Malcolmlucascollins: you can see how I did it here. More detail is available at WP:REFNAME. It's pretty easy. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not that computer-literate. Every time that I tried to do it, I always got one of two answers: the reference was "invoked but never defined" or it was "missing the closing </ref>". Therefore, I'd prefer to leave these things to the experts like you. Thank you.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion here. JOEBRO64 14:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI that Dexterlabooo (talk · contribs) has created Category:X-Men characters, a category that was previously deleted and which I believe has previously been re-created by socks of blocked editors (I'm not 100% on that). It may be relevant that this editor's account is only a week old. I attempted a speedy delete but it was rejected. I'm not going to be around a great deal for the next few days, but wanted to make sure the project was aware of this. Feel free to take whatever steps you may deem appropriate. DonIago (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Same guy recreated Category:MCU characters as well. Should have been blocked immediately.★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The recent discussion to delete Category:Batman characters closed as no consensus. On top of that, I personally find categories to be a timesink that doesn't do much to improve the reader experience. I'm happy to argue for its deletion if someone else starts the discussion, but at this point I'm wondering if it might be easier to just let these editors have the category and move on. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that categories are better for editors and in depth readers, not casual people as much. Personally I don't have real opinion on "X characters" categories but I think the guy should be blocked for 99% sure being the same old sock comming back and re-creating the MCU category.★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you dig up the previous IP/account names, I'll start the SPI. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How's this? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe? DonIago (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Have you had a chance to look at this yet? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Case is open. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! If they're found to be a sock then is a new speedy delete an option, or will a full CfD be required? DonIago (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe deletion/reverting is part of the admin process if the SPI checks out. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, all taken care of. Thanks for your help! DonIago (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I just notice an IP (86.175.205.157) has recently been bloating a number of different character navboxes with seemingly everyone the character has come into conflict with. I thought we limited these links to articles that have significant connections, not merely teammates or one-time opponents. At some point navigational boxes lose their effectiveness when they're over crowded.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That is the desired way to do it. The insignificant entries should be removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Given the recent trend for comics articles to go to AfD, do we need to look at reworking and codifying this guideline? Apart from anything else, I'd like to see some clarification on what makes a trivial appearance. I also think notability should be presumed for any ongoing series (not character) published by a major publisher. Discussion of what makes a major publisher is probably also necessary on this point. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I judge a trivial appearance based on three factors: the total number of appearances, the range of appearances (one title vs five titles), and the time frame of the appearances. For borderline merge-delete cases, I look at the number of significant incoming, in-line links. Sometimes the incoming links are themselves trivial ("Notable character fought questionable character before going on to other notable things."), sometimes they're informative ("Notable character partnered with questionable character, who has these important qualities."), and sometimes they're evidence that the questionable character is significant to the fiction (multiple articles refer to the questionable character for different storylines). In these cases, I would delete, redirect, and merge to a list, respectively.

I agree that all ongoing series from big publishers should be assumed as notable, and would extend that to miniseries. One-shots can be (I have one at FAC now), but can't be assume as such. Big publishers, in my mind, are Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse, IDW, Gold Key, Archie, EC, Dell, and Harvey. Boom!, Dynamite, Valiant, Fawcett, Malibu, Oni, and Zenoscope are borderline, but I suspect most of their output could be shown as notable. These are off the top of my head, so I'm certain I've left out someone obvious. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree with that strongly. We certainly don't treat such things that way in other realms of print publishing, where plenty of books from major publishers are not sufficiently notable for an article. Almost all of those companies had series that ran a couple of issues and sank without a trace, leaving no visible impact. A series is not notable simply for having a specific publisher. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I said "assumed" to be notable. That is, series from those publishers are extremely likely to have been discussed by secondary sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMICS now has its own barnstar! Use ((subst:The Comics Barnstar|message ~~~~)) to spread some love among our contributors. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Just saw Halloseve_night has added a bunch of succession boxes for MCU villains. I know this is generally frowned upon but just wanted to get some more opinions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I frown on it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Geez. Reverting now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I was about to post something about these here now. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Which version of File:Invisible Woman.png was better? User:NeoBatfreak uploaded a different picture over the older one. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say. The new one is less representative of how she's normally drawn, but does show her actually turning invisible. The old one is a more traditional style and costume, but the blue lightning effect on her head doesn't really show her powers. I recommend seeking a third option. I tried to find one myself but had to abandon the effort immediately. Even with safe search on, the image results for "Invisible Woman" aren't something I can have on my workstation. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The new one has her going partially invisible, which illustrates better her powers, but it's also "incomplete", as her arms are not fully within the frame. Also, it has less "empty space" around. Keep it for the moment, but an alternative would be better. Cambalachero (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinions on Category:Marvel vs. Capcom fighters and its usefulness? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

We similarly have a Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters. I think these evolved from the practice of creating categories for fighting game characters for stuff like Street Fighter. I think this question may fit better at the video game WikiProject. Is it a defining characterstic of these characters that they have been playable in this large franchise? I personally think yes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly defined and not duplicating another category. Seems fine to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been meaning to expand the articles from The King of Fighters and realized I there was a comic that was translated to English: 2003. I don't know if this is the project to discuss it but I thought I would need advice. In regards to reception I only found four sources:

• Thomas, Lucas M. (March 8, 2008). "The King of Fighters 2003 Vol. 1 Review". IGN. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
• Sparrow, A.E. (May 27, 2008). "King of Fighters 2003: Volume 4 Review". IGN. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved August 23, 2008.
• "External Book Reviews: The King of Fighters 2003: The Comic, Volume 1". Genji Press. April 4, 2007. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved October 8, 2015. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Leary, Ben (October 15, 2008). "King of Fighters 2003 Vol. #05". Mania. Demand Media. Archived from the original on October 18, 2012. Retrieved November 12, 2010.

You think this has potential to create an article. I have no idea since I have never created a comic article. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Just the sources you brought up here is a bit weak, but one or two more reliable sources and it would make a fine article, I would say. Notability guidelines for stand-alone comic books aren't particularly different than those for stand-alone video games. I have no idea if Genji Press and Mania.com are reliable myself. Of course, you can always write about it on the main franchise article and split it off summary-style if needed. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Mania is reliable based on it's owner but I don't know about Genji.Tintor2 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Found another one

• "The King of Fighters 2003". Comic Book Bin. Retrieved September 29, 2018.

I recently created this. Inspired by the likes of all those other based on spinoff articles and seeing if I can make a few more. Does anyone feel that this might be acceptable or ready for Wikipedia? Also if so what might be a good title for it since I feel that "Donnerverse" is most likely a fan name? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 10:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Howdy all. I'm doing some cleanup of pages that are tagged as needing an infobox when the already have an infobox. In the process I came across Template:WikiProject Comics and discovered a small issue. Unlike the majority of templates that use Template:WPBannerMeta, the WP Comics one uses (({image))} & (({infobox))} (almost all others use (({needs-image))} and (({needs-infobox))}). The issue is that (({image))} can be interpreted two ways... Some people read is as "this article HAS an image" and some read it as "this article NEEDS an image". So this leads to people (with the absolute best of intentions) misusing the template and thus categorizing pages incorrectly. I have updated the template to allow for (({needs-infobox))} to work IN ADDITION TO (({infobox))}. In the mean time I am tracking pages that are using the deprecated parameter with Category:Pages using WikiProject templates with deprecated infobox param. Since I have no affiliation with this project, I just wanted to throw this out there so people know that the heck I'm doing. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, don't hesitate to ((ping)) me! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So we know that Woody Harrelson makes a cameo at the end of the Venom movie as a serial killer claiming "there will be carnage". As far as I can tell, the character is unnamed, but it is likely that this is an easter egg to suggest that the character is Cletus Kasady, aka Carnage, which is WP:OR without a WP:RS to back that up. this edit by User:Kirbanzo which I removed initially as unsourced, and they restored with a source (after accusing me of being disruptive on my talk page, albeit for removing an unsourced claim), makes the claim that Harrelson is set to reprise the role in a sequel. The source makes the claim that "Marvel fans will know Harrelson’s character as Cletus Kasady" which may or may not be dubious. I do find the claim of him appearing in a sequel to be especially dubious, since the source only says "Since Harrelson only cameoed, there’s no doubt he’s signed on for a Venom sequel with Hardy. Perhaps the film will be called Venom vs Carnage" which is clearly very speculative. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the source is speculation at best. Is Harrelson credited in the film, and if so, how? I suspect that that'll be the clincher, although doubtlessly other sources will emerge in the coming days 'confirming' this as Kasady. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I was pretty sure Harrelson is signed on for a sequel, but his quote here isn't as clear as I remembered. At this time, I think speculation about his identity and his role in the sequel is WP:CRYSTAL, and I would omit it. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, source is flawed upon further review. Free to remove as WP:CRYSTAL. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this source? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• He's referred to as Cletus Kasady in the movie, according to Time. JOEBRO64 17:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the film and he is pretty prominently credited as the character, so there should be a decent source somewhere to back that up. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I think in particular IP 86.173.209.52 has kind of been going berserk with these lately; witness these on Nova as just one example. There might be other users doing this too; will let you know if I see more. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:9558:F3CD:6F7D:348C (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have sources to add to Supreme Intelligence which is currently at AFD? Has there been any hint as to the character's possible involvment in future MCU films? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidgoodheart has been adding Category:Fictional humanoids to a variety of different characters as seen here; I'm not even sure what is supposed to be in that category, but surely it does just belong everywhere? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason that I had added humanoids to the Fantastic Four is because thing and the other one that (shown glowing with the letter A on his outfit) are both humanoids. I also do not understand why you said not to include people like lizard on the list. And why don't Red Skull, Feral (comics), and Hobgoblin (comics) belong on the list? These are clearly humanoids, so what is your reason behind this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem lies in that the parent article for the category is List of humanoid aliens, and all the characters you've mentioned here are mutated humans rather than aliens (although there is an alien Hobgoblin). The category and parent article as a whole do seem rather ill-defined, though, and probably require more work. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't anything resembling a human a "humanoid"? I do think the category name should be made more specific. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ill-defined is putting it mildly. Sub-cats of Fictional humanoids include "Disney Princess characters‎", "Fictional elves‎" and "South Park characters‎". Pairing it to the list of Humanoid aliens is a real stretch. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Killer Moff: Mutated humans? Well since you put it that way I would say that you are right. Thanks for giving me that information as I had not considered that before. Maybe you can see if there is anyone else you can add to the list. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for Killer Moff, but when they described the category as "ill-defined" I doubt they are going to be adding any more characters to that category. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC00:758E:87AE:9323 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The main article here is Humanoid: "something that has an appearance resembling a human without actually being one". By various definitions these includes real or hypothetical species which are outside the genus Homo, humanoid robots, mythic humanoids, a number of depictions of extraterrestrials in both science fiction and ufology, and various fantasy races. Humans have a tendency to craft characters in their own image, as noted by Xenophanes:

• "Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and narrow-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair." Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Not according to the description at the top of the category page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The description should be changed as it actually contradicts both the main article and parent category Category:Humanoids.Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some input on this merge discussion. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've had an edit suggested on Hollywood Superstars for four years now (although I just made it a more specific suggestion.) No response as yet. It's a matter on which I've got a strong conflict of interest. Could someone take a look and implement it if it seems appropriate? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of making an article for 'Death Follows' by Cullen Bunn. It was initially published digitally as 'The Remains' before being printed as a graphic novel under the title 'Death Follows'. Which title should be used?--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

One could suggest that these are two somewhat separate topics, though of course they would share the same article. On Google News, both releases seem to be discussed by reliable sources about evenly. I would say that it depends on whether you want to write about it more as a digital comic (with a graphic novel adaptation) or a graphic novel (originally published as a digital comic). The primary way one would usually decide this is by looking at which title is used more by reliable sources, though, so which publication is discussed more? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with the original name, but I suggest writing the bulk of the article in your sandbox and seeing which version makes up the larger share of the publication and reception sections. The lead should include both names in the opening line and the unused name should be a redirect to wherever the article ends up. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'll do some further research.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Is anything in this series of edits acceptable? David A, can you take a look? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to help, but the IP warned me that, next time, I'll be warned for vandalism. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I see! I guess we better leave all this "well documented" content alone then, don't want to be banned for life. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that they largely seem very exaggerated, biased and unreliable. David A (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For example, Twitter replies should not be cited as evidence, and the Beyonder displayed limitations on several occasions. Claiming that he is an absolutely omnipotent entity is a severe exaggeration.

I suspect that this is likely the banned user BeyonderGod causing problems via an IP address again. David A (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he is citing "fictional battle omniverse", a site owned by BeyonderGod: [30] David A (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to clean up the page somewhat, but help with improvements would be very appreciated: [31] David A (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

BeyonderGod seems to be causing problems with bad edits again, or at least he sounds exactly the same way when he writes: [32] [33] David A (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an experienced editor (133,000 edits since 2005), but there's one aspect of the Comics-related articles that I haven't concerned myself with: The partners parameter in the Comics character Infobox. However, I've been keeping an eye on the Miles Morales article for some years now, having gotten it up to GA status, and there's been some activity lately regarding that parameter. My two questions are:

1. What are the requirements or standards regarding inclusion in that parameter?
2. What are the requirements or standards reqarding sourcing for that parameter?

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• The template provides this guidance: "Partners include any current or previous partners. Please stick to notable partnerships. Also, please avoid "employee/employer" relationships." @Darkwarriorblake: proposed removing it back in 2015, but it never happened. I'd support removing it entirely, as it's subjective and prone to bloat. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Argento notified me of this discussion, and I do agree with what I said back then. If you look at something like Miles Morales, they're adding in anyone he's ever worked with, and how do you ultimately ascertain what is a notable partnership and what is not? It's an unnecessary detail better covered in the body text and seems like a remnant of the Dark Ages of Wikipedia. I'd support removing still. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's ill-defined and prone to bloat. I can see it's use in several instances where it truly is a defining partnership (Cloak & Dagger, Power Man & Iron Fist, Batman & Robin, etc...), but am uncertain as to how best to codify that in a way that would prevent every issue of Brave and the Bold or Marvel 2 in 1 being cited. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

All those examples exist as a comic title. Maybe that's a good standard (if it's kept)? It'd pair Captain America and Falcon too. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I have requested a peer review of the article Black Panther (soundtrack) that I am hoping to nominate for GA soon. I am specifically looking for any comments that users may have regarding the scope and structure of the article. If any member of this project would like to take a look at the article and contribute their thoughts to this process then that would be awesome. The review page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Panther (soundtrack)/archive1. Thanks guys, adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fright Night#Stage play. Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I recently had a glance of this article of Human Top (Bruce Bravelle). It seemed like there is an editor who has strong beliefs that the sources he placed are reliable and that it’s subjective what the reliable sources are. The article recently had an AFD. I applaud his attempt to save it. But it doesn’t stop the character to be a minor character from Marvel in my humble opinion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For the sorts of information being used, yes, it looks like many of those are reliable sources. Even ones that might at first give you pause, like someone's personal site, turn out to be the site of Jess Nevins, who is the sort of guy who writes academic guides to the characters of popular fiction from various periods, and can be reasonably judged an expert. "All in Color for a Dime", written by long-time Comics Buyer's Guide editor Don Thompson? Yup. The Encyclopedia of Superheroes, published by a standard publisher of reference works? Yup. Marvel Mystery Handbook, published by the publisher of the character? Reliable for non-aggrandizing information, yes. If your question is do these sources show sufficient significance, that's a different issue, but are they reliable in that we can reasonably assume them to be accurate? Yes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean in appliance of WP:GNG for one thing. Also I still see blogsspot and fan sites as this “reliable source” which I think should be removed. The books are good sources I only see are reliable but they don’t prove notability either. Will ping other users such as @Tenebrae:, @TriiipleThreat:, @Argento Surfer: etc.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

For GNG, the Marvel one is ruled out (not independent), but others apply. I think your question is more one of significant coverage. (To add to the Jess Nevins comment: the Wall Street Journal has called him a "super-researcher", in reviewing a book of his on the history of superheroes.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the bottom source. I am not even counting that one. It’s used as an external link but not reference. I am still concerned of the ones that might not be reliable (the blogs etc.) and still feel the article should be potentially merged. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Refs 1 and 8 are direct from Marvel, so they can't be used for establishing independent notability. Ref 5 is a blog for (as far as I can tell) an amateur without an editor. Ref 9 is certainly reliable, although it's use to cite a plot element doesn't give it much value in my opinion. Per WP:RSPRIMARY, refs 2, 3, 4, and 7 are technically acceptable, but I suspect they wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

All this, plus the fact that he appeared in only 2 stories... If it went to AfD again I'd argue to delete. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the ping above didn't show up as a notification. Assuming the other two failed as well, I'm going to re-do them. @TriiipleThreat and Tenebrae: Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I didn’t ping right. I was wondering about that last night. Also I already merge requested it in Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters: H. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it too soon? Eternals (comics)#Film includes a list of characters added by User:Cardei012597, although I am not sure about the reliability of the source used. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The characters weren't added by me, I just fixed the links to the characters's wiki pages. Someone else found the reference, I just reused it for the other character's wiki pages.Cardei012597 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Lionjr16 added the reference and characters. I only fixed his formatting mistakes. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s not a reliable source.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was concerned about that. I will remove the "Film" section from those characters for now, but hopefully when there actually is a reliable source to verify this later, we can add some information back. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anything in this edit by User:Hitmanx86 to Captain America look like it can be kept? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My initial reactions are as follows: The "identity" blurb is sourced to a senior thesis, so that veers towards OR. The addition to the "abilities" section honestly seems fine, maybe scratch the "notable." The "body mass and energy storage" addition is wildly overdetailed and unnecessary. The shield addition duplicates info already there so it can be axed. I will make these changes, but if consensus is different feel free to restore/cut whatever. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is currently semi-protected, but that expires soon; I will keep an eye on it regardless. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Just regarding the senior thesis material: an undergraduate thesis, nope. (A senior thesis by someone who became notable later is different tho.) Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a content dispute at The Death of Superman. Please help resolve it at this discussion. Thank you. JOEBRO64 23:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The last discussion that took place about adding Avengers members on its template was 10 years ago. Time has changed and although I do understand with what their main point was, there are too many members to list on the template and adding every single one would clutter the template. That’s why I think we should add main notable members like Black Panther, Spider-Man, She-Hulk, Carol Danvers, Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch and others. Characters who have well-known status in the comics and film. Hawkeye and Vision are two notable Avemgers that are well known to audiences. It seems odd that they aren’t listed here, where the mass majority of people do know them from. Characters like Dr. Druid, Mockingbird, and Black Knight may be members but are just not well-known enough and they haven’t had much of a prescence in the comics for awhile. The X-Men, Fantastic Four, Teen Titans, and Justice League templates are twice the size of the Avengers one and have a list of other members besides the founders. Its just a thought. Love to hear the opinions of others on this subject. Pinky Rhino (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Dr. Druid, Mockingbird, and Black Knight may be members but are just not well-known enough and they haven’t had much of a prescence in the comics for awhile"

Druid was a fairly prominent member of the East Coast Avengers from 1987 to 1988, when his main storyarc was that his ambitions to lead the team were used to manipulate and corrupt him into betraying them. (And the story made it clear that he was not above killing the previous leader of the team, to make certain there was an opening for leadership. Before the corruption was even in effect. ) In the 1990s, he was mostly a solo hero. He briefly led a new incarnation of the Defenders and faked his death to defect from the team. He had a solo mini-series, which turned him into a rather amoral vigilante and had him murdered in the final issue. From 1995 to 2017, he was a dead character who mostly appeared in stories involving either the undead or temporary resurrections. He was resurrected (permanently?) in a 2017 storyline of the Squadron Supreme. He has not been an active Avenger for 20 years, and given his "traitor" status, he is typically mentioned in-story and on readers' polls as the worst Avenger.

Mockingbird was a founding member of the West Coast Avengers, and a fairly prominent member from 1984 to 1993, when she was depicted killed in combat. For several years there were appearances of her spirit/ghost and a few stories hinting at her resurrection. (Including one where Hawkeye thought that he was helping to resurrect his ex-wife Mockingbird, and was manipulated into resurrecting Hellcat instead.) She finally returned in a 2008-2009 crossover event, and the person who died in battle in 1993 was revealed to have been an imposter. Since then she has had a few solo series and stories, joined the Secret Avengers, and was a double-agent in a crossover event involving HYDRA. I am not entirely certain how well known she is outside her West Coast Avengers status.

Black Knight is a bit of an odd case. While he joined the team back in 1967-1968, he was mostly a reserve member who was called in action whenever the team needed a larger roster. In between his service with the Defenders, a few years stuck in the form of a statue, and some time-traveling adventures, he was never around for long. He served as a more prominent East Coast Avengers member in the late 1980s (when his magic sword was revealed to be corrupting its owners in Elric of Melniboné-style), had a relatively lengthy run with the team in the 1990s (when he was involved in a love triangle with teammates Crystal and Sersi, and when the key villain Proctor turned out to be an alternate version of himself). Since then he is back to reservist status, joining other teams, and having solo stories from time to time. Pretty much back to where he started. Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I would need to see an objective measure for defining notable members before I could support this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok well characters like Spider-Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Vision, War Machine, Falcon, Bucky Barnes, Carol Danvers, Scott Lang, She-Hulk, Spider-Woman, Novac, Valkyrie, and Wolverine are examples that could fit into the category that are notable and have had big impacts on the team. Characters like Hercules, Black Knight, Mockingbird, Wonder Man, Swordsman, Hellcat, Dr. Druid, Tigra, Captain Britain, Living Lightning, Darkhawk, and Rage are all members too but shouldn’t be list on the list as they haven’t had the same number of impacts as the others listed before. Pinky Rhino (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Examples are great, but how are you choosing who's listed and who's not? Without a firm, objective criteria this is going to bloat super quick. I'm looking for an easy to understand rule I can point to when I remove a name. Argento Surfer (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Members who the moment they’ve joined the team have remained part of the team over the years and have made significant impacts on the team. Pinky Rhino (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

”Significant” is a subjective determination, we need an objective determination. As it stands, I think the current format is the only one that is truly impartial. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Something that the hero did that impacted the team in a big way. Not every member on the team has managed to make impacts like that. In that way, we include the hero who made an impact on the teams history, like the heroes I mentioned as examples of being notable. They each made an impact on the team. Pinky Rhino (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s still subjective. What may seem big to you may not seem big to someone else and vice versa.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

How about any member with over 100 appearances, or any member who has served as chairperson within the stories? These are likely to be characters who are mostly connected with the Avengers. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The method should be easily verifiable by all readers.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinky, the "impact" criteria you're using here is pretty much the same one that's being used to restore all the garbage that you're removing Spider-Man's infobox. You need to propose a rule that is 1) easy to check and 2) not debatable. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I like Killer Moff’s idea. How about we just add an Avenger whose made over 100 appearances on the issue, that would make them memorable and not just being a one time thing. I don’t know what else to add since the impact on team has been divisive and this being something that I agree with. Pinky Rhino (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Anybody thinking that the second Batwoman character (Kate Kane) is well ready to have her own article outside of the Batwoman article? I would have boldly done it myself. But it seems that it has been tried before and the redirection page is protected. Also I did a test edit on how the first Batwoman would have looked. Not that bad too despite hardly being a major player as the second character. See here My issue is that though there still both Batwoman...they are both different in style and looks to have their own SEPERATE article. Also the Batwoman article still has other alternate Batwoman's and other media to still be around and summarize the two main characters too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Should this article exist? He only appeared twice, not as a headliner.

The article has been contested, but on the basis of poor sources rather than notability. Any opinion on whether these sources are good enough to support an article?

As an inclusionist, I'm much against throwing away existing work (especially if it's mine) and don't see how this would improve the experience of the ~three readers who access it per day. But I'd be interested in what you guys think. Herostratus (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel the info can stay (with attribution of your edits) but it’s not notable on its own. Definitely with just two appearances. But I was welcoming more opinions as seen before. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "with attribution of your edits"? Also more info: the editor who raised the objection to the article instead merged it to "List of Marvel Comics characters: H#Bruce Bravelle" which had:

The Human Top (or just the Top) is a fictional character, a Golden Age superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character appeared in two stories published by Timely Comics (the predecessor of Marvel Comics) in 1940 and 1942, and not since then. His real name is Bruce Bravelle. He is called "the Human Top" in the story titles but just "the Top" within the body of the stories.

...Human Top (David Mitchell) has an article... he has nine appearances, but only as member of a team... I mean, my conception would be to add information by breaking the list members out into separate articles if there's enough info to make a decent short article, rather than destroying information by cutting articles down into list entries... "enh, readers do not need need a picture or to know his character bio or story details, so even tho we have this info let's erase it"... this seems to overassume our knowledge of readers' needs. But I'm willing to be gainsaid if that's what it is. Would like to know before creating similar articles. Herostratus (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I told you we can add the other info too. I realize I didn’t add all when merged. That’s because I didn’t trust all the sources but since you fee strongly about all the other info I would come up with a compromise. Also no Wp:Other things exist. That might be a merge candidate too. It’s just that I am focused on Marvel Comics character in published order at the time being. There’ a method to my madness I swear! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by the sources as discussed in the section 2 or 3 above this one. I'd support deletion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. Poking a little more into the refs, they include material by Jess Nevins who writes books on this stuff and has an article here... Jeff Christiansen wrote the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (official because it was published by Marvel) and many similar books... some of the other refs are less good, but mostly worthwhile IMO. So I mean, what do you want?

@Jhenderson777:, what is the point of merging if you're going to keep all or most of the material from the article? In that case it's a format question and doesn't much matter... But, doing this regularly will eventually make the list article too long, at which point someone will say "let's break some of these out into articles", and thus the circle of life repeats... Herostratus (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the OHotMU is a primary source and useless for establishing notability. The same is true for any source published by Marvel Comics.

Second, while I haven't examined each one, I suspect that many of the "Master Lists", "Catalogues", and "Encyclopedias" cited don't stand up to scrutiny. An exhaustive list created by a fan for fan purposes is not usable to show notability.

Third, the two sources that might be usable to establish notability aren't used to establish notability. Nevins is used to source the second & final appearance. That's not notable. All in Color for a Dime is used to source a plot element. That's not notable.

Finally, the list of marvel characters is already quite long. That's why it's alphabetical and each letter gets its own page. Only a few editors try to split characters out of it, and that's usually against consensus or because of a new development. One dedicated editor has actually be going through and removing entries for insignificant characters and reducing the page sizes. The purpose of the list is to house information on characters who are notable within the stories, but not notable independent of them. This character isn't notable in either context.

So, "what do [I] want"? I want additional sources showing the character is significant somehow, or I want to start an AfD discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, your privilege. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be used in the article to establish notability to actually be useful in showing notability for Wikipedia purposes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Are there sources not in the article that show notability? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it kind of depends on your definition of notability. On Wikipedia, WP:GNG is the usual first place to look. WP:GNG is not particulary well written, but it is what it is. Assuming the sources are independent of the subject, it asks for this level of coverage:

1. Reliable sources.
2. Two or more ("multiple)" sources.
3. Significant coverage. The examples given are entire book = yes, passing mention in a single sentence = no. Pretty broad area in between! So we're on our own. But a reasonable interpretation -- no one has to agree with it, but it's reasonable -- might be something like "A couple short paragraphs, at least, or equivalent". (If you're wanting an entire magazine article(s) or book chapter(s) dedicated to the subject, OK. That is not my interpretation. (I once analyzed 100 random articles, and well over half didn't attain that level of coverage, that would be about 3 million articles if it scales up.))

OK, so there are clearly multiple sources, and they're clearly in-depth (if they weren't, the article couldn't have upwards of eight paragraphs and a picture). So, reliability.

OK, so the sources include Jeff Rovin and Jess Nevins who are notable enough to have articles here (you can read them if you want to know more), plus Jeff Christiansen who doesn't have an article here but has published several books on comics characters (some or all of those books were published by Marvel and thus not helpful for establishing notability -- but we're not using those here. We're using Christiansen's own website; and being published by Marvel elsewhere does help establish his bona fides, I would think). So but how reliable are these experts, Jeff Rovin and Jess Nevins and Jeff Christiansen? I don't know, but if you're not going to accept them as experts, who is good enough? And there're other sources. One of them's a Facts On File book (but which I can't access), the others are of lesser quality, but they can't detract from notability can they.

So, but on the one hand you can say "I infer lack of sufficient editorial oversight. Where is their fact-checking department?". But on the other hand, back in the real world: the data information in these source are self-evidently true. There are various ways we know this. One way we know is that Jeff Rovin and Jess Nevins and Jeff Christiansen didn't get where they are by making stuff up or being sloppy. Another way we know this is that these experts support each other. This is why you're not claiming that any of the sourced info is not almost certainly true, if anything can be true. It is true, and you know it is, and the reader may also be assured of this to a reasonable level of confidence. Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The notability of the writers is not inherited by the subjects they write about.

Assuming the citations in the article are all the usable information from the sources (why would it be otherwise?), there is clearly a lack of depth in the coverage. The only information in the article that couldn't come directly from the primary source material is Mahney's opinion of the art. Everything else (publication dates, page counts, story titles) is just cataloging existence. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Those reliable sources have to help the article though. They clearly do not. They are just randomly there to say that that comic books are notable (or at least the comic book that it debuted on). Not the character. I am still in favor of the merge. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Albuquerque Comic Con is a redlink still, despite having (in this incarnation) run annually since 2011. The original one was held in at least 1995 (mentioned at 1995 in comics; I'm not sure how many years that one operated). It's not a trivial, local affair, but a typical con with major artists and the usual assortment of celebs. Even Stan Lee was at one of the two I went to when I lived there (so were LeVar Burton, Brent Spiner, Richard Hatch, and various other TV/movie people, and every other artist you can shake a pen at). It was a pretty big event, since the closest other cons in the entire US Southwest are in Phoenix and Denver, so people come from pretty far away. I remember it being about on the scale of the one DragonCon I went to in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1996 (though, of course, with more of a comics focus). There are some adjunct events like Santa Fe Comic Con (in the state capital, an hour north), and Indigenous Comic Con (highlighting the work of Native American artists); those might be good short sections and ((R to section))((R to subtopic)) redirects (though we'd have to confirm an actual link between the events, I suppose, for WP:COATRACK reasons). There's plenty of news-site coverage, though it's either regional or comics-news clustered, as one would expect).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Input regarding a dispute at Archie Meets the Punisher would be appreciated. The issue is a plot point, but I believe it's something editors unfamiliar with the story can form an opinion on. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thought I'd let the project know about this. Discussion is here. JOEBRO64 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Marvel_Comics_work_group#Multiple_articles_stating_Ronin_will_appear_in_Avengers:_Endgame. Airbornemihir (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a discussion that is of relevance to this project. here

I have nominated Superman in film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor has proposed deleting the current infobox image of Batman and replacing it with a Wikimedia commons photo of someone dressed as the motion picture version of Batman in cosplay. I recall a while back other editors on this talk page stating why cosplay images are not appropriate for the infobox. Please feel free to join the discussion here. I supposed if the current image is replaced with a cosplay image, then other comic book character infobox images can be replaced with photos of people in cosplay. DrRC (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I note that Pocket universe is no longer within the scope of this project since the fiction-related content was removed in August 2017 (as "pop culture trivia"); the remaining content is exclusively about real-world cosmological inflation. However, many fiction-related topics, presumably mostly within the science-fiction genre, still link here despite the fact that there is no more fiction-related content. What shall be done with these links? Note: WikiProject Science Fiction has been notified as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC) EDIT: An RFC has been opened at the article's talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments at Talk:Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan)#RfC about details in the other media section would be appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello WikiProject Video Games, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 13:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

I strongly recommend that editors keep an eye out on some works of Pinky Rhino’s works like in here. I strongly disagree with what he is doing. Especially with the section linking and not using edit summary when undoing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There's lots of piping in the edit history. Which one are you worried about specifically? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually I am worried about section linking. But I see it was reverted. I feel navboxes should link to the articles. Also there really is an Sinister Twelve BTW. It’s one of the only times Norman was part of it. But Sinister Six might be better since the Hobgoblin has appeared in it a few times with that name. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If the person who wrote the Plot section of this article could please put in references to all of the various issues of the storyline where they belong, I think that that would help in getting the template message removed. Also, the title of the article needs to be in quotes and have an exclamation point after "Superman", as that's how it's written on the various covers. Just sayin'.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmlucascollins: That would just get the "no source" template replaced by a "primary source only" template. Your best bet would be to cite reliable sources like these: [34] [35] [36] [37]

Please note, I just googled these - I have not reviewed them. I suspect there isn't enough coverage for this storyline to have it's own article. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I was just checking. I never realized that this could be so complicated.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

At present a number of articles have an excessive number of these, many of which are extraneous. I suggest a cull, to perhaps the most relevant. Galactus, for example, does not require a link to Doctor Doom or Thanos. The Silver Surfer and the Fantastic Four, however are obviously essential. I can see this with many articles - users making subjective judgements about links without any real basis. The fact that many characters exist/operate away from Earth does not automatically mean they are cosmic and inter-related.

I believe there should be clear criteria. Perhaps if a character routinely interacted with another (3 or more appearances) there could be justification. It is a starting point at any rate.

Thoughts? Asgardian (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure I see the problem in an article linked to another article if mentioned in the body of the article. Is that what you mean? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if you are talking about navboxes though? I do see a lot of issues there. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, nav boxes. Have amended heading. Asgardian (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Three or more interactions would qualify Thanos and Doctor Doom with Galactus. I'm pretty sure the rule of thumb is "if an article is linked by a nav box, that nav box should be in the article." I fully back reducing the number of nav boxes on character articles and will participate in some discussions about it, but I'm not interested enough to help spearhead the effort. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted. I will try and form some semblance of order. I think the first thing that can go are NB's to another company's characters (for example, I removed Anti-Monitor from Galactus). From there I'll review the quantity and validity. If anyone has any input please drop me a line. Asgardian (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So as of lately this video game character of Spider-Man has been integrated within Marvel continuity as another version of spider-Man. Also he’s getting his own upcoming solo comic book series too. So I created a sandbox of him. Yes I have borrowed sources for the time being on the 2018 video game. I may need help on that. I need the ones that I am not using currently out. Also I may need copy editing to make it different from that article. I personally feel like help could be appreciated on my project. That’s why I am linking here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Just recently there is an abundance of supervillain navboxes that I find unnecessary. Especially when focusing on Supporting characers and antagonists. I went ahead and removed the compared characers that are not even the same universe. Darkseid being on Thanos vice versa. Norman/ GG with Joker/ Lex Luthor. Galactus/ Anti-Moniter etc. But I still feel these navboxes are fancruft like and maybe even unnecessary. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not their existence is excessive, I have notice that in many cases these character navboxes are added to articles with no apparent connection. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes exactly! I am definitely removing the ones who are not the same universe. As I originally mentioned. The user that made these navboxes seem to have had past issues with a retired administrator with doing this. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Watch out for the Catwoman / Black Cat navboxes too. I almost forgot about them.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have an article on this? Examples include Sea-monkeys, skin head wig, Charles Atlas#The print advertisements, and X-ray specs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, for what it's worth, I just started Comic book advertisement. Please take a look and try to expand it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we need an image of Ronan from both of the films he appears in, especially if he is played by the same actor and his appearance did not differ greatly between the films? User:Alexandra Sachelarie seems to think we do, but I am doubtful on that. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, especially if there is no “contextual significance”, see WP:NFCC.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That user is still trying to add the same image to the article. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Samsara has indefinitely protected Deadpool and Captain America - I'm just wondering if this is warranted? 76.231.73.99 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It looked like both pages were undergoing significant vandalism. It really is an admin's call, but if you feel strongly you could go to RPP and request for a lowering to temporary semi-protection. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You can always ping me with any edit requests you have. Samsara 16:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Category:Deadpool characters and Category:Blade (comics) characters are appropriate categories? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not. The concept is too vaguely defined. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And also the even more recent Category:Iron Man characters by the same user. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating useless categories appears to be the editor's primary contribution to Wikipedia, despite two years worth of comments on his talk page. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we be using the Marvel Database wiki as a source this way on the Hercules article, as added by User:Courge Marvel? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I have removed it and request that User:Courge Marvel discuss this here rather than reverting. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need to remove it if you have Hercules (Marvel Comics) in this Wikia? That doesn't make no sense. There is no source other than me edited the source that is a official Marvel website. You can ask the administrators in Marvel Database wiki about Hercules's true first appearance. Ask the admins and you will have more information to that and not go based on y'all opinions opinions.

Unlike the Marvel Wikia, Wikipedia has standards for what gets included. In this particular case, information from the Wikia can't be used because it doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. Examples of reliable sources are Comic Book Resources and Newsarama. Both of these habe 1) editorial oversight 2) bylines for content and 3) won or been nominated for journalism awards by the comic industry. Nothing here is supposed be based on an editor's opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well Argento. It's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courge Marvel (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Category:Comics about spiders in any way an appropriate category?--Killer Moff (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No - it's a list of Spider-man characters, not even a list of comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 12#Project Pegasus - There are now a plethora of WP:RS for this topic now that the Captain Marvel film is in theaters, so I thought it was a good time for a DRV. I am wondering if there are any more sources out there other than the ones I found? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

IP editor 190.233.181.114 has added this to several different articles; is this a reliable source for inclusion? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

iO9 is reliable, but that kind of content doesn't belong in a character article. It should be at Fantastic Four in film only. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair to remove it then? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They also added things about Sam Raimi's unproduced Spider-Man 4; same deal there? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes to both. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You got it. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As part of the Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Backlog elimination drive, I started copy editing Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series). However, it quickly became apparent to me that this article should be (1) merged with a similar article; (2) rewritten completely to focus on the fictional character (as opposed to the film series); or (3) deleted.

1. Spider-Man in film, a good article, could accommodate at least some of the Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series) article.
2. We do not currently have an article about Peter Parker, the fictional character. I personally don't think we need one because the Peter Parker character receives adequate coverage in the various Spider-Man articles on the English Wikipedia, particularly Spider-Man, a good article, to which "Peter Parker" redirects.
3. Merging is probably the best option, but if a consensus develops for deletion, I would not object.

I posted the above questions on the relevant Guild talk page and the consensus is to ask the experts ... that would be you all. :0) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears things have moved along rather quickly. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series) and Talk:Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series). Input from WP:COMICS folks would be helpful IMHO. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The AfD on Rick Norwood (a mathematician and comics publisher) has drawn attention from editors who personally know him due to a Facebook post by the subject Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) (courtesy ping). Any reviews from independent editors would be greatly appreciated. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, this AfD on the actual publishing company and this AfD about a comic artist have been similarly affected. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I asked for help in the form of citations of reliable sources which have reviewed or commented on my work. MarkH21 has informed me that this is against Wikipedia policy. I've been editing Wikipedia for 14 years, and had not come across this rule before, but I apologize for breaking it, and will heed MarkH21's advice. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it useful on the Cletus Kasady article's infobox to just say "Alien symbiote grants" and literally nothing else under the "powers" as per this edit? Like, not even bothering to explain what the symbiote grants? User:Penguin7812 seems to think so, but I am skeptical so I am looking for some feedback. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No that doesn’t sound right. I think we need to be more specific on his abilities. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Then what about Eddie Brock, Scream (comics) and Knull (comics)? Whose say Alien symbiote grants. The definition of a grant is something given for a particular purpose. Penguin7812 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To compare:

Eddie Brock's infobox says "Alien symbiote grants: Superhuman strength, speed, agility, and durability; Ability to cling to most surfaces; Organic webbing; Limited shapeshifting and camouflage; Symbiote's autonomous defense capabilities; Undetectable by Spider-Man's "Spider-sense"

Knull's infobox says " Alien symbiote grants; Superhuman strength, speed, durability and longevity; Darkness manipulation; Healing factor; Limited shapeshifting; Skilled in hand-to-hand combat; Limited telekinesis"

Scream's infobox says "Alien symbiote grants" and nothing else, just like Cletus.

You're not seeing the difference there, User:Penguin7812? 24.13.141.28 (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, okay. How about changing it into "Alien symbiote abilities"? Does this help? Is this useful? Penguin7812 (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

grants is a verb, not a noun. Eddie Brock, Scream, and Knull are listing what the symbiote is granting. Your edit to Kasady doesn't. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

First thing first, no those articles aren't saying that. Secondly, I already proposed an replacement, since "grants isn't a noun". I added that edit to make the article consistent with the others. Look, I'm sorry for what happened. It really am. But having Alien symbiote listing in the abilities section isn't really right, at least to me. I agree that we need to specify that. If this is the case, then the other articles are also wrong. I just don't want to make anyone angry. So do you agree in changing that edit into "Alien symbiote abilities"? Penguin7812 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

1.Eddie Brock is done properly. It's how the others should look. It tells a reader that a) he has an alien symbiote and b) the symbiote grants him abilities listed after it. Without the list after it, it's meaningless.

2. Your proposed replacement isn't better, because "Alien Symbiote Abilities" doesn't mean anything to a reader unless the reader already knows what that means.

3. I don't know what happened, and I don't know why you're sorry. I also don't need to know. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what? You know what, I give up. I'm just a nobody who doesn't know how things works. Just do what you want. This discussion for one single word showed me that maybe I don't belong here. Penguin7812 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ok. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Penguin7812:. Don’t give up on editing just because an edit conflict which is bound to happen on Wikipedia every now and then. Sometimes you may want to cool off for a few days if it’s hard to handle but overall I don’t think we wouldn’t want to lose you for a single word since I am well aware that you are a good faith editor and I appreciate your edits most of the time in Spidey / symbiote related articles. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My only contention is that by saying something grants something, and then not explaining what that something is... that is not helpful. It's like saying "The U.S. Constitution grants." or "My mom saw a." or "I was walking down the." and not elaborating further on that. It's an incomplete thought, and leaves a reader wondering what you meant to say. So, not useful. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Penguin7812, much better, thanks! I think you're getting it now. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an IP editor who keeps placing an image already on the body article as an infobox article with no edit summary. I reverted the editor twice but the editor keeps doing it again and again. I just don’t want to revert a third time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The editor is doing the same in other articles. See Hal Jordan. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

So I recently did something different. I created timeline templates about DC Comic's history / chronology in an unusual way. It starts at this here and I stopped here for the time being. I might do it with Marvel sometime too. I am confessing this just to be clear that nobody is against it or anything for they are a major different approach. Because I was a bit worried. It’s just a big step when it comes to comic book history here I think. An editor already recommended I talk about it here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems neat. Do you have a sandbox page or draft with all the articles you're going to put it on? What are the criteria you're using for inclusion/omission? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No sandbox as of yet. The criteria is notable enough for its own article. Because the article link is one of the helpful navigators. I try to limit it with just certain fictional things / media who is undeniably notable or made significant impact etc. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable addition to me. How would you feel about linking the "Timeline of DC Comics" text in the middle box to a list article that shows all the pages with the chronology box? That would provide a central location for discussion on adding/removing entries from the list without creating gaps or forks. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So like this? I decided to split decades since I am just getting started with 1940s. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had in mind! I'll be happy to contribute to it - I have a wealth of potential entries on my home computer. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Great! I have this right now and I am trying to figure out how to maybe improve it. It might need its own category too. If you can help then I would appreciate it because I shouldn’t need to be this active. Job hunting needs to be first and foremost on my endeavors than being a Wikiholic after all lol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Job hunting eh? Do you have any experience in title insurance or mortgages? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly can’t say that I do. Just curious of why you ask?Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We're hiring. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow...I wonder who is hiring? I assume you mean a bank or something? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

yeah - I wiki from work. Sometimes I forget other people can't tell. Good luck on your job hunt. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok. What is this bank that is hiring just out of curiosity now? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to disclose because they may not like me editing while on the clock. :)

I will say that it's large enough to have a website that lists all job openings. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Very interesting. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: and @BOZ:. What do you think of the timeline experiment? I wouldn’t mind knowing so edits like this won’t need to happen. If one comes along in one article then they belong in all the articles linked I would think. No matter if an editor don’t like it on certain page. Also this website is my source BTW when comic books have the same release date month. Is it reliable? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In response to a request to comment: Seems OK to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae. My bad if I interrupted an edit conflict of yourself. Need any help just let me know.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I will admit that my knowledge of DC history is pretty limited. BOZ (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thaat’s no problem, Boz. I know the history obviously. I was just wondering if you have any objections to it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope I'm not running in circles and I'm asking at the right place? I was reading at ((Graphic novel list)) and I pressed on one of the wikiproject talk pages. So I happen to read a book that isn't licensed in English. (From one language to another.) But I added the chapter names in kanji, romaji and since it isn't licensed yet. The English titles are mostly omitted to this page. My dilemma is, if I kept adding on to the book's volume. It may be WP:SPLIT later. But as it does, the English titles are still omitted and I don't know if to wait or add the English titles until the book has gotten licensed or never will be. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Should Justice League: Darkseid War: Shazam! even exist and if so should it be under the template of Justice League or Shazam storylines or both? [38][39][40]Dwanyewest (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I would think that the Darkseid War storyline may be notable enough to warrant an article (assuming it has proper notability and sourcing), but from looking for sources related to this specific tie-in, I'm not really seeing a lot that would stand up to an AfD. Mostly interviews, and a couple reviews. Maybe someone else will think differently. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree - it should be covered under an umbrella Darkseid War article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Argento Surfer (talk),Etzedek24. I don't know if these sources would be useful to anyone [41] [42][43] Dwanyewest (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone feel that Trials of Shazam should have a separate article there are third person sources. [44][45] Dwanyewest (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there's enough content from reviews and interviews with the creators to demonstrate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: are you still working on Trials of Shazam? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I appreciate your efforts that have improved Trials of Shazam if I find any additional information I will add to the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else think The Trials Of Shazam! should be redirected to Trials of Shazam also? Dwanyewest (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed it. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(SPOILERS ahead if you haven't see Avengers: Endgame yet and want to)

As what seems to happen every time a comic book film comes out, editors rush to character articles saying to themselves "hey, I saw the movie, I'm going to add what I saw!" and then they add something about an actor appearing in a movie without thinking that information might need to be sourced to a reliable source and it gets reverted, and they think "but, but, but, I saw the movie! If you don't believe me, go see the movie! I SAW IT!" and restore the unsourced content, and are all too happy to edit war over it. In this case we have several characters (most of whom died in previous films) that were not reported in RS's before the film's release, but were included as "surprises" during the time travel sequences, as well as some who died during "the snap" and were restored to life by the undoing of said snap, including but not limited to the following: Bucky Barnes, Red Skull, Ancient One, Falcon (comics), Hank Pym, Mantis (Marvel Comics), Frigga (comics), Wasp (comics), Black Panther (comics), Jasper Sitwell, Loki (comics), Alexander Goodwin Pierce, Howard Stark, Ramonda (comics), Black Dwarf (comics), Corvus Glaive, Ebony Maw, and Proxima Midnight. Several users have been doing this, and User:The Ozzy Mandias in particular seem keen on including these appearances and lack of sources be damned. Apparently the fact that (nearly) all of the other film appearances for these characters have citations doesn't bother someone when they are busy playing amateur reporter? I imagine the film's article may have citations for some of all of these characters that can be recycled on their individual articles, but until I actually see the film I don't want to look at that page which is now undoubtedly rife with many spoilers. :) Obviously if this information is factual it should be included, but don't we expect to have reliable sources to report on these appearances, and don't we owe it to the reader to present verified information? I am not interested in edit-warring with these users, and I don't want to see how long a "citation needed" tag sits there unanswered. I suppose what I am asking for here, then, if these users can't be bothered to find and include citations as WP policy demands, would someone be able to dig them up and add them to these character articles please? 2601:241:4280:161:1D01:9B9D:2896:6B0D (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on this edit should I conclude that User:The Ozzy Mandias intends to continue on, ignoring this discussion? 2601:241:4280:161:1D01:9B9D:2896:6B0D (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Or is "the film is the only source you need" good enough? 2601:241:4280:161:1D01:9B9D:2896:6B0D (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If the character appears in the credits then I believe the consensus is that the credits themselves are acceptable as a primary source. If they aren't credited, then a source should be provided. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, and since people can plainly see the characters in the movie, I will be adding "citation needed" tags to each of the unsourced appearances. I am not of the school that agrees with "the film is the source", so anything using that will get tagged too, but I will not be removing the appearances anymore. Hopefully, eventually, someone will come along and add citations for the actors to the character articles (I probably will do it myself after I see the film and am no longer concerned about spoilers), and anyone who feels like adding the citations is a saint in my book. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with leaving them in the article with a citation tag. It's true, so accuracy isn't a concern. A third-party source is assuredly forthcoming. Let 'em have their fun. Argento Surfer (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is this page fully protected? feminist (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there something on it you wish to edit? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Herostratus (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's protected because the items displayed on that page are substituted from templates that are populated by bots. If feminist tells me what she wants to change, I can direct her to the proper place to do so. That seemed more helpful than just providing a technical answer. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

So I got reverted a second time for this to be merged in a very uncivilized manner. I guess the burden of proof is on me now to prove notability on this character. If anybody can help me with this just let me know. If you don’t happen to know who he is. The leader and founder of Power Pack. Right now it’s like merging him is like merging Leonardo and keeping the rest of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as their own articles. Which is silly to me. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the page was redirected without discussion. Since it's clearly not uncontroversial, the page should be restored to maintain the status quo while a discussion takes place. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Green Hornet (comics) be redirected to The Green Hornet (comics) as its about the same subject. What are other users opinions?Dwanyewest (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No - your first link redirects to a section that discusses all the Green Hornet comics over decades. The second link is about a specific series released in 2010. They are definitely not the same subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)