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.

@Adamstom.97, Bmusician, MarioProtIV, Shoeless Ho, Bignole, TriiipleThreat, Darkwarriorblake, Sjones23, and Chris McFeely: @GDallimore, Plkrtn, AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, Jhenderson777, Denny, Jack Sebastian, Flax5, Mercurywoodrose, Kelzorro, Rdfox 76, Angryapathy, Favre1fan93, Freeknowledgecreator, Orange Suede Sofa, and Bisted1:

There is a fan theory that the child wearing the Iron Man mask that Tony Stark saves from the rogue Hammer drones at the Stark Expo at the end of Iron Man 2, was a young Peter Parker. Although it's never been established in a Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) film or TV show to be the case, someone pointed out to me on Facebook that the Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Iron Man 2 articles stated this theory outright as if it was a fact. When I looked, I saw that the MCU Peter Parker article did this, and without any citations. The Iron Man 2 article, however, did include citations for its claim that actor Tom Holland and director Jon Watts "confirmed" this, but the issue with Holland is problematic, and the issue with Watts and Feige is that the cited sources do not support what the passage in the Wikipedia article said. I removed these passages, citing prior discussions we had on this type of material in 2012, though in retrospect, should have rewrote it to match the cited source. However, AdamStom.97 reverted my Iron Man 2 edits twice, citing highly questionable pages as policy, and misrepresenting the precedent I cited, insisting I discuss it here. Here goes:

Precedent

Back in 2012, the editing community was embroiled in a dispute over whether to mention, in the plot section of Avengers (2012 film), that Loki's "master", who is revealed in that film's mid-credits sequence is Thanos. Those who argued for this stated that it was obviously intended to be Thanos, but those who argued against stated that this was information that we were privy to as readers of the comics, and was not derived from dialogue or other explicit indications in the film, and that doing so in the Plot would constitute OR. Kevin Feige did confirm in a contemporaneous interview that it was Thanos, but since this was not in the film, it was decided to include a footnote in the synopsis citing this. This is reasonable, since articles typically must include production information, and are required exhibit a greater out-universe perspective rather than an in-universe perspective, in order to summarize the real-world effect of the article subject.

By this precedent, the notion that the kid at the end of Iron Man 2 is a young Peter Parker, while a cool idea, is not canon.

In the context of this discussion, canon, by definition, refers to “the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art.”. In this case, the only one with any binding authority to determine this is Marvel Studios, and there’s only two ways they can do this: 1. Establish it explicitly in a film or movie. 2. Publicly confirm that notion as canon. Marvel has done neither of these things.

Some have tried to point to two sources in which people involved in the production have stated this publicly. The first source is an article in which director Jon Watts and producer Kevin Feige, who actually could publicly confirm this if they wanted to. But the cited article does not state that they did any such thing. This is what is actually says:

"It might, maybe."

That’s it. That’s all Jon Watts claims Kevin Feige said on the matter.

Watts does not say that Feige made it official. All Watts describes are how his own thoughts coalesced on the matter in watching the films and creating Homecoming, and in response to a future film establishing it, how he brought it up to Feige, who said it might work. Nothing about saying this is the case, only that it might work. When you consider that this interview was in 2017, and they had two opportunities after this interview to establish this in a film if they wanted to—in Far from Home and No Way Home—and chose not to—this underscores how it remains a fan theory.

The second source is a June 2017 HuffPost article in which actor Tom Holland supposedly “confirmed” this fan theory. In the article, Holland claims, “I can confirm that as of today. I literally had a conversation with Kevin Feige only 20 minutes ago. Maybe I’ve just done a big, old spoiler, but it’s out there now,” said Holland. “It’s cool. I like the idea that Peter Parker has been in the universe since the beginning.” Sorry, but Tom Holland is an actor, not a producer, and thus does not have any authority to dictate what Marvel Studios considers canon, regardless of whatever conversation he had with Feige.

Even if we were to put aside the above, there’s a more fundamental point to consider with regard to the Wikipedia articles that mention this: Wikipedia does not state the content of fiction as if they are facts, unless it is directly describing information given in the produced work. If the information comes from outside of the work—i.e.: from behind-the-scenes info or interviews like the ones cited here, then the wording of the article must reflect this.

Merely saying, “This was retroactively made as the introduction of a young Peter Parker to the MCU, as confirmed in June 2017 by Feige, Holland, and Watts,” without mentioning that they did this in INTERVIEWS, is inappropriate. One of the best ways to address conflict over relating what is said in a cited source is to simply quote the relevant material directly, so that there is no interpretation. This is why the best way to present this info in the article is something along the lines of this:

Max Favreau, son of Iron Man 2 (2010) director Jon Favreau, played a young boy wearing an Iron Man mask in the film who is rescued by Tony Stark. In a June 2017, Jon Watts, director of the first three MCU Spider-Man films, indicated that during screenings of the films with proudcer Kevin Feige, he suggested the idea of establishing retroactively that the masked child was Peter Parker, saying, "I mean, I remember watching that with Kevin Feige and everyone and being like, 'Does the math work on that?' He was like, 'It might, maybe.'" Despite enthusiasm for the idea,[1] one that actor Tom Holland himself agreed with,[2][3] this has not yet been established in any MCU film or series.[4]

AdamStom.97’s Arguments

AdamStom.97 has made two arguments to support his reverts.

First, he falsely claimed, in regards to the 2012 discussions that I cited, "There is nothing at that talk archive that relates to this issue, they are talking about adding a footnote to the plot summary not adding updated information to the cast section."

This is ridiculously untrue.

If you actually read through those discussions, in particular the final ones in which a consensus was achieved, you’ll see that the discussion centered on the Plot section, and Adam himself was a part of those discussions. Specifically, the question was to whether to mention in the plot section that the benefactor that supported Loki with the Chitauri army, but was not seen in the film until the mid-credits scene, was Thanos. As stated above, it was ultimately decided not to, since this information was not derived from the plot, but to include a footnote indicating that Kevin Feige confirmed this in an interview, which is reasonable. Later discussions centered upon whether to at least wikilink the phrase "his master" in the synopsis to the Thanos article, which AdamStom advocated. I never said anything about a "cast section," with regards to the Peter Parker/Iron Man 2 matter, but as it so happens, yes the the discussions in 2012 did indeed include talk of whether to mention in the Cast section that Damion Poitier played Thanos, which makes sense, since that’s where you mention such things. Here are the relevant archived discussions:

Archive #2

Discussion 1

Discussion 2 (The discussion is on the plot section.)

Discussion 3 (Mention of using outside knowledge in the plot.)

Discussion 4 (They’re talking about the plot.)

Archive #3

Discussion 1 (Triiiple Threat says, “The only place where we do not include Thanos' name is in the plot section because he is not identified on film.”)

Discussion 2 (Question of whether to mention Thanos in the cast section.)

Discussion 3 (Probably the longest discussion on whether to name Thanos in the Plot section, involving the largest number of editors. I myself argued to name him, though in retrospect, I agree that it was right to relegate this to a cite-supported footnote, since the film never names him.)

Archive #4

Discussion

Archive #5

Discussion 1 (The plot summary is mentioned in the section heading.)

Discussion 2 Among the editors arguing the point about linking the phrase “his master” in the plot section to the Thanos article include…..Adamstom97! And while his username lacked the period that it does today, it’s the same user, since that link directs to the user page of his current username with the period. Did you forget about this, Adam? Or did you think I would not point this out.

The second argument AdamStom.97 makes is what he claims about the "status quo". In his first revert, Adam states, “This has been the status quo of this article for years.”

He seems to be arguing, if I understand correcting, that if content is in an article for X amount of time, then it becomes….what? Permitted by policy? Do I really have to go into detail as to how this is a non sequitur? The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident occurred when defamatory material was added to the John Seigenthaler article, and went undetected for over four months. Tell me, Adam, does material remain solely when it is in an article for four months? Or does it have to be years? And which violations does this apply to? Does it apply only to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al? Does it apply to vandalism? Tell me more about how the length of time in which content is in article determines whether it should be removed or fixed.

In his second revert, AdamStom.97 cites WP:STATUSQUO. Apparently, he’s trying to argue that the non-sequitur in his prior edit summary is formally codified in a Wikipedia guideline. Let’s break this down:

First of all, WP:STATSQUO is a section of Wikipedia:Reverting, which is an ESSAY. It is not a policy, nor a guideline, and therefore, has no binding authority.

Second, I’m curious as to what precisely AdamStom seems to think that page says, and how this justifies his revert. Wikipedia:Reverting states, In a nutshell, “Revert vandalism on sight, but revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration.” Nothing about “revert material if it’s been in an article for years.” Nor did anything in my edit pertain to vandalism, or any lack of careful consideration on my part, since it was made precisely in consideration of consensus reached in matters like this in 2012, which I’ve cited here.

Even the StatusQuo section of Reverting says, “Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits,” which again, has nothing to do with presenting material in an article that is not supported by cited sources, nor Wikipedia’s policies on writing about fiction, nor about keeping content that “has been the status quo of this article for years.”

The Bottom line

Wikipedia’s policies, guidelines and precedents on how to write plot material—including any information in articles derived from a work’s plot—are clear on this matter. The cited sources do not say that Jon Watts and Kevin Feige confirmed that Peter Parker is the kid in Iron Man 2, and Tom Holland has no authority to declare this. The two articles should simply reflect what the sources say, while mentioning that it has not been established in an MCU film or show. Nightscream (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose we use the wording that I composed above, which begins with "Max Favreau, son of..." Nightscream (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears I was tagged here so I will weigh in. Without reading too much into it. I really do see the issue. I am not a fan of retcons and it sounds like a fanboyish supposed retcon at that. I think it’s worth a mention while it shouldn’t sound like fact. Although I should point out that Nightscream should take it easy on the edit warring. We don’t need a past admin to violate the 3RR whether he is right or wrong on the issue. Just saying this out of concern and respect. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 09:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems way over the top, and also a weird place to have this discussion since it should have been kept at Talk:Iron Man 2. Regardless, this "fanboyish supposed retcon" was stated by the creative team of Spider-Man: Homecoming and is noted in all the appropriate places with cautionary wording and reliable sources. In response to the huge section all about me that has been posted above, which I find both unnecessary and uncivil, I stand by my statement that the previous discussion about whether to link to Thanos in the plot summary of The Avengers has absolutely nothing to do with mentioning a sourced retcon in the cast section of Iron Man 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS states that an edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted, so adamstom.97 is correct that this was the status quo that has been accepted by most editors. Thus, if a WP:BOLD edit that challenges the article's established wording/interpretation of sources is reverted, a discussion should be held to reach a new consensus, not unproductive edit-warring. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't feel there was a need to change what was previously there, but if Nightscream had an issue with it being stated in interviews outside of actually being noted in an MCU project, I've adjusted the wording there based on what they suggested, which included unnecessary quotes and an extra source when the 2 already in use cover the material fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Rewording is fine to me. When I say “fanboyish” statement. I mean this all started because of Tom Holland wanted to believe it true or it wouldn’t have been brought up at all. It’s worthy of a mention. But it shouldn’t be interpreted in any other way than how it happened. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Adamstom.97: "Regardless, this "fanboyish supposed retcon" was stated by the creative team of Spider-Man: Homecoming..."
No it wasn't. The sources make it clear that Watts and Feige thought it might be a good idea. They do not state that they have "confirmed" this.

Adamstom.97: "In response to the huge section all about me that has been posted above, which I find both unnecessary and uncivil"
If you didn't want this, then you should've reconsidered reverting my mostly reasonable edits, and avoided employing mendacious arguments in your edit summary. You said you wanted a discussion, then here it is. Don't whine now because I've provided evidence that your assertion that a past discussion was about whether to add a footnote was a lie on your part, that you participated in those discussions, that you cited an essay as if it were a policy, that even that essay did not say anything remotely similar to what you implied it did, etc.

As for civility, criticism of your conduct, and providing evidence that you have stated falsehoods, is not what the word "uncivil" means.

Adamstom.97: "...I stand by my statement that the previous discussion about whether to link to Thanos in the plot summary of The Avengers has absolutely nothing to do with mentioning a sourced retcon in the cast section of Iron Man 2."
No, no that's not what you said. What you stated was, "There is nothing at that talk archive that relates to this issue, they are talking about adding a footnote to the plot summary not adding updated information to the cast section." You did not state that the discussion was about whether to wikilink Thanos' name. That's what I pointed out, in falsifying the claim you made in your quoted edit summary above.

The discussion concerned whether to mention something in the Plot section (and later, whether to wikilink it) that was not stated in the actual movie. We know that you knew this, because you participated in that very discussion, as I mentioned above. It was decided not to, because that would be WP:NOR, and that any information from sources outside of the film should be placed in notes and passages that explained that info, but not recount it in the plot as if it came from the film.

The issue, therefore, is whether articles that mention the notion that the kid in Iron Man 2 was Peter Parker should do this, even though this was not mentioned in that film, or any other film, and the creators have not stated that he is. Thus, it provided a relevant precedent: Sections that recount the content of fiction in an in-universe manner should not include information (be it a plot section or a cast section), that is not stated in that fiction, and any out-universe information should be presented as such. This pertains easily to this issue.

InfiniteNexus: "WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS states that "an edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted" so adamstom.97 is correct that this was the status quo that has been accepted by most editors."
My my, we do like our quote mining, don't we? You conveniently chopped out the remainder of that sentence. The full passage reads (the omitted part in bold):

"An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time."

The passage I quoted (and you selectively quoted) above merely describes how the encyclopedia improves over time. It does not prescribe any stringent criteria for editing or against reverting. It says, after all, that it has consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Well, I disputed and reverted it, didn't I? It says should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement. Well, I am another editor, and I did revise the edit, didn't I?" Does that mean my new edit had consensus? But wait! It met with disagreement when Adam reverted! All this does is describe the back and forth with which editors revert and disagree. It does not constitute any line of evidence by which we can gauge the mindset of the editing community. A given piece of information may remain in an article for months, simply becuase it isn't caught, whether it's vandalism, uncited claims, non-neutral wording, or defamatory material like in the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, which went detected in a biographical article for over four months. Does IMPLICITCONSENSUS mean that it was the "presumed consensus" that John Seigenthaler, a friend and aide to Robert Kennedy had been a suspect in the assassinations of both JFK and RFK, simply because no one noticed that content for so long?

If anything "has absolutely nothing to do" with the Parker/Iron Man 2 passages, it's this cherry-picked quote of a non-statement from a policy page that doens't discuss it. Nightscream (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you think this behaviour is an appropriate way to treat other editors, and I am very confused about where all this hostility has come from. No new evidence has been provided to suggest that a change is needed here, and Favre1fan93 has updated the wording at the article to address any concerns that there were with that. I see no reason to continue this "discussion". - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem. You have not established any "hostility" on my part, nor that you have been "treated" in any way that is not simply a response to the false statements you have made about past discussions and your own statements, and the essays you cited as if they were policy pages that didn't even say what you implied they did -- a point I illustrated above with evidence, but which tellingly, you have not falsified or even addressed. Playing the victim while continuing to make dogmatic statements and avoiding what I said above directly doesn't change this. Nightscream (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus discussion: Final line of the paragraph

@Adamstom.97, Bmusician, MarioProtIV, Shoeless Ho, Bignole, TriiipleThreat, Darkwarriorblake, Sjones23, and Chris McFeely: @GDallimore, Plkrtn, AntelopeInSearchOfTruth, Jhenderson777, Denny, Jack Sebastian, Flax5, Mercurywoodrose, Kelzorro, Rdfox 76, Angryapathy, Favre1fan93, Orange Suede Sofa, Bisted1, Facu-el Millo, Hiding, David A, BOZ, DrBat, and Dream Focus:

I added details from the cited sources, including a direct quote from director Jon Watts regarding his exchanges with Kevin Feige, and Tom Holland's weighing in, so that the passage in Iron Man 2 reads thus:

Max Favreau, son of Iron Man 2 (2010) director Jon Favreau, played a young boy wearing an Iron Man mask in the film who is rescued by Tony Stark. In 2017, Spider-Man: Homecoming director Jon Watts indicated that during screenings of that film with producer Kevin Feige, he suggested the idea of retroactively establishing that the masked child was Parker, saying, "I mean, I remember watching that with Kevin Feige and everyone and being like, 'Does the math work on that?' He was like, 'It might, maybe.'" Despite enthusiasm for the idea,[50] one that Holland himself agreed with,[51] this has not yet been established in any MCU film or series.[50]

Two editors, Facu-el Millo and Adamstom.97, disagree with the inclusion of the boldfaced portion of the passage, giving the following rationales:

Facu-el Millo stated: "Unnecessary, the word "suggested" already makes it clear this hasn't been established in the media itself+"

Adamstom.97 stated: "This is the kind of statement that we always try to avoid, it is difficult to support with sources as in theory it always needs to be updated, and it is just unnecessary because we have never suggested that this is the case. If you think the rest of the wording does suggest this then we can tweak that."

I believe that the boldface passage is perfectly reasonable as a way to summarize the preceding points so that the fact that the the idea not yet been established in an MCU film or TV series is nicely underlined in a clear, unambiguous way. Concluding paragraphs in such a fashion is a well-established and legitimate to do so.

I believe that the direct quote by Watts, and Holland's concurrence, left as is, may leave the point a bit more vague than it should be.

I do not believe that sourcing is an issue. The citation at the end directs the reader to the article that features the Watts quote, which indicates that the idea is a hypothetical, and not a past-tense done deal, nor an indication of any firm plans to establish the retcon in an upcoming MCU project.

Regarding updating, this is not an issue with these particular articles. While Wikipedia does avoid dated wordining whenever possible, and is definitely advised in articles where there isn't much happening frequently on its topic, one area in which tentative and future wording is used and updated frequently on Wikipedia is articles on upcoming or in-progress series. (Examples at the bottom of these sections: [5], [6], [7], [8], plus other types of examples here, here, etc.)

The MCU is the most successful film franchise in history, with hordes of established editors and one-off newbies falling all over themselves to add details to Wikipedia articles the moment the film or TV show debuts. Once the MCU establishes that Parker was the kid in the mask, editors will update it.

Keep the boldface conclusion to the paragraph, per above. Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: It's not clear what passages you're referring to in the examples you cited. —El Millo (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: MCU: The final paragraph of the Feature films section; Spielberg: the final paragraph of the 2016–present and Prospective projects sections; James Cameron: the Upcoming projects section, in particular the first paragraph. I also clarified that the paragraph with the disputed sentence at the top of this section is from Iron Man 2. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Let me know if you have any other questions. Nightscream (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with explicitly saying the idea is still unsupported by the cannon. Listing all the people involved who liked the idea certainly implies a level of truthiness that can mislead readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement is unsourced and difficult to prove, usually we add details that have happened with sources confirming that they did, not details that have not happened since we would constantly need new sources to support that in theory. It is pretty clear from the rest of the wording in the paragraph that it is only a suggestion and has not been officially confirmed or anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see how using the wording "indicated" and "suggested the idea" implies this came to pass. We could also move the whole Watts suggestion thing to the Production section, but there really isn't a great subsection to place it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: The claim is not difficult to source or prove - it's a claim about the plot of the MCU, and can therefore be sourced by the films (MOS:PLOTSOURCE). @Favre1fan93: If this was a hypothetical that didn't/hasn't come to pass, why does it merit an entire paragraph in a two-paragraph section? It has two sources, one of which describes the idea as a "fan theory". No other fan theories or potential interpretations are included. The whole thing strikes me as UNDUE in the worst way, because its very presence implies importance. The word "suggested" isn't as clear as you make it out to be, since every concept that makes it into a film has be suggested by somebody first. The fact that the director "suggested" it before the first Spider-Man film came out in no way gives the impression that it wasn't accepted - it's crediting Watts with the idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source or sources that state that this connection is not explicitly stated in any MCU film or television series, and are you willing to update the source/s every time a new MCU film or TV series is released? Otherwise the claim that this is not supported by the MCU canon will itself not be supported. Not to mention this was a hypothetical that didn't/hasn't come to pass, why does it merit an entire paragraph is a big exaggeration, we are literally talking about one sentence in the article. It is very far from WP:UNDUE and this whole discussion is completely overblown. An MCU director suggested a retcon that an MCU star supported, we have chucked in a single sentence noting that but do not state that it is official canon or anything like that. Simple. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As I just wrote in the comment you're replying to, the plot of the MCU itself is the source. Therefore, it doesn't need to be updated every time a new MCU entry is released. It needs only be updated one time - when the status changes. And if no one else has updated it if/when that happens, sure. I'll be happy to do it.

You should also pay more attention to what we're discussing. We are not literally talking about one sentence. We are talking about three, a whole paragraph. You're just choosing to focus on a fragment of the last one, as though the rest of the paragraph is inconsequential. I don't understand your resistance to this change. You think the point is obvious, but others disagree. What's the harm in making it explicit? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

the plot of the MCU itself is the source so you want to include information in the article that can only be verified by watching every MCU film and TV show? That has to fail WP:V. And yes, we are literally talking about one sentence because this is the only sentence in the article that even mentions Spider-Man: In 2017, Spider-Man: Homecoming director Jon Watts said that he had suggested to Feige that they retroactively establish this child to be the introduction of a young Peter Parker / Spider-Man to the MCU; Spider-Man actor Tom Holland supported this idea. The rest of the paragraph is inconsequential because it is talking about other cameos (which is why this very talk discussion has the heading "Final line of the paragraph"). I don't understand your resistance to this change. You think the point is obvious, but others disagree. What's the harm in making it explicit? I am happy to improve the wording as needed, but whatever we add needs to meet Wikipedia standards and not be an unsourced, editorialized statement that we usually berate IP editors for adding. How about something that actually is supported by the sources like this: In 2017, Spider-Man: Homecoming director Jon Watts said that he had suggested to Feige that they retroactively establish this child to be the introduction of a young Peter Parker / Spider-Man to the MCU. Watts did not confirm that this was canon, but Spider-Man actor Tom Holland supported the idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

First, we've been talking about different things, and that's my fault. This paragraph is duplicated on Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe), and that's what I've been referring to. So, one line at Iron Man 2, a whole paragraph at Peter Parker. Presumably, a change at one would be made at the other. I hope we're on the same page now. I'd be fine with your alternative wording. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I've adjust the Peter Parker article here to have similar wording to the Iron Man 2 article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies Argento Surfer I also completely missed that you were talking about a different article. We can continue discussing with that understanding if Favre's edit hasn't resolved the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment' - Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the entire paragraph read like an argument that someone is pushing with cherry-picked references? It absolutely feels like the paragraph is railroading the reader into thinking that everyone is in favor of the kid being Parker but no one in authority has just come out and said so. I take exception to that manipulation. My understanding of the wiki-en is that we present info and allow the reader to connect those dots themselves. The last sentence - the one which we are currently debating - seems to be a response to that railroading. The text of the last sentence should not be in bold text, as that serves as editorial overreach on our part; we don't get to decide what deserves emphasis when presented with equal yet contradictory sources. The paragraph should be reworked to reflect that this is largely a fan theory drawn from vague remarks made by notable sources which hasn't been confirmed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is advocating for that last sentence to be in bold, that was clearly just done by Nightscream to highlight it for this discussion. —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Imagine the sound of a person, slapping themselves in facepalming forehead slap - that would be me. Apart from the stupid comment about bold text on my part, I stand by the rest of it; we seem to be setting up Parker as having appeared in IM2, and we should keep fan theories at arm's length. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: one thing I think we should do from this discussion is remove Peter Parker from the "Introduced in Iron Man 2" section in List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga). —El Millo (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So do I. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Removed from that page and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films as well. —El Millo (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: There seems to have been consensus to retain the wording as seen in this edit of Iron Man 2 which addressed the issues you brought up. I also tried to make that similar over at the Peter Parker article which you reverted. We should ideally keep similar info across the pages, but might need slightly more over at the Parker article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: No, there is no such "consensus" for that. Argento Surfer and I favor in the inclusion of the line in question; you and Adam do not. And no, we do not have to maintain the same wording in both articles. A slightly more summarized version may be called for in the Iron Man 2 article, since the subject of that article is not Peter Parker, but some greater detail is perfectly reasonable in the PP article, especially since it helps clarify what Watts said. If you want, I'll call in other editors to weigh in on this matter. Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been asked to give my opinion on this, and while I've been pinged to in the past it's honestly such a wall of text I have no interest in getting involved. But it's comically long at this point so I've read what is going on and my opinion is thus: State the kid was played by Jon Favreau's son. The end. The rest is OR and pure theory, like when people try to add to the ending of The Thing (1982 film) that the alcohol bottle actually contained gasoline and Child's is the thing because he drank it and didn't notice. It's stupid theory. By this point in time, after nearly 10 years and a separate three successful Spider-man films on top of his appearances elsewhere, it's clearly not canon and no source exists to confirm it beyond just fanwankery. I would not mention it AT ALL in the Iron Man 2 article and if it must be made reference to in the Spider-Man article I would trim all of it out and just write "In 20XX, Jon Watts and Feige jokingly remarked that the Iron Man 2 kid could be a young Peter Parker", making clear that it is just that, a joke. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. This is not an encyclopedia of Things That Haven't Happened. I'd mention the retcon idea only for the sake of preventing people from adding it. Boil it down to "Favreau's son Max appears briefly as a boy saved by Iron Man;[x] despite a popular theory that the boy is Peter Parker, this is not established in the films.[y][z]" Identifying who said what about it is the kind of obsessive fannish trivia that Wikipedia needs less of. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a suggestion for rewording, then I read the source. It ends with "if this holds up". So do we have a source that confirms that it did, in fact, hold up? Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus was moving towards just having these lines: In 2017, Spider-Man: Homecoming director Jon Watts said that he had suggested to Feige that they retroactively establish this child to be the introduction of a young Peter Parker / Spider-Man to the MCU. Watts did not confirm that this was canon, but Spider-Man actor Tom Holland supported the idea. It is noteworthy to include this because of who is saying it (these aren't just fans, they are the people working on the films) but we include clarifying wording to make it clear that they did not confirm that this was canon. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that last sentence is needed at all. The paragraph already says that Feige suggested it and ends with Holland saying it's an unknown, "maybe." Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Huh? If we don't include this then there will be no mention of it at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I posted on the Link Rot project about ComiXology's migration to Amazon breaking every link. They've decided to treat them as dead links and have a bot add archive URLs. So if you see the GreenC bot a bunch on your watchlist, that is what's going on. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Update - the bot is finished & edited about 197 pages and added about 310 new archive links. If you see any problems, please let the link rot project know. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This may be a minor point, but there has been a long edit war over it so I figured it would be a good idea to finally discuss this. In my experience on Wikipedia, we normally list the writer first and the artist second. An editor has been using the logic that "Alphabetically, and by proportion of the work done, Kirby comes before Lee." This editor has been reverted multiple times but continues to switch them around so that Jack Kirby is listed first and Stan Lee is listed second. Can we get some input on who should be listed first, if that is even something we need to determine? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Who came first in the credit box for the issue? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question - I have no idea, unfortunately. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lee is credited before Kirby in Fantastic Four #52: "Script by: Smilin' Stan Lee / Art by: Jolly Jack Kirby." While Lee is definitively documented as taking far more credit than he actually deserved for much of the Marvel characters he co-created, I think we should just go by the official credits. JOEBRO64 19:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fair. User:Hyju was also helping to revert this, so I am pinging for the purpose of this discussion. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

My contention is that Lee was not the writer, or the co-plotter, and that he was credited as such to double-dip for income for work he did not do. Kirby plotted with virtually no direction and gave script clues on the margins of the original art so that Lee would have an idea of what the story was about. Lee was the scripter and editor, confirmed quotes from many collaborators on other books he is also credited as the writer for say that he took undeserved credit for their work as well. The fact that he got away with this in the past is no excuse to continue as if he contributed more than he did. 107.221.84.222 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (107.221.84.222 (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here, but please do not continue to edit war while the discussion is still ongoing. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No one disagrees with your point in general, but you need to provide a reliable source that specifically supports your point in regards to Black Panther specifically in order to overwrite the official credits. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: my last edit, I was trying to rewrite it in a way that would be more palatable, while still bringing balance and the truth of it into the text. Kirby discusses the creation of the character and claims credit in print interviews, and there is a 3 panel sequence in Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics by Tom Scioli based on Kirby's claim that have the character existing as Kirby's Coal Tiger design before Lee was involved. https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/iivtbr/jack_kirby_creates_black_panther_jack_kirby_the/ There is no shortage of examples of Lee being confused by the pages submitted to him to dialogue because he had very little to do with the creation of those stories, just as there is no shortage of examples where he takes credit for those same stories As Kirby puts it "Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK?" https://www.tcj.com/jack-kirby-interview/6/ 107.221.84.222 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Kirby was a bitter man when he gave the interview you quote, having been mistreated by the whole industry at that point. That was around the same time he was claiming to have created Spider-Man. Considering how graciously and frequently Lee gave Kirby credit for solely creating the Danger Room and the Silver Surfer, I'm less inclined to believe the more extreme positions about Lee stealing ideas. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems remarkably uncharitable, especially since some of the source of his alleged bitterness was the failure to receive both the credit and the compensation that Lee snagged for himself. Ditko (a person who made exactly the same sort of claims about Lee, part of a chorus that included John Romita, Wally Wood, and Gene Colan) wrote the definitive breakdown of the creation of Spider-man, but it is clear it was a name that Kirby had been kicking around for decades at that point, and while Kirby's idea for a Spider-man was very different, there is no doubt that it came before. I do not think Lee can be described as "gracious" in doling out blips of the truth that only seem to reinforce the idea that Kirby was Lee's wrist, when it is clear that Lee had less involvement in all of these books than anyone on the credit box. The Black Panther character page currently reads "The character was created by writer-editor Stan Lee with artist-coplotter Jack Kirby". "With". Not even an "and". The other pages you call out have people regularly trying to give Lee credit for the creation of the Silver Surfer, and the Danger Room currently gives Lee top billing as well. Bill Finger eventually got his due, and it seems time for Kirby to get the same. That is not generous, it is just an accurate reflection of who plotted the stories, and who spent hours as opposed to minutes in their creation. Lee should get all the credit for having his face covered so no one could see the color of his skin. Kirby made that clear enough as well.107.221.84.222 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lee's behavior with any artist is nowhere near the level of what Kane did to Finger. Lee never denied artists were involved, and he never hid the way the Marvel Method worked. Others misunderstood it, and Lee capitalized on that. To suggest Lee was just an interchangable office worker ignores the fact that Kirby was successful when he was with Simon, and when he was with Lee. When he worked solo, he was not successful. When Ditko worked with Lee, their product was magnificent. When Ditko went solo, his stuff was obscure and obtuse. Lee's voice was important to the success of Black Panther and the rest of the Marvel Age boom. Did he spend less time crafting the comic than the artist? Probably, but Kirby was exceptionally fast. Was his contribution less important than the artist? Debatable, and probably varied from issue to issue. Was he inconsequential? No. Unless we can see scans of the original artwork for Panther's first appearance and see all of Kirby's margin notes (and a reliable source reviews them and says "Lee had nothing to do with this!"), all we can go by is the credit box. For good or ill, that lists Lee first. If you want to change the prose from "with" to "and", I doubt you'll find much resistance.

You are correct about others edit warring to put Lee's name on the Silver Surfer page. If you care to review the history of that page, you'll see mine name on dozens of edits that removed Lee's name. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

How are we defining "successful"? I believe Kirby would not have described his Marvel years as such, though it is clear he was reaching a high point in his creative work. He was making less money per hour labored and owning less of it than in the past when he received a percentage, and he was receiving far less credit in terms of compensation. I am not sure what to do with your view that the credit box must rule when Lee had a financial incentive to take more credit than he was entitled to, and when he conspired to keep Kirby from his due over and over again, both in court and by contract. Look what Ditko had to do to get plotting credit, and we can see that it led to him literally leaving the company. 60s Marvel was built on Kirby's back, not Lee's. and when Kirby left, he continued to create, whereas Lee continued producing forgettable and mediocre work that was both derivative, and just plain sad when we finally get to things like "Stripperella". The only bright spot for him post-Kirby was the Spider-Man book with Romita, who likewise gives Lee no credit for plotting anything. I am fully on board with believing that Lee wrote the Spider-Man newspaper strip, and I think that is probably the best example of what he was capable of. At this point, all Lee can really take credit for is adding purple to the Kirby's prose, and that has not aged well at all. Why is it that with what we know, Lee's word is golden, and Kirby is being painted as a crank 107.221.84.222 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm using "successful" in reference to the product, not the creator's paycheck. I'm not sure what you mean by Lee keeping Kirby from getting his due in court, because Lee had no more claim to ownership of the characters than Kirby did. The disputes Kirby had with copyright and work-for-hire contracts came from Marvel, not from Lee. Weren't you just saying the Lee was nothing more than an office worker? Also, I agree Lee peaked when he worked with Kirby, Ditko, and their contemporaries. His earlier work certainly sucked, and his later work was an attempt to recapture his 60s magic. I did enjoy Ravage 2099, but even it was the worst of the 2099 lot.

There are lots of reasons cited for Ditko leaving Marvel, but he never said what they were (caveat: I haven't read Ditko Shurgged yet), and Lee publicly said he didn't understand it. It may have been about plotting credit, but Ditko got plotting credit before he left. Why would he quit when he got what he wanted? It may have been about the Green Goblin's identity as Norman Osborn, but that popular theory was disputed by Ditko. It may have been because Martin Goodman used Ditko's art for a cartoon and didn't pay him for it. I think the last one fits best with his philosophy, and is the best supported based on the sources I've read. YMMV.

I don't treat Lee's word as golden. Lee himself didn't treat his work as golden, and frequently admitted a bad memory that confused legend with fact. Nor do I treat Kirby as a crank. He was understandably unhappy about a lot of things and his story changed more than once between 1961 and 1994. As far as I'm concerned, they're both unreliable. That leaves us with two choices: compare apples to oranges and synthesize some original research about who was most influential for every creation, or go by the published credits. I support the second one because it's easily explained, easily defended, and easily understood. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see the way this is heading, and I am not pleased. I spent time rewatching the Cartoonist Kayfabe videos where they read thru Lee's court transcripts, and looked for some other artist (Romita found, Wood/Ditko/Colan, not so much)comments about their working relationship (or lack there o) with Lee, but I am getting the sense it is not going to be worth my time to lay out a case because I have already put stuff out there, had it acknowledged as true, and not convinced anyone of anything. If that credit box is all that is going to matter, despite the reasons for it reading the way it does being neon clear, I am not going to be changing that without access to a time machine. No one is writing any books calling Kirby a liar, and I expect this is not over just yet. See again Bill Finger. Until then, Kirby is just Stan's little buddy, who drew all of his ideas. 107.221.84.222 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Until then, Kirby is just Stan's little buddy, who drew all of his ideas I regret that this is your summary of my opinion, and that you believe I am unpersuadable. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was frustration talking. You clearly are familiar with the situation, but I do not see how to proceed without specific evidence, that may not exist, to prove what I believe is obvious, even from text further in the article in question. Kirby claims the creation, and the credit box seems arbitrary to me and was the source of acrimony for many people who felt it was robbing them in several ways at the time.

Even if there was notional plotting going on between both men, and I do not believe that was happening in a significant way by that point, Kirby had costume designs from prior to the character coming into being, and he wrote and drew the solo book, in addition to doing the lion's share of the work simply by drawing it, no matter how fast he was. Virtually everything about the character, at least in the timeframe of their active careers, is Kirby's doing. Lee's major contribution seems to be covering his face, which is sort of cool, but the reason for it is not exactly laudable. I think Lee should get credit for many things with regard to comics, but writing them is not one of them. 107.221.84.222 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's generally seen as bad form to continue edit-warring during an ongoing discussion. BOZ (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I made no substantive change to the text, nor did I touch the "created by" segment of the page, so I am not sure what the problem is here. The passage reads clearly, and their roles are written exactly the same as what you reverted to. What is your reasoning for altering it? Also, what does resolution look like here?107.221.84.222 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I can tell you that resolution does not look like you continuing to list Jack Kirby first (which is your preference) when you have not established consensus here to do so. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe it is the same issue, and I was attempting to find a more palatable solution. My understanding was that the 'Created by' credit under Publication Information was "writer" first by tradition, and needed to reflect the published credits, and that proportion of the work, and alphabetization count for nothing. I did not touch those. I reworked a single sentence, changing no words or character count where each man's contribution is listed by title that I did not write, and apparently is not controversial, even if I believe it to be misinformation. What is the problem with what I changed, given that it reads with the exact same meaning as what you reverted it to? 107.221.84.222 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this new addition look legit based on the sources provided? BOZ (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This really seems like a lot of fuss over what are ultimately minor things that are not exactly revelations. The acrimony has been out there for decades. The quotes are from the principle people involved, and my allusion is also well-known, and attributed. Is there a problem with what I wrote, or is this reverted and up for debate because of my previous edits?107.221.84.222 (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The material looks fine to me. I would open with "Both creators later claimed they were the original source of the idea." (or something similar). That would put the claims on equal footing from the start instead of giving one the opening statement and one the last word, which can be used to guide a reader to a conclusion. Considering the time period, it's not impossible they had the idea independently. The source provided indicates Lee would often say "use this villain, do whatever you want" (my paraphrase). If Lee said "have them fight a black guy who turns out to be a hero" and Kirby used a design he had previously made, both could reasonably think the idea started with them. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds a lot closer to the truth than it currently reads, and I would consider your additions to my changes a great improvement over the outright false version currently on the page.107.221.84.222 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So, is this consensus? Can my edits be restored? I am happy to rework it toward Argento Surfer's neutrality suggestion.107.221.84.222 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your latest edit is along the lines of what was discussed here:[9] BOZ (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It used to read "creation of Black Panther was inspired by Lee's desire" completely unsourced, even though the dispute has been out there and on people's minds for decades. Lee's name comes first in the sidebar and the opening paragraph of the page so he is getting the letter of the law with regard to the printed credit box. I incorporated Argento Surfer's suggestion for the opener, but there is no source to suggest multiple discovery that I know of, and I don't actually believe it to be true. 107.221.84.222 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

This draft was edited, but not created, by an editor who created a hoax article. That leads me to wonder if this article is also a hoax. It links to no existing Wikipedia article which leads me to believe it is but I thought I'd ask editors who are familiar with comics what their opinion is. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I find nothing credible to support it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinion, Argento Surfer, I'll tag it for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Faust (Avatar Press)#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you help to disambiguate the links to New X-Men? There are 119 aticles (shown here) with links and it is often unclear whether the 2001 or 2004 series is the intended target.— Rod ^talk 16:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I recently proposed moving Faust (Avatar Press) to replace Faust (comics), as the Avatar Press parenthetical disambiguation fails to be precise as it is overly specific (favoring one of three publishers) and the current (comics) parenthetical is an unnecessary content fork of Faust (disambiguation). Regardless, the discussion on my proposal has turned towards the (comics) parenthetical indicating a general comics-based disambiguation for the topic — with mention that it is too ambiguous a term to indicate a singular comic book series (or series of limited series). I'm basing my understanding on existing pages such as The Boys (comics) and The Dark Tower (comics), but would appreciate feedback on whether I am correctly informed or not. Thank you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

With apologies, I should further note that the contention exists because of Faust (manga), meaning there are two comic-based articles with the name Faust. But as I understand it, (manga) is short-hand for "Japanese comic/s" and (comics) is short-hand for "American/European comics" — meaning that the two exist separately, such as with Batman (comic book), Batman (comic strip), and Batman (manga). Once again, please correct me if I am misinformed. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics angels has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Odinson878 basically doubled the length of the abilities in the infobox for Thor, noting the sources in the edit summaries but not in the article itself, and commented on my talk page that the sources for these abilities are already in the article. Even if the sources are not necessary to add to the infobox itself, are these appropriate additions to the infobox at all? BOZ (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the additions of superhuman agility, Anti force, Geo Blast, tracking of souls, and matter manipulation do not seem common/prominent enough to include at least. Also, somebody falsely inserted that Thor prevented the destruction of 1/5th of the multiverse rather than the local universe, which I corrected earlier. David A (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"but not in the article itself, and commented on my talk page that the sources for these abilities are already in the article. Even if the sources are not necessary to add to the infobox itself," I found these sources from the article It's literally found in the reference section. Why do we need to add it again When it's already present. Adding valid info from the same article doesn't seem wrong. Odinson878 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, I will leave it up to others to judge whether sections like this should be included. BOZ (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that they should definitely not be included, given that there is already a separate page for Thor's supporting characters. David A (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing that. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Reference878 has apparently picked up where the previous account left off, with the adding of information to the infobox and adding citations only in edit summaries and not actually in the article itself[10]. Can anyone comment on whether this behavior is appropriate? BOZ (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox comics character and title, the powers parameter should "include significant current and previous powers, and other notable abilities. This should be a short list, without description. Keep longer prose for the article text" (all bold as per the original description). The example used in the infobox has six powers listed, which seems like good number to strive for. I think that the list could be as short as: "Lightning/electricity manipulation, Invulnerability, Superhuman physical abilites, and further powers via Mjolnir, including Flight". The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, Odinson has been blocked as have his sock accounts. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ozy and Millie 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

See wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Import Micro-Face comics? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Calling out if anyone would like to do the GA review for Free Comic Book Day. I am hoping to run it for DYK on May 7, the day of the 20th edition of the event. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey everyone at WP Comics, There is a new Wikiproject proposal for 20th Century Studios. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/20th Century Studios) So if you are interested in joining please say so in the proposal, so we can see if there will be enough member to start a project. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I could be missing something, but I've never seen her name written as "Fire-Star". User:BarrySteakfries moved the page to Fire-Star and is arguing that this should be the spelling of her name in every instance in the article: [11]. How can we resolve this? BOZ (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• It wasn't hypenated in her solo series ([12]). Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky because it might've been hyphenated in Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends based on the title "A Fire-Star Is Born" (S02E2), though it might've only been wordplay there. But her first comic book appearance, Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends #1, does hyphenate the name (see the cover image though it is used like that throughout). Her first in-continuity appearance, Uncanny X-Men #193, uses the name as Firestar (which is also how it appears in her solo series, as @Argento Surfer pointed out, and from then-on within Marvel comics). As such, I think Firestar should be the accepted (more commonly known) name but labelling the name as Fire-Star for her earlier appearances is accurate. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a fair concession for her early appearances, so can we conclude that if her name has been consistently "Firestar" for just about every appearance in the last 37 years, that we should also be spelling it that way? User:BarrySteakfries, what do you say? BOZ (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted per this discussion - hopefully this newer user will discuss here rather than reverting, especially because I note a lot of their edits tend to get reverted[13] and not just by me. BOZ (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: I think it looks (and reads) appropriately as it currently is. My congratulations to you on a good job! The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I recently salvaged Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics) and it is now at AfD, therefore I'd like someone with a good grasp of French to comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics).

Looking further, all of the valerian albums articles in ((Valérian_and_Laureline)) have notability tags. I'm thinking that WP:NBOOK#5 is met (The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable), since a google scholar search on Pierre Christin and Jean Claude Mézières yields lots of results. Any thought on that? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Comte0: While I am not fluent in French, I have looked at the page in question as well as the other pages concerning Valérian and Laureline collections. I may be incorrect, but it is my understanding that the notability of the author would protect the overview of the series (Valérian and Laureline) and not provide notability for each collection having an individual article, such as Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics). Unless all these individual articles for the collections are overhauled, I personally concur with the AfD for them — none of them discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of their specific volume, rather they are all overly-long synopsis of plots in direct defiance of WP:PLOT. As it stands, these pages should be deleted and the plot details on List of Valérian and Laureline books should be expanded to a paragraph per collection/storyline. I am sorry that I can not help you defend the keeping of this article, but I hope my explanation of why is helpful to you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was helpful, thank you. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marvel Superheroes Secret Wars#Requested move 24 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — SirDot (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I created the entries: Five Weapons Society, Mandarin's rings, Ten Rings (organization), Fah Lo Suee, Zheng Bao Yu, Denis Nayland Smith, Bast (Marvel Comics), Some have already been well expanded, but others still need to be. Hyju (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We have categories for when webcomics debut and we have one for when they end, but many if not most webcomics exist in a state of limbo where the creators haven't made an official announcement on them ending the comic, or have even voiced an intent on continuing the comic, but then nothing happens for years. On a few occasions while cleaning up the main Webcomics category the official website wasn't even online anymore. I'd like to add Category:Webcomics on hiatus for these comics that never had an official end. It provides a source of closure for me as an editor, and having a category for these comics also makes it easier to find these comics and check on if there's been any recent activity. By that same token I'd like to add Category:Ongoing webcomics for comics that are still regularly being updated for much the same reason. ReneeWrites (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Thank you for contributing. I see no reason that webcomics shouldn't have their own equivalent to Category:Unfinished comics, but it should be consistent with that established naming… so, perhaps, Category:Unfinished webcomics. As for having a category to denote ongoing status, there is no current convention for doing such. Comic books in general, for instance, have no such category to denote that they are ongoing; their ongoing status is simply denoted in the infobox. I believe any ongoing series category would require a proper discussion, though I personally feel it is an unnecessary categorization. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've made the Unfinished webcomics category and added a few titles to it, I'll work on it more later. I'll put the information about a webcomic's ongoing status in the infobox like you said. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Thank you for taking the initiative. I know very little about webcomics, but in looking at the three you have categorized thusly I do have a remark/question. Both Demon-cratic Singapore and Thinking Ape Blues, upon my cursory examination, appear to be more single-panel/page gag strips than ongoing stories. Is this accurate? If so, they aren't really unfinished so much as they are simply ended or presumed ended (perhaps, in either case, without announcement). Platinum Grit, on the other hand, appears to be truly unfinished, the final installment not resolving an ongoing story.

Also, I would advise adding a little text to the Publication History (or whatever) section/s that identifies the webcomic's unfinished nature. Something akin to As of 25 May 2022[update], new Blah Blah Blah work has not been published since Whatever-month 2XXX, leaving the ongoing storyline unfinished. (and please remember to use the ((As of)) template at that sentence's start). Thank you again. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'll remove the unfinished category from the gag comics. I'll also keep that template in mind when making those kinds of statements, as well. Thanks again for the feedback, and for letting me know about these things. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a kind-of dangerous category, because there's no clear line for when a webcomic should be moved between "ongoing" and "unfinished." Should a webcomic instantly be moved to the other category when a hiatus is announced (as it's no longer currently "ongoing")? Should a webcomic be moved to the other category after a year of inactivity? Two years? Suggesting that a webcomic has been abandoned when there's no clear evidence for this would be pretty bad, I believe. These grey areas are why I didn't create such a category back in the day. If we only include webcomics that have been announced to be abandoned (like Cucumber Quest), then I suppose that's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Newer user User:Sundropie has been added large amounts of voice actor information to character articles, always without adding any sources. I approached them on their talk page, as did User:Nightscream, however they continue to add unsourced voice actor information to article. What is worse, and I hope they have stopped doing this, is that they were actually removing existing citations for voice actors as seen here, here, here, here, and here. I had been removing the unsourced information as they add it, as the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding the information, but they just keep adding it back. What is the best way to approach this situation? BOZ (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If cast and crew info appears in the credits, then the show can function as its own primary source, per WP:TVPLOT. But animated shows typically do not contain this specificity of information, which is why they require citations, per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:PSTS, et al. If an editor persistently violates this or any other policy, and ignores warnings, then an administrator should block them. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will remove the unsourced additions in a little while then, and let's keep an eye on this situation. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream, just noting that they have already reverted the ones you reverted. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I should note, however, that in this case, the editor added a citation that supports the claim. The others should be checked too. Nightscream (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know because I edit a good number of articles of animated series, and if I have time, I always try and add sources in for voice actors, because some pages have nothing, sadly. Historyday01 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ:, then you should contact an admin. Nightscream (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I will reach out to the edit-warring noticeboard if they continue to revert after this point without discussing. Also, if someone with a bit more time than me would not mind checking for me, the user did include citations in the following edits: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] I would want to make sure that these citations are legitimate, because if they are fake, then we have an even bigger problem on our hands. If the sources are legit on the other hand, then that is great to see that they are learning. BOZ (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for what I did. I swear I didn't know. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, the best part about mistakes is learning from them! BOZ (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And yet, here they are again blanking cite-supported material and replacing it with uncited material earlier today. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: In the BTG Wikiproject, we are discussing on the reliability of CBR, could you please comment if you are familiar with the ref? Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I had the idea that we had consensus previously on not including this information in the Scarlet Witch article, but an IP user has been edit warring with me to include it. I also removed this from the Quicksilver article and they did not restore it. It looks like they have been edit warring on other articles as well, so there may need to be some admin intervention unless I am off base. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

All of these seem trivial, so probably report the IP at WP:ANEW. — SirDot (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I did so. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And the range is blocked: [36] BOZ (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

72.220.73.191 (talk · contribs) may be knowledgeable on the subjects, and hasn't bothered sourcing copious additions of content across the Barks bio, Disney comics and Donald Duck articles. A lot of it looks like WP:OR. Would someone here like to review and begin the task of deletion, or is there a preference to open a thread at ANI? Today they were reverted here [37], and I reverted this inappropriate section [38]. Tip of the iceberg, I'm afraid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I no longer remember why MegaCon is on my watchlist, and I am not familiar with either this specific con or WP standards for con articles, so I'm asking here if there is a standard for what details to include in the list of events, such as MegaCon#Dates and guests. Dates, guests, and random special notes seem reasonable. But "Building" seems an excessive level of detail for an encyclopedia unless there is something citeably special to say about it every time. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stoshmaster:, who works in this area a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that venue is a useful bit of data, but I agree with DMacks that "building" seems a bit too granular. I'm not sure what archival value there is to that... -- stoshmaster (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering largely because it's late here, but are any of the three additions here sourced appropriately for inclusion? BOZ (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, on this at Sandman? BOZ (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ugh, this guy again? No, the material should still be limited to Spider-Man in film. If we start listing all the films a character didn't appear in, what's the point? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Argento Surfer, yep, definitely that guy again: [39] and they added content to several other articles which may need review: [40] BOZ (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a clown and a troll with no life for trying to suggest that the IP user discuss this here. :) BOZ (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Did this come as a shock to you? We all thought you knew...^[FBDB] Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping there were still some people who didn't know me that well, but alas... BOZ (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the user, I don't see a problem with the Dr. Octopus entry. We are not listing "all the films a character didn't appear in", but just those where the character was considered to be included, things advanced a bit, and then they changed their minds, and there are references to confirm it: those aren't that much. Sandman, however, is another case: for what I read, the idea was to include a villain with sand-related powers but who would have another identity. Meaning, not sandman, someone else. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Long standing consensus has been to list characters only when they appear. Otherwise, you open the door to lists that include all the Easter egg references, name drops, and "his tentacles appeared but he didn't" occasions. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Doc Ock's can stay, as there isn't a particular issue with it, just that he was considered. Agreed with Cambalachero on Sandman. – SirDot (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't have an issue with Doctor Octopus' mechanical tentacles appears as one of the many different villain weaponry underneath Oscorp's Special Projects in The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Because that goes against long-standing consensus (see one, two three, and four). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Enough is enough with this person - after all the edit-warring and personal attacks in the edit summaries, I reported them today and they were rangeblocked for 31 hours:[41] and will report them again if they resume those same activities. BOZ (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For posterity, here's another example of a character considered for a film, but not included. I don't see how including this kind of information informs a reader about a character. There's no development, no event, no analysis. Just "this almost happened, but didn't." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it and it doesn't impose undue weight on the article? If this is correct, then I can see the Darkhawk example as valid, as James Gunn — being the director of the film— can be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Dr. Octopus example at least had some substance to it. Draft plot, actors considered, reason for ultimate removal... The Darkhawk example is just a passing by Twitter comment, which doesn't even make sense if read in isolation from the thread it belongs to. We know that Darkhawk "Was almost in Vol 2." and literally nothing else. Remember, just because something does not go against the rules does not mean we have to include it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(Forgot to mention: regardless of my personal opinion of the Dr. Octopus example, I didn't know that the issue had been discussed and that there was a consensus; I can see the logic behind it and I accept it) Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear friends: here on Wikipedia there are many articles of characters that do not appear but were planned, or mentioned either directly or indirectly. The Ghost is right; if that has its sources and references then it is worth it. BOZ stop the bullsh¡t and let the articles on those Marvel characters include the ones that were planned but didn't appear.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it You are mistaken. While Wikipedia should only contain content that first appeared in a reliable source, that does not mean a Wikipedia article should contain everything reliable sources have ever said about a subject. Our job as editors is to evaluate the available information and include only what is best for a given article. If a reader comes here to learn about Doctor Octopus, how does knowing he didn't appear in the first Spider-Man film helpful? Keep in mind the disputed information is available at Spider-Man in film, where discarded concepts are more relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the point. If you don't understand it's up to you.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for replying. I concur with you that Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on a subject, nor should it contain everything concerning certain aspects (for instance, I find that many comic-based articles frequently forget WP:NOTPLOT). I personally view verifiable non-appearances in a similar light as never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and directions that unfinished works would've gone — if the information can be verified, then it adds value to the behind-the-scenes information. I am curious, what are your feelings on information like the others I listed? For instance, I've recently been working on Dhampire: Stillborn to expand it beyond being a stub and I added a section on the never-produced sequels. Do you think this is not correct? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that kind of material is absolutely worth including in an article about a work. If you had written an article about Nicholas Gaunt, I would not feel the same. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, but I am confused. Why would it make a difference if the article was about a character? If the character is notable enough to have an article, then I believe it should encompass the same material (i.e., verifiable non-appearances, never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and planned directions that unfinished works). Assuming, of course, such material doesn't place undue weight on the article.

Returning to the Darkhawk example, I personally believe that the inclusion of a reliably-sourced non-appearance is one of the article's lesser problems. §Fictional character biography seems eggregiously long, to the point of defying WP:NOTPLOT. §Powers and abilities is similarly problematic in length, to the point that it is confusing to read. §Enemies is an unnecessary section that potentially defies WP:NOTDIRECTORY — though this could probably be incorporated into a §See also §§Notable foes or the sort. And there are a notable amount of uncited statements throughout the article.

I apologize for turning my reply into a "poor man's peer review", but my point is that — to me— there are bigger problems facing the article than a reliably-sourced non-appearance. Personally, I find that reliably-sourced non-appearance more worthy of inclusion than the minutiae of Darkhawk's fictional biography or powers. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

First - no argument from me about other issues with Darkhawk or other character articles. I completely agree there's a lot of room for improvement.

As to the difference between an article about a comic book and an article about a comic character, it comes back to the question I posed above. The point of a character article is to tell a reader about the character. What does a reader learn about the character from knowing he was considered for, but not used in, a film? That he's less important than the villain(s) who did appear? That's he's possibly more important than other villains who weren't confirmed to have been considered? Unless it appears on screen, it isn't canon, and therefore doesn't impact the character in any way.

To expand on that last part, most of the consensus built around excluding non-appearances from character articles came from editors adding extremely minor things, like the appearance of mechanical tentacles in Amazing Spider-Man 2, Gambit's name appearing in a list on a computer screen in X2, even Easter egg-type allusions to characters that are "obvious" to fans. Allowing that kind of trivia in character articles leads to the same kind of overloaded, unsourced minutia in the film section that you bring up as a current problem in the fictional biography sections.

An article about a comic book, on the other hand, should include sourced material on canceled plans, since that can give a reader more context about the work. Information about an unmade sequel give insight into a creator's plans and a nice segue into why it wasn't made. Sales failure? Creator illness? Publisher disinterest? Or perhaps it's still a potential future project? Whatever the answer, I don't feel those are questions that can be asked about a character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your reply. I now believe that I understand your reasoning, though I respectfully disagree with some of it. You say that the "point of a character article is to tell a reader about the character", but — while a small difference— I think that the "point of a character article is to tell a reader about the history of a character". As per WP:NOTPLOT, the emphasis of articles should be on "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the article's topic. And while a "concise" summary of a character's fictional biography and powers is also essential, limiting an article to canonical information isn't ideal — there is a lot of non-canonical information that deserves to be included.

I agree that this can be overdone, such as the "Easter egg-type allusions" you mention, but I do not think this is a simple black-and-white, binary matter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Darkhawk, for instance, knowing he was considered for inclusion in Guardians 2 adds to the character's significance. Or, at least, it does in my mind.

I apologize for hijacking this discussion and re-opening a can of worms, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respectfully discuss the merits (or lack thereof) on this topic. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest an article on a character should only tell a reader about the canonical, fictional information - your description of what it should cover is correct. I still don't see how being considered for a film fits with "development, design, reception, significance, [or] influence." Not appearing in a film means there is no development, there are no designs or reception, nor any influence. I'd even go so far as to say that being considered for inclusion but not selected is a strike against a character's significance.

I wouldn't oppose opening this up as an RfC. It would get more eyes on it from outside the regulars on this board. It will need to be boiled down to a very specific, simple question though. Which example of a non-appearance do you feel has the strongest sources supporting it? We'll use that for the test case. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, it is very much appreciated. You mention how a character being considered but "not selected [for a film] is a strike against a character's significance", which it certainly can be, but that does mean it affects significance. A negative impact is still an impact.

I appreciate your offer to open an RfC on the matter, but I do not feel qualified to select a specific example to bring to wider discussion. If you wished to bring the Darkhawk example to RfC, I believe that would be fair. It seems like a solid "middle ground" example of mentioning reliably-sourced "didn't happen" instances in an article. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I for one think an RFC on the topic of, say, "Should articles about fictional characters include non-appearances in other media?" would be a great idea. Make sure to include links to as many previous discussions about the topic as can be found. It would also be useful to figure out when exceptions can be made. This may also be worth expanding beyond comics characters, as this can also be a phenomenon occurring in characters adapted from other forms of media (i.e., was Tom Bombadil considered for including in Jackson's LoTR films?) so I support an RFC to give us a more solid consensus. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ and The Ghost of Art Toys Past: I have opened the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which seemed like the best spot. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for taking the time to elicit this discussion. I have added my thoughts to it. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@SirDot and Cambalachero: you might be interested in the RfC too. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have again reported the IP editor:[42] BOZ (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And they are blocked for a week this time:[43] BOZ (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported them once again: [44] and this time they are blocked for a month. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly that same IP user socking: [45] BOZ (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

And another IP: [46] BOZ (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like they may be back, so filed another AIV report: [47] BOZ (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And that IP range blocked: [48] BOZ (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Reported again: [49] BOZ (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The contribution at Carnage is particularly bad. "He would not have been in this movie that wasn't made." Jeez. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

LOL. The unending battle against an IP who really, really, really, really wants us to talk about film non-appearances. Poor guy. :( BOZ (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I am reviewing drafts of Draft:Captain Britain and Draft:Brian Braddock, which will split the current Captain Britain article into two articles. Are there comments on the split? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I initiated this split request. For superhero monikers that have been used in publication for multiple characters (such as Robin, Batgirl, Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel), there are generally separate articles for the moniker itself and each individual character. Considering that, in modern publication, the title no longer refers to the character of Brian Braddock, it does not make sense for the Captain Britain page to primarily be about that character. Does anybody disagree with this? Pibbs (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree.★Trekker (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How long have other characters been associated with the name Captain Britain, and how unlikely is it that Brian Braddock will resume use of the name? BOZ (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

User:BOZ The official Marvel line is that this will be a permanent change (as with Captain Marvel). I would understand skepticism if this split were proposed sooner after the change happened, however, at this point it's been three years and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to doubt that this is permanent. My inclination is to believe Marvel's official statements, and while I have my reasons (Much as Mar-Vell was never nearly as popular as Carol Danvers, Brian has never been nearly as popular as Betsy; Betsy's books as Captain Britain have been a cornerstone of the franchise since the DoX relaunch; additionally, Kwannon as the new Pyslocke has been a breakout hit in her own right given the success of Hellions, so Betsy seems unlikely to take that name back), I'd hesitate to base decisions on speculation one way or the other. Pibbs (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it appears neater to split the Captain Britain name away from Brian Braddock as Betsy seems to have the been given the name for the forseeable future. 167.203.2.38 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, is there any update on your review of this split? Pibbs (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Pibbs, User:BOZ - There hasn't been as much discussion as I would have liked, but there hasn't been any objection to the split, and there has been support for the split. So I expect to be accepting the two drafts within one to three days unless there is any contrary input. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a split is necessary, but I will defer to people with a better understanding of policy in this case than me. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:BOZ - It was and is my opinion that the previous article was one article on two topics, a fictional person and a fictional persona that has been adopted by other fictional persons. The split appeared to me to resolve ambiguity. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Split of Captain Britain and Brian Braddock

User:Pibbs and others:

I have accepted the previous drafts of Captain Britain and Brian Braddock, so as to split the article into two articles. The former article is now at Draft:Captain Britain. Please check the articles to verify that the split has been done cleanly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Most source content going into this split came from the original article. Because the Draft space was used to demonstrate what the end result would look like, I'm going to swap them back and reverse the content in order to better preserve the original attribution history. -2pou (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Cartoonist, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

I brought it up I think a couple of years ago, but I wanted to try to figure out a better formatting structure for the larger Marvel and DC character lists. I tried out what I had saved on List of Marvel Comics characters: M for a couple characters, looking for any ideas. For characters with differing names or identities, I was thinking it could just be a blank section that lists the lesser used name and points it to either the character article or the list entry using their most common/current name. TTN (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Revising the list to a table will break a lot of redirects... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed a concern, but won't bots be able to help somewhat with that?★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This type of restructuring will affect the redirects and the sections for those who have media appearances. @Indagate: had to add a visible anchor to M-11's part of the page in question as part of the concerns mentioned by @Argento Surfer and @StarTrekker. Rtkat3 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry got distracted but yeah a template like Template:visible anchor means the redirects won't be effected, can also use Template:Anchor for another anchor. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool, glad to know. I suck at tables. Since that's not a concern, I would suggest merging the "Introduction date" and "series" columns into one formatted similar to "Title #1 (mon YY)." We also need a column (or solution) to retain the other media appearances. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As in links to other media appearances like the following? Or something else?

Codename	Real name	Introduction	Creator(s)	Description	Other appearances
Codename	Real name	Menace #11 (May 1954)	Creator	Description	Show 1 Show 2 Movie Alternate version

For sorting, should it be done by strictly real name, strictly code name, or strictly common name? If real name, should it be "first, last" or "last, first"? These pages are a roundabout mess of links, so this is certain to be a very long process just getting what's there into shape. The ability to put multiple anchors in place can help for redirecting. TTN (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I would prioritize sorting by the name the character's most notable under. That is, if we were to split the entry out as its own article, would we call it "Hank McCoy" or "Beast"? If it's the former, we'd put it under M, of course. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

When it came to adding entries, I would place their subsection in the List of DC Comics characters pages under their last name like I had to do with Kamala Khan's family as they are just supporting characters like J. Jonah Jameson or Dorothy Walker. Putting entries down by their last name in those pages is what I recall to also have been done by @Jhenderson777: and presumably @BOZ: when putting pages like these together. Let's hear their opinion of this discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely sort by last name in those cases. BOZ (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Decided to respond with tag despite my inactivity. Yeah I agree with BOZ. That should work fine. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#RfC on Sequel section regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Eerie (Avon) 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The article on Eric July has a number of problems which I brought up on the talk page but were left unanswered. the individual in question is described as a lot of things, such as musician, political commentator and comic book author... but almost exclusively by right wing media that's pushing him as an alternative to "leftist controlled" and "woke" mainstream media. Just to illustrate how bad it is, the article is listed as being in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, but the only thing that connects him to comics (aside from him making youtube videos where he's whining about "tokenization" in comics) is that he's the creator of a new comic series that according to him is going to kickstart a new shared comics universe called the Rippaverse. Problem is, the comic in question, despite being alegedly complete and ready for distribution, isn't even out yet, and all that's been seen of it so far is July and his followers constantly bragging about how much money he made off kickstarter, while posting stock images of loaded warehouses he took off a google image search. It's quite dubious for wikipedia to call someone a comic book writer, when there isn't any evidence of his comic book even existing. Other claims have similar issues, and as always, all information is traced back to non neutral sources. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Bleeding Cool isn't a biased source, at least the kind of biased that would favor July. And seeing as how reliable sources have recently described him as a comic creator, it would be inappropriate for us to decide he isn't. Should the kickstarter comic fail to be delivered, I'm sure BC will cover that too, at which time the article can be updated to describe him as a failed comic publisher. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

One mention in Bleeding Cool isn't enough to meet wikipedia's standards for notability. Especially when the other sources are Reason, Fox, NYP and the guy's own website. July is part of a circle of entertainers who have been rejected by mainstream publishers and are using republican-owned media to market their mediocrity as part of the right's culture war. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting this. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Bleeding Cool isn't the only reference cited, and notability standards only apply to the article subject, not the article content. If you don't feel Mr. July warrants an article, you can nominate it for deletion. If you're not familiar with that process, start reading at WP:BEFORE and continue until you get to the instructions. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with the process, but the only time I tried it (for another comicsgate affiliated individual) it was undone for inadequate reasons and the rules specifically state the deletion tag cannot be re-added once removed. July has a masive band of followers on the internet. If I were to nominate the article for deletion, what's stopping one of them from removing the nomination, and preventing it from being nominated again? 46.97.170.32 (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, which is meant used for "uncontroversial" deletions. Those can be contested and removed by one person. In cases that might have opposition, the process I linked creates a new page where the merits of the article will be discussed. An uninvolved editor (usually an admin) will evaluate the comments after 7 days and close the discussion. here is a recent example. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Started an AfD on Crusade (comics) the other day, could use more attention, thanks. QuietHere (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Closed now! QuietHere (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I updated Crusade (disambiguation) and Le Lombard per suggestions at the AfD. Any reader can now find all the proposed targets in as little as two clicks. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this something that needs to be listed in the infobox, when it is literally something that basically every superhero does? Ziggy Coltrane seems to believe this is necessary to list on the infobox for Thor (Marvel Comics) as seen here. Is this actually necessary? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Template:Infobox comics character and title is quite clear: significant current and previous powers, and other notable abilities. (emphasis mine) A superhero being a skilled fighter is neither significant nor notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - would you mind to remove that from the infobox to restore the status quo prior to the dispute? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of this conversation, little busy with life. But other than that, this is a mistake. Some heroes/villains have this skill listed in their abilities, ie: Batman, Iron First, Daredevil, Wonder Woman, Shang-Chi, Captain America, Deathstroke, Bane, and so on have them. It is listed in their abilities because they’re proficient at them. Not every character has this listed. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be removed from those characters as well then. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I sampled those, and Iron Fist (character) and Shang-Chi say "Master martial artist" which is something different and more specific. Daredevil (Marvel Comics character) likewise says "Mastery of stick-fighting, martial arts, hand-to-hand combatant, and acrobatics" which again is more specific. So unless I just need to go through all of them, no, they don't all say "Skilled hand-to-hand combatant". 207.229.139.154 (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

because they’re proficient at them is not a valid reason to include them as a notable ability. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If they’re well known for them, then yes. Like the examples I wrote, they should remain. Going through every single character is just ridiculous. Not all of them are proficient so not all have them. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Most superheroes are "well known" for fighting one way or another. It's part of the territory, and a usually a secondary power stemming from their real powers. Thor, for example, is already listed with superhuman strength. That automatically gives him an advantage in hand-to-hand combat. Ditto for Bane, Wonder Woman, Captain America. Daredevil has his radar sense. Batman, Iron Fist, and Shang-Chi are exceptions because they don't have superpowers, or their powers stem from their success with their martial arts of choice. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So what you’re saying is, if they have superpowers don’t include them. If they don’t have any superpowers you include them. That doesn’t make much sense. Just because some have superpowers, doesn’t mean they don’t know how to fight. Superman for example, he’s not traditionally known to be an expert and hand-to-hand combat. Wonder Woman has powers but she is well known in hand-to-hand combat, like Thor. So yeah…if it applies to the character then yes. I’m not saying every character needs it, just the ones who are well known for them. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How are you determining who's well known for these traits? Will you be adding sources to support each one? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The examples I gave already have sources. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You wanted to add it to Thor, but that's not sourced. Bane (DC Comics) doesn't have a source. Wonder Woman doesn't have a source (and it was removed from her list by @Lord kai07:). Daredevil (Marvel Comics character) doesn't have a source. Would you please point me toward one of your examples that does? Bonus points if the source isn't a comic book. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

They’re there still. In the abilities section it comes after Batman calls her the best melee fighter followed up a source. In the Bane section, second paragraph those sources count. Also, what do you mean bonus point if they’re not comic books? Also, fourth paragraph of Thor talks about his skills in combat. Numerous sources. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The source for Wonder Woman being a skilled hand-to-hand combatant is "Batman once called her the "best melee fighter in the world".[167]" with the citation being a single comic from 2007. Simply put, this is not a good source because it's cherry picking one desirable sentence from 2000+ stories featuring the character. I'm sure someone familiar with WW's history could easily point to a story where a villain calls her "weak" or "a pathetic fighter" or whatever. I mentioned "bonus points" for a non-comic source because academic or historical coverage of a comic character is superior for the purposes of Wikipedia. Look at Batman for example. The first citation in the abilities section is to a book on comic history. That's a good, reliable source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add such useless information to the panel page. These superheroes have been there for decades, with a wide variety of abilities. Most of them are inconsistent and only appear a few times. Hence the reason for removing this unwanted additions. Lord kai07 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s not useless, if they’re sourced then no. Don’t remove them. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could take a look at this contributor who keeps removing information and references without providing an explanation on several pages. This user only writes "Minor detail edits," but I do not think they are minor at all. In fact, their edits have been reverted several times before, because they seem to remove important data (I hope this is the right page to deal with this situation though). Higher Further Faster (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Higher Further Faster: I did a spot check and they all seem to be legitimate improvements, but I didn't see any where a reference was removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Argento Surfer, I went to this page where it is written "Tags: references removed" several times, with different users reverting this contributor's edits. However, if you think this user is not troublesome at all, then I am sorry if I wasted anyone's time. Higher Further Faster (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at that tag would've helped. Thanks for pointing that out. They're still ok though. this one just relocated a reference, and this one removed an item that didn't belong. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That IPs edits are often reverted by other IP users, but I also see User:Adakiko reverting the IP. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Those edits are from wp:huggle & wp:RCP. This 13k addition to Crimson Cowl appears to be unattributed copy/paste from Crimson Cowl (Justine Hammer) content removal (see wp:Copying within Wikipedia re attribution). Onel5969 restored 69.121.183.150's redirect to Crimson Cowl (Justine Hammer) which is its current state. The content I removed from Crimson Cowl has not been restored. Other than the undiscussed page blanking and copy/paste, I have no interest in those articles. Adakiko (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User 203.206.90.238 has been adding Thor (Marvel Comics) to Template: Defenders and reverting my removal. What should be done? Henry Wilkerson (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Huntress (comics)#Requested move 10 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Petnog has been adding a "citation" stating on the She-Hulk page stating "Jennifer's middle name was revealed to be Sue in 1984's Avengers Annual #13. In January 2008, She-Hulk's Wikipedia page was updated to contain this information, but two months later the middle name was changed to Susan, being left that way for years. In Heralds (2010) #1, Emma Frost refers to Jen as "Jennifer Susan Walters"."[50] Is this an acceptable way to add a citation to an article? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

nope, making connections like that is WP:Original research, stating the facts together in implying a connection which may not be there @Pognog Thanks, Indagate (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Petnog for response to this discussion. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Indagate, it looks like @Petnog reverted again [51] without any attempt at discussion. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't revert it. Just read it. | Petnog (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It may not be a pure reversion, but I think what you did still goes against the spirit of what @Indagate was saying. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in ((WikiProject banner shell)), and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi (BOZ) (talk), as I have posted numerous times but had my edits reverted, which I am really curious to why it's been unsourced and unreliable for the references given. In the Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance article, the character is named Danny Ketch and clicking on that leads to Ketch's page. Like the film depicts a child who is different to the comics version, but it seemingly is Ketch himself. While you may disagree, I would like to know much more further on this matter. 137.111.165.22 (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, I've been looking at ways of improving the Miracleman page, would it be OTT to start a project page to start gaining consensus and thoughts as to what does and doesn't need working on for the page? I'm trying to find a balance between being irritatingly enthusiastic and not treading on toes and/or getting carried away, and just trying to get a sense of the tools and channels available. Many thanks =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

An editor has tagged Love and Rockets for Non-Free media. File:LoveAndRockets31.jpg Most books and artists do have at least one cover representing the artist's work and characters. Can someone help weigh in with a rationale? Maybe help beef up the image with a decent template? Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 7 Thanks! Knulclunk (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It fails some pretty key parts of WP:NFCC with its use, so it should be deleted. The templates on the file page are not the issue. I've added my response on the file discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Ah well. If comics Wikipedia can’t justify an example of Jamie Hernandez uploaded 15 years ago… I’ve got nothing. Knulclunk (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello all. I wrote a start-class article about a comic book that has popped up in the news quite a bit lately, Zarya of the Dawn. If anyone would like to help expanding it and helping to make it better, I would really appreciate it. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Some time ago I requested help from other editors to get my favourite Marvel Comics character She-Hulk's header image replaced with one featuring her most iconic and current kind, idealistic, confident, funny, tough, and well-adjusted incarnation, as the current image is outdated by 42 years, and features a personality type that the character has outgrown by far.

However, unfortunately I did not receive any input, and would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help.

Please see the link here for further information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:She-Hulk#A_more_characteristic_and_distinctive_image

David A (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Category:Comics navigational boxes purge about the confusing category Category:Comics navigational boxes purge and would love some input from people who actually edit in this area. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the obsolete code from all the templates that were populating the category. It seemed all to be the work of former editor User:J Greb. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was a bit disappointed that our article didn't address this, but it seems like a given to me that someone named the comic that either because the character's name "sounds kinda Chinese-y" (*cringe*) or because it rhymes with the names of two historical Chinese dynasties (if one mispronounces them). I considered asking about this on the article talk page, but it's empty, and I don't know how to begin searching for reliable sources in this topic area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's nothing of the kind. It's because Kang wants to start his own dynasty, by having a son (actually a science project of some type, but it's basically a son), retiring as a conqueror villain, and leaving him as his heir. Just read the comic, the title makes complete sense. Note that Kang the Conqueror was created in 1963, and he was a regular and well-established character at the time of the story. Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Are you sure? I would think that if that were the only reason, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Chinese history, Kang Dynasty is a rather unintuitive title, especially when Son of Kang is right there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because in the absence of sources saying otherwise, I have no reason to doubt that a plot-related title is, in fact, used in reference to that aspect of the plot. And it isn't either that they chose a name and then made a story for it: the Kang Dynasty is the culmination of stories that Kurt Busiek had been making with the Avengers for years by then. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure Age of Ultron also wasn't just a cool-sounding title with little connection to the plot of the book, the existence of essentially the same joke in the sitcoms Father Ted and Community is just a coincidence😓 Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comic has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox comic book title. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. MClay1 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've folded numerous Marvel Comics character pages into the Lists of Marvel Comics characters pages. It is not something I have done lightly but the pages were generally very, very poor in terms of referencing and upkeep. Judging by the tags on them have been largely abandoned. I've used redirects instead of AfDs to preserve the page histories and avoid broken links, and this should make ring-fence the notability issues and hopefully avoid mass deletion of pages far below Wikipedia's badly-applied guidelines.
However: -

1. This does mean the list pages are even worse. I currently have no time nor inclination to do research on generally shit characters from generally shit comics.
2. Pretty much every single entry needs a rewrite - common problems are switching between in and out of universe writing styles at random (out goes in Publication history, in goes in Fictional character biography)
3. A lot of them were blatantly written at one random point in the character's history.
4. The full Template:Cite comic needs to be added to any cited issue, otherwise you're left with meaningless information that provides no context for people who don't know the comics well anyway.

On the off-chance anyone cares about any of the characters, that's Step 1.
For Step 2 of returning them to standalone pages they need at least two and preferably three independent, notable instances of significant coverage. That means not material produced or licenced by Marvel, like DK books - though two and a licenced guidebook might pass muster. If steps 1 & 2 are done characters can be returned to their own pages and I'll happily help you fuck up anyone who says otherwise, and if there are any that meet that that I've incorrectly included I will apologise. However, please do not restore them on reflex. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to do an archive of non-web comic sources at User:BoomboxTestarossa/ComicSourceDump. At the moment I've only done Wizard, of which I have various issues from 1991-2004. Amazing Heroes is next on the list but going to do some other bits for a while first.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(With the caveat that I've paid limited attention to Millar since his decision to become the Rob Liefeld of writers) This seems to be a very over-used thing on the various Kick-Ass related articles. My understanding of this is that Millar has decided to retrospectively apply this name to the original wad of Kick-Ass titles. However, they weren't the names of the titles when they were published and it isn't the name used in the myriad coverage of when people actually cared about Kick-Ass. Retrospectively applying this branding to encyclopaedia entries feels disingenuous, needlessly confusing to laymen and against common name policy. Is there a salient reason why this term should stay in place, bearing in mind that "Mark Millar said so" is not binding for Wikipedia? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It is an official naming, so unless there was a more extended way to name this, there's no reason not to use it. It's like the first Star Wars film, that got things like "Episode IV" and "A new hope" added when more Star Wars films started showing up. Cambalachero (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but the Star Wars names have long entered common usage; Episode IV has had cinema reissues and home media releases under that name. Does that apply to retrospectively rebranding a few TPBs? The films and the comics that actually got a relatively wide audience were just called "Kick-Ass". It doesn't seem to have been done for the renaming of Captain Marvel into Shazam, for example. If Marvel renamed Spider-Man as Web-Dude it wouldn't mean previous issues of Amazing Spider-Man should be referred to as Amazing Web-Dude... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want a comic book example, consider Sin City. It was initially the name of the story of Marv avenging Goldie. But later on, when Frank Miller started even more stories in that setting, that initial story was renamed to "The Hard Goodbye". Cambalachero (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

But that has common usage. I'm not convinced the Kick-Ass rebranding does.

"Kick-Ass - The Dave Lizewski Years" - 8920 results on Google, first few pages are just listings

"Kick-Ass" "comic book" - 910000 results

I get the argument, but this sort of thing really needs to be done case-by-case. Naturally the rebranding needs to be mentioned, but it needs to be kept away from infoboxes; there's no such comic as "Kick-Ass: The Dave Lizewski Years #1"

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said, that's the official naming. It is not mandatory to use it if some other naming has greater usage, but if there isn't such a usage, then there's no reason not to use it. Nobody ever said that an official naming should pass some arbitrary threshold of usage to be considered.

20 or 15 years ago, there was a single Kick-Ass comic, so the name was fine. Some years ago there was a relaunch, and that means that now there are two "Kick-Ass #1" comics (as so on). To solve that ambiguity, the original run was rebranded "The Dave Lizewski Years". We have a similar need to be precise when mentioning comic book issues, so why not use it? We wouldn't be making up anything. Yes, that was not the original name, but in case you did not realize it, retroactive renaming is a thing in the entertaining industry. Cambalachero (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It is. But are we aren't in the entertainment industry, surely. Or at least I'm not. It strikes me as more confusing to bring the after-the-fact branding in on what seems to be every single article on the well-known series everyone calls Kick-Ass for the benefit of the little-known series no-one thinks of when someone says Kick-Ass. I mean, surely the point here is to make these articles accessible and easy to understand.

Surely official naming /should/ pass some threshold of usage. As I said above, most articles refer to Captain Marvel as Captain Marvel despite the whole Shazam thing. Isn't that what WP:COMMONNAME is all about? Some official changes reach a threshold where they become more notable - as you've listed there's A New Hope and The Hard Goodbye. Others haven't, at least not yet, and this I believe is one of them. That said, I'm not going to die on a hill for a Mark "You know what's edgy? RAPE!" Millar comic BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You got some points wrong, but are you sure that your dislike for the works of Mark Millar is not getting in the way of your work as an editor? You don't have to edit those articles if you dislike those comics that much. Just let them be, and focus instead on the articles of comics you do like, perhaps raising them to good or featured status. Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Not the works of Mark Millar, just the stuff that uses rape as an edgy plot device. Which admittedly is more than a couple, but still. I'm not entirely sure how it would affect my views on this matter either way, though, and if you don't mind me saying so it feels like a red herring to say so, and doesn't really affect the argument. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible redirects from the "Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles:

• The Frank Book
• The Homeless Channel
• I, Joker
• King: A Comics Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Mystery Men (comics)
• My Troubles with Women
• Nat Turner (comics)
• The Sandman (Golden Age) = Sandman (Wesley Dodds)
• Stagger Lee (comics)
• The Summer of Love (comics)
• Yossel
• Jack (Jaxon) Jackson = Jaxon (cartoonist)
• David (Dave) McKean = Dave McKean
• Walter (Walt) Simonson = Walt Simonson
• James (Jim) Steranko = Jim Steranko
• Wallace (Wally) Wood = Wally Wood
• Adaptations from Other Media
• Cold War
• Espionage = Spy comics
• Fantasy = Fantasy comics
• Feminism
• Folklore in Comics
• Funny Animal Comics
• Gay and Lesbian Themes
• History in Comics = Historical fiction#Comics and graphic novels
• Jungle Comics
• Memoir/Slice-of-Life = Autobiographical comics / Slice of life#Anime and manga
• Themes
• Nazis
• Politics and Politicians
• Race and Ethnicity
• Religion
• Satire
• Underground and Adult Comics
• Youth Culture in Comics
• Comics Scholarship = Comics studies
• Merchandising and Licensing

74.94.190.241 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• • Nat Turner (comics) = Kyle Baker

• • Stagger Lee (comics) == Derek McCulloch (comics)

• • Feminism = List of feminist comic books

• • Gay and Lesbian Themes = LGBT themes in comics --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Gorilla Grodd a member of the Rogues? 98.223.102.250 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone not well-versed in comic book history I would love a second opinion on this article: Guardians of the Galaxy (New Guard).

This article purports to cover a version of the team published from late 2015 to 2017 and featured in "vol 4" of the Guardians run. Now I am no comic book expert but it seems to me that almost every fact in the body of the article is concerning the 2008 iteration of the team rather than this other version featuring Kitty Pryde, Thing, and other new characters. Just look at the references in the Publication and Team history sections: almost all of them range from 2008 to 2014, before the team was apparently established. The only parts that do seem to actually concern the 'New Guard' from an outsiders pov are the lead, collected editions section, and the paragraph devoted to All-New, All-Different Marvel which I gather spurred this new iteration. I understand wanting to include some of the backstory and lead up to this shake up for this new team, but to not include any of the 'New Guard' in the article raises serious questions over the scope, notability, and factual accuracy of the whole thing. If I am wrong and off base though please let me know. Yeoutie (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

While categorising some articles a question popped into my head about a couple of comics categories.

1. Category:Comics controversies: what is the threshold for a controversy? I mean some are easily defined in terms of legal, political or media attention, but things like creators bitching about how a character has been handled or how they fell out with another creator or company (or in Alan Moore's case, all companies ever) can be classed as controversial. For example, I've seen Chuck Austen's X-Men stuff described as "controversial". Is it decided by a 3rd-party source calling it a controversy?
2. Category:Unfinished comics: same thing, really. Some are clear cut, like - for example - the Tintin album Herge was partway through when he died. However, numerous titles are 'unfinished' in terms of being cancelled and/or hitting other bumps and leaving plot-lines dangling and the like, such as Uber, Red One or a billion and one eighties titles where the publisher folded. It's also subjective to some degree, in terms of what's an intended 'finish' and what isn't, And also technically any ongoing running right now is unfinished.

Thanks! It's nothing pressing but I thought I'd raise the question now before I do something wrong... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• When it comes to unfinished comics I would say it should be enough that there is a source that explicitly states that the comic is unfinished.★Trekker (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  And I think that any comic that has not yet been translated into Finnish should qualify! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  =D BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, that makes sense. So much sense I feel dumb for asking! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone think Birdy (comics) should have a seperate article? I found some third person sources. Sabretooth's Old Ally Birdy Might Save the Marvel Universe (cbr.com) , X-Men: Wolverine Brought Sabretooth's Forgotten Sidekick Back Into Action (cbr.com) , Marvel's marauding mutants must face judgment as Judgment Day arrives in Marauders #6 first look | GamesRadar+ Dwanyewest (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I started a conversation on Talk:Sabretooth (character) Dwanyewest (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Superman (1978 film) has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Just giving a head's up about this. Tried setting an article I ran across to low, and it's still showing "???" with a ton of articles now categorized as such it seems.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My article draft about a longstanding comic book character can't seem to get approved? The editors who keep rejecting aren’t comics people, and they’ve cited notability as the reason for the rejection. However, I’m confident that the article is indeed notable, and (very) well supported with high-quality secondary sources. It's significantly more notable than many existing Wikipedia articles about less significant characters. I feel that there’s an editorial content bias here, or at least a lack of knowledge about notability norms in respect to comic book media. But I don’t know how to tackle it. Any experienced hands out there with any tips? MorpheusDescending (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@MorpheusDescending: I'm more passing through here, but as someone that works on video game character articles for notability you need third party reliable sources discussing the character in terms of reception mainly. Have any sites discussed or reviewed the characters you're writing about and given some thoughts on them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Is "no." or "#" meant to be used on comic issues?. Rjjiii (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying some updates on template:comic strip reference right now. Check out the differences in the sandbox version on the testcases page. The template has kind of rusted up for about a decade now, like a box chevy left on cinder blocks since 2010. Things I am working on include:

• preparing the template to merge with ((cite comic))
• consistent formatting with ((cite comic))
• accepting the url, access-date, archive-url, and archive-date parameters
• less cryptic page formatting
• wikilinks to make the abbreviation less cryptic
• adding the quote parameter
• making the template still work even if it's not filled out quite right
• optional link targets for shortened footnotes
• ending punctuation the same as the ((cite this)) family of templates

Rjjiii (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Updates are now live. I'll update the documentation soon. Feed back is welcome, Rjjiii (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Documentation is now updated. Feel free to copyedit or correct errors. The updated template data should allow easier use with the Visual Editor. Rjjiii (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jstewart2007 has been indefinitely blocked, but he was working on two drafts, Draft:Justice League: Warworld and Draft:Valiant Cinematic Universe. Both are unsuitable for standalone articles at the time being, regardless of draft quality: the first one is an upcoming animated film and WP:NFF requires production to be in a more advanced state, and the second is a "cinematic universe" of a single film. They may be notable in the future, but if the drafts are not edited in a period of six months they would be deleted. Perhaps someone wants to "adopt" the drafts, and keep them updated and eventually submit them when conditions are finally met? Cambalachero (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group

It sounds like several people would like to work together to collaborate on such articles. Please drop a note there if you'd like to join in : ) - jc37 13:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been working recently on significant updates to both ((comic strip reference)) and ((cite comic)). Cite comic can now directly accept any comic strip reference. (When using the "strip" parameter, it will flip to comic strip formatting.) It supports a lot of standard parameters that I've seen people mention that it was missing like archive-url, archive-date, url-status, quote, and at. Old issues with whitespace are fixed, numerical parameters use the same prefixes as the CS1 templates, and the abbreviations are wikilinked to articles related to those roles.

It can be filled out and created from the visual editor now. It still supports the vast number of creator roles but the only things required are the date and title. For example,((cite comic | title = Action Comics | date = April 18, 1938 )) creates:

Action Comics (April 18, 1938). Rjjiii (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

I just came across this category and was surprised to see all of the Marvel characters classified this way. I'm no experts on comics but is this classification confirmed in the canon? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Daredevil (the comics version) and Matt Murdock (the MCU version) are both Catholics and faith is a large part of their characterization. Nightcrawler I know from passing that they are a strong faith-based character, though I couldn't personally say for what religion. The others I have no clue about nor know if religion/faith are a strong defining characteristic for them as it is for Daredevil and Nightcrawler. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Huntress is Christian, the cross she wears is not just decorative. Ultimate Captain America's religion was a relevant detail in the Ultimate Galactus trilogy (the first one, the one against the cosmic swarm) and his mini. I'm not so sure about the main Captain America, I don't remember any scenes or quotes regarding religion. I have never read the Illuminator one, but the plot description says that his powers come from God himself (as in a "God vs. demons" conflict), so I guess that one is fine. And I suppose we can easily add "DC Comics angels" as a subcategory. Cambalachero (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(Pointless detail: the previous post had 666 characters) Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021/sandUBX/test

Hi there, I'm experimenting new layouts for this project userbox. Do y'all prefer the current version or my proposal? Let me know your thoughts! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Because "comics" refers to more than merely "comic books" (and includes the WP:ENGVAR issue with "comic"), the speech balloon on the light blue background has been the image for a very long time. Using an image of comic books is inappropriate.

Also, displaying with centered text for these is preferable, for what I would presume is obvious. - jc37 11:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: You can center the text by simply adding center as a parameter, that's a personal preference; that's why I created ((User WP)) as a customizable template. I was now talking about the image. You may personally find literal comics inappropriate to symbolize project Comics, but I think that the current image is aesthetically unpleasant and not intuitive at all. That's why I asked here to the broader community. Cheers, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been the image for years for legitimate reasons. Your assessment of aesthetics is merely your opinion. - jc37 21:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what 'I think' means, smartman, that's my opinion. Yet you're affirming yours like it's shared by someone else, but I don't see anyone else supporting it. The fact it's been the image for years doesn't imply it can't change, consensus can change, and that's why I asked here to the broader community. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

When the comic "Ultimate Invasion" was first announced, everybody thought that it would be a relaunch of the Ultimate Marvel imprint. However, as things turn out in "Ultimate Invasion" #2, it may seem that it is instead the launch of a new imprint, with a similar name and some nods here and there (such as character's designs and some pages with Howard Stark mimicking a scene from the original Ultimates comic) but unrelated in every other way. Basically, like Heroes Reborn (1996 comic) and Heroes Reborn (2021 comic). Should I rewrite the article accordingly (and remove Category:Ultimate Marvel titles and ((Ultimate Marvel))), or wait until the story ends? Someone said in a forum that the Maker is the villain of the story and that it goes without saying that he will loose at the end and the alternate universe he's creating will not stand; and we should not focus on it but rather in what happens by the time the story ends and how does it do so. Of course, it's clear that the articles must follow what reliable sources say and not engage in fandom speculation, but what would they be saying here? If marvel was playing with everybody's expectations and played a false advertising stunt, then the sources that fell for it would be outdated. But saying that the sources are wrong and that this is not the return of the Ultimate universe, merely because of the plot of a comic whose complete story is not finished yet, may also seem kinda wrong. The guy from the forum I mentioned was doing speculation, right, but speculation based on an omnipresent trope that almost never fails to take place (that the bad guy looses). Cambalachero (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This storyline is just beginning. I advise that you not go through with your plans until after a bunch of the upcoming issues and the "Ultimate Universe" one-shot. We are going to have to keep an eye on the Earth-1610 resurgence in the remaining issues. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any input on this situation? User:JosephWC tends to restore unsourced content when someone removes it, and he does not add any citations. He also posted on my talk page (at "You can do the citations yourself.") to let me know that if I want to have citations in an article that he's not going to add them and I would need to do that myself, contrary to the advice at WP:BURDEN. Could this be a WP:CIR competence issue with him, or is this a different kind of behavioral issue? Looking over his user talk page, I noticed that there are worrying concerns about WP:CIVIL as well, considering some of his responses to User:Blazewing16, User:Drmies, and User:Martin IIIa in particular. 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

When he say "DO IT", it means to be bold in general.

However, I can assume there is probably some content dispute going on here...

@JosephWC, any idea on what's going in here? Kaseng55 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

To 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348, unfortunately, I do not. The only way to stop someone like JosephWC is to get an admin involved like Drmies, though clearly, the former shows no respect for them either. Short of an admin permanently blocking them, there's sadly nothing I can do. Blazewing16 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm tired of others not doing the work Blaze, if they're gonna monitor pages, they at least should have some decency to do a search and look at the issues of said character and input them on themselves. JosephWC (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

So "the work" is something for others to do, not you, the person who is reinserting unsourced material? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

what is that second part coming from? What are you talking about? Be specific, dude JosephWC (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

To User:JosephWC, when it comes to unsourced material, if you're going to leave it in and/or re-add it, the least you could do is provide a citation request. You know, the whole "^{[citation needed]}" thing. It's not that hard. I mean, it's no guarantee that that the content it's attached to will stay in, but it's better than just putting unsourced material back and yelling at the people who removed it. If someone does that to a page I frequent and/or like, I'm not going to do the immature thing and fight to get it back in. There are rules to follow, such as WP:SOURCE and WP:CITE in this particular case, and I refuse to break a rule unless I'm legitimately unaware of one. I concede that I have added unsourced content myself without adding a citation request for one reason or another and adding sources is not in my wheelhouse, but I'm not going to demand everyone else do it for me like a lazy person. If there's a source available, I'll gladly verify whether it'll work for the material I intend to connect it to and copy/paste it accordingly since that's within my wheelhouse. Otherwise, I'm deferring to experts and/or editors who know better than I do. Lastly, I'm not saying any of this to offend you. I'm trying my best to educate you on my reasoning and what I do in these types of situations. Frankly, you remind me of me in that I struggle to control my anger too. In fact, I've also lost my temper when it comes to editors who legitimately vandalize Wikipedia and break the rules. What I'm trying to say is that being angry doesn't help anyone, especially yourself. You need to find more constructive ways to vent that anger, and Wikipedia is NOT the place for that. I'm painfully aware of how toxic Wikipedia is overall and I've taken breaks from here specifically to calm down and get away from it all. However, if what I said does offend you and you feel the need to yell at me, so be it. I'm willing to take it so no one else has to. Blazewing16 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I did what needed to be done. 2601. JosephWC (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

JosephWC, I will give you a choice. Either you add only properly verified information and you address people courteously (and not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348&diff=prev&oldid=1167584705 in this way), or I block you. This has been going on long enough and it's tedious. This is not a playground for your comic book hobby; we are trying to write encyclopedic articles here. Blazewing16 etc., I'm on the road, abroad, and may not always be able to jump on something, but I will try to do the best I can. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

When i add future citations, I'll do it a calm manner, ok? Ok. But off the record this sucks that these citations have been on these pages for years and no one else has done anything about it. But I'll play ball. JosephWC (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

JosephWC - So I also had been going through your contributions, and I support Drmies notice/warning here, about references and civility.

Also, after seeing several of your comments to others, in particular about other online wikis/databases, I would encourage you to take some time looking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I hope this helps. - jc37 23:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks.... JosephWC (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome.

And if (as some of your comments seem to indicate) you are copying text from elsewhere on the internet, you might also find it helpful to read over Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. - jc37 00:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved away from it, i don't do it every page I visit. JosephWC (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Optimus Prime (comics)#Requested move 29 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 11:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any kind of consensus on the use of this term to describe different versions of the same comic book character? Is this a term widely used in fandom or something? I'm not able to turn up much on Google, but I have seen it used on a number of character articles. There is also Category:Incarnations of comics characters and its subcategories. Per Incarnation this seems to be a basically religious term (avatar was also once so but is now widely used outside of religion). I'm just curious to see what other people think about this usage. BOZ (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• From what I understand it means different characters who used a specific superhero/villain identity/name. Dick Grayson and Jason Todd are both characters who have been Robin. This is different from alternate universe versions of the same character like Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is technically the same 'person' as the comics Steve Rogers.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but is the word "incarnation" the right word? Or do we just prefer "version"? BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Incarnation" is simply a synonym for "version". For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic, and I don't perceive it to be distinctly religious in connotation. Nightscream (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If you go to the Merriam-Webster definition, you'll see plenty of non-religious and appropriate use. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Since this was the second time I was reverted on four different articles in this WikiProject, it’s time I request for a WikiProject stance on this. Has anyone else noticed that these sections have become very messy with a lot of unsourced information that easily makes the sections fall under WP:TRIVIA? Jalen Folf (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Honestly they've always been pretty bad.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@JalenFolf and StarTrekker: You're absolutely correct. Wikipedia is a fandom magnet, and keeps conning the public with the idea that supposedly anybody can and should edit. To the shock of all fandom, there are actual rules, so we are the bad guys! We gotta have WP:RS for each statement, and not of WP:UNDUE length. So the outside media must be based substantially on the subject, like an adaptation or at least a whole chapter or episode dedicated to it. Not trivial mentions or cameos, unless they are so numerous or reported upon for cameos that they achieve WP:N like with Stan Lee. With anything less than top tier notability, I sometimes summarize numerous mentions with "This subject became the featured subjects of several episodes television series." and followed by the several citations, as an exercise for the reader to follow. Or something like that. There's not always a need to directly summarize in prose everything in the world that's notable, and not always a need to purely delete everything. Sometimes in the edit summary or rarely on a Talk page, I'll link to the diff of a deletion of high quality unencylopedic fandom, and encourage somebody to migrate it to a fan site. Hey, keep up the good fight, y'all. — Smuckola(talk) 21:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A user has mass-nominated a whole bunch of Transformers articles and other pages for deletion. Please see the following:

• AfDs
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz (Transformers) (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliffjumper (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideswipe (Transformers)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaster (Transformers) (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scorponok
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetfire
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra Magnus (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimlock (3rd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokescreen (Transformers)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinobot (Beast Wars)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallen (Transformers)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicron
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliffjumper (3rd nomination)
• TfDs
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Template:Infobox Transformers character
• FfDs
  • Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 28#File:Jetfire-dd.jpg
  • Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 28#File:Csjetfire5.jpg
  • Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 28#File:Ultramagnus2.jpg
  • Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 28#File:Spike Witwicky in Dreamwave comics.jpg
  • Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 28#File:TFMM COUNTDOWN.jpg

See also the related discussion at User talk:Grandmaster Huon#About Your Recent AfD Nominations. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Gordon and Batgirl have been nominated for good article reassessments. If you are interested in these discussions, please participate by adding your comments to the Barbara Gordon reassessment page and the Batgirl reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:JordiWild98 added the section U.S. Agent#Religion of John Walker: U.S. Agent. Is anything in that section appropriate to include at all? 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This was an edit of the previous version. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also note their comments at Talk:U.S. Agent#U.S.Agent's Religion. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging some recent contributors to this page for input, @Mike Christie, @Thebiguglyalien, @InfiniteNexus, @NatGertler, @Nightscream, @StarTrekker, @JalenFolf. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate WP:Original research, and I've removed it as such. This is why it's almost never a good idea to use primary sources like comics as citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I presented my thoughts on the US Agent talk page here. Most of the material was correctly removed, though I don't have a probblem with a small portion of the underlying facts incorporated into the origin section, under circumstances I described on the aforementioned talk pagee. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Greetings to all who are members of the DC comics wikiproject!! I have made a custom and free topicon for y'all to use (if u Want). I've copy+Pasted it down in this message, without a { so that this place doesn't get the topicon. Feel free to use it!!

((Top icon | imagename = DC Comics logo.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group | description = This user is a member of the DC Comics Wikiproject. | id = 68263823 } Babysharkboss2 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Supergirl (Ariella Kent) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

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. Mach61 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC) sorry for being late

Agree that this is not notable, but I've made a WP:BOLD merge to List of DC Comics characters: K#Ariella Kent as an alternative to deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Are there any good searchable secondary sources to find information for characters (especially lesser known ones)? The best I've found so far is either searching CBR and Screen Rant or trying to find digitized print articles in magazines like Wizard from around the time that the given character was notable. Are there any better, more efficient options for finding useful secondary sources? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I tend to rely on Google Books a lot.★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Flashpoint (Elseworlds) is being nominated for deletion here. Any help on reaching a consensus would be great. Industrial Insect (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on Argosy, and there's text in there from before I started work cited to:

• Morrow, John, ed. (February 19, 2004). Collected Jack Kirby Collector. TwoMorrows Publishing. p. 129. ISBN 1893905004.

Does anyone have access to this? The text it cites is: Between 1989 and 1994, six issues were produced by Richard Kyle, at irregular intervals. Kyle had intended to revive the publication in the mid-1980s, but his financing collapsed. He had, however commissioned Jack Kirby to create a strip based on his early life in New York. Although Kyle was unable to secure fresh financing, he pushed ahead with publication in 1990. Issue 2 of the revived magazine included Kirby's "Street Code", shot as intended from the finished pencils. I'd like to confirm this supported by the source, and is not too closely paraphrased, and I'd also like to clarify the meaning. What does "shot from the finished pencils" mean? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If no one here has a copy, you might want to try asking at WP:RESOURCE. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, shot from the original pencils, I believe, refers to the fact that the work is uninked. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; that's helpful. I'm not sure I'm going to keep this in the article -- it's a bit specialist and isn't about the main run of the magazine, which had thousands of issues featuring many other things that need to be mentioned -- Tarzan, Zorro, Dr. Kildare, the Bermuda Triangle, and lots more. I might put a note about this on Talk:Jack Kirby to see if someone there wants to use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As Killer Moff says, the printed pages were shot from Kirby's pencils rather than inked. It's the most notable thing about the Kyle run, from memory, and is quite a big deal as it was the first time a wide audience saw Kirby's pencilled artwork and appreciated his craft. It's supported by the source and paraphrased reasonably, if my memory is correct. You used to be able to see it via google sources, don't know if that is still the case. Hiding T 15:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look at Jack Kirby and I see it's already mentioned there, so I think I'm just going to let it go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

An anonymous IP-address editor keeps making inaccurate edits to her top infobox section over and over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=She-Hulk&action=history

Help would be greatly appreciated. 🙏 David A (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

See here for example: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation?type=revision&diff=8175626&oldid=8171982

It is turning very tiresome to have to deal with. David A (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to ask for the page to be protected.★Trekker (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, but the problem seems to have been solved now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_A#About_the_She-Hulk_page David A (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I am currently working on Draft:Miss America (comics). However, I was wondering if you guys believe it would be better to keep both Miss America (Madeline Joyce) and this draft (if moved), or if you think only one of them should remain. Right now, the draft incorporates everything (more or less) dealing with Madeline Joyce. But I could also keep it more "general," removing stuff from the draft, so maybe both articles could be kept.

I am asking this here because, in my opinion, Miss America (Madeline Joyce) could basically be merged (or simply be deleted) with the draft (after being moved), since there are not have a lot of sources dealing with the character, from my point of view. But maybe some editors would say otherwise, like stating that the character is notable enough to have her own page, for instance.

I hope what I said was clear, and hopefully you will tell me what you think, so I can adjust the draft.

Thank you. Higher Further Faster (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As a somewhat prominent Golden Age superhero, I see that she does have some coverage and I'm sure there is more out there, at least enough where it should not be deleted. I do like your idea of having a page that covers both her and America Chavez. :) BOZ (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, members of WikiProjects Comics! I would like to bring to your attention the large amounts of comic articles with only primary sources and/or sources with trivial mentions. I would like as much help as I can get finding sources/cleaning up/deleting these articles. Many thanks! Industrial Insect (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of these could probably be shown to pass GNG, but problem is no one has energy or interest in making the articles worthwhile.★Trekker (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've found it difficult to get good secondary sources for most comic book characters. Obviously there are entire books about the characters that are household names, but for most characters all I can find are listicles like at Screen Rant and Comic Book Resources. Archive.org has a good collection for Wizard Magazine, among others, but there's no way to search through the catalogue unless you already know which issue mentions the character you're looking for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we want to note the appearance of Vulture's wings or Doctor Octopus's tentacles in other media when the characters themselves do not appear? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. Easter eggs are WP:FANCRUFT. But for Vulture and Doc Ock specifically, the fact that they were meant to appear in the sequels is a noteworthy piece of information (not the Easter eggs in TASM 2 themselves). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, thanks. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User had restored it with an edit summary calling people "fuckers", so I reverted it to take the trivial non-appearances back out. This user was previously warned on this talk page about civility if I remember correctly. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting that @JosephWC reverted despite intervention from @Blazewing16, saying that "people lack common sense", and despite previous warning from @Drmies on this talk page in July of this year. (And this is the edit summary where he called people "fuckers".) 2601:240:E200:3B60:5432:A30D:5F84:465C (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

you can note that, very good. What do you want from me? JosephWC (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

JosephWC, I've tolerated your nonsense for long enough. I'm sick of you calling me names, then turning around and calling me a friend as if nothing happened, as well as your apparent inability to follow WP:CIVIL and Drmies' warning. Obviously, if you make legitimately good edits, I won't touch those. If you make bad edits, such as adding trivial non-appearances or other such unnecessary material, I will gladly undo those and keep doing so until we get blocked for engaging in edit wars. I personally don't care if I get blocked because it'll mean spending time away from this website. If you get blocked with me, all the better. User:Materialscientist, in the event that Drmies is unavailable, I request your assistance in resolving this matter as soon as possible please. Blazewing16 (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

MY nonsense, that's rich, like you never had a bad day. Well I had a bad day yesterday, and coming here with you reverting made me kinda pushy/uneasy, so pardon me for not meeting you half-way, when it'll be reverted by you in seconds. My bad. JosephWC (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Having a bad day is no excuse for edit warring or incivility. If anything, if being in a bad mood leads you to do bad behavior on Wikipedia, then it is a far better thing that you do to actually avoid Wikipedia and find something else to put you in a better mood, and then come back here when you have a clearer head so you can engage productively with your fellow editors rather than treat them like antagonists. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, no action needed I think, but block warning was removed. 2601:240:E200:3B60:BD0F:F616:443D:6296 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentions of Easter Egg appearances, so long as it's supported by a citation of a secondary source. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Template:Infobox comics elements be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

Also, I need help removing the option to add a tagged page to Category:Fictional artifacts, which was deleted in 2009. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

See topic title. Is anyone aware of reliable sources that list the precise date that individual comic issues were published, and not just the cover date? Morgan695 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have definitely seen this before: [52] - this user always comes back, never gives up, always reverts, usually starts talking about "sit over my middle finger" and starts cursing at you and threatening you. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A WikiProject can't really do anything about a disruptive editor. The best place to report this is at WP:ANI. If this person has done this before, it would also be helpful to find past instances as evidence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It's in the talk page archives here. When he comes back to edit war, I will dig them up. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This editor has resumed again today, with their colorful edit summaries: [53] 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to report "IP vandals". Unless an administrator happens to come by this page and see your message, nothing will happen. Please report the user to WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI if need be. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and reported this one: [54] BOZ (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the whole range was blocked for a week: [55] If anyone sees this activity again (thanks to @MrOllie for reverting them) then this should be reported again so that the block can be longer next time. BOZ (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the selection of articles, this is JeanCastì evading their block. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeanCastì. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't basically almost everyone in Category:Marvel Comics child superheroes teenagers? Do we even need a separate category? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Basically all of them in the child cat are teenagers. Power Pack would fit the "child" category (and their individual pages), and Moon Girl on a quick glance. But like Kate Bishop, Bucky/Bucky Barnes, wouldn't, if we are using the literal delineation of "teenager" as 13 and older. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Would somebody please be willing to greatly improve on the structure of She-Hulk's "Fictional character biography" section? It currently lacks lots of references, mixes together events in different storylines, such as "The Seach for She-Hulk" and "Avengers Disassembled", and is also missing several important key events.

Please see here for a better handled and more comprehensive structure in that particular regard: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jennifer_Walters_(Earth-616) David A (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultimate Universe (2023)#Requested move 12 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bensci54 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

On several pages including here, I've seen ((cite comic)) described as complicated,[56] confusing,[57] or difficult.[58] I am planning to do some more updates on the template and its documentation, so I want to ask what parts of either the current template or the current documentation people find to be a problem? Thanks for any input! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at it in while, but what I think we used to find complicated was explaining the terms to outsiders who wanted to update it. A lot of the terms mean different things depending on the context. I don't know if the field has advanced beyond that yet. It's not necessarily complicated in and of itself, it's just complicated in making it a one size fits all if you don't get what each piece does. It looks like plotter and scripter have been jettisoned in favour of writer and cowriter for example, and I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. But it's Wikipedia, knock yourself out, none of it matters in the grand scheme. Hiding T 14:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for both the insight and creating the template to begin with, Hiding! Regarding the writer and cowriter parameters, they've been there since 2005,[59] and so won't make a difference. Perhaps you are remembering penciller and inker roles? Those are still present; in the sandbox update; the only change is that "artist" currently/previously suppressed them when used. And as you say, regardless of whether people use it there will still be grits and bacon in the morning, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies, I'm old and my memory is bad. I'm just glad it's still useful and disappointed that I can't be involved as I used to be or even relevant. I definitely recall plotter and scripter roles, but can't remember if I ever implemented them. Like the documentation says, I pulled from Allen Ellis's citation style, I don't know whether the big guns, Harvard or such now have a style, and I should as I have to submit Harvard style but am not in the comics field except tangentially, this was all new back then and it's nice to think I've been part of that conversation in my own small uncredited way. Anyway, if you want to pick my brains feel free, I'll try and be available... peace and best wishes. Hiding T 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultimate Universe (2023)#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Features of the Marvel Universe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

I would greatly appreciate helpful input in the following talk page section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thor_(Marvel_Comics)#Misleading_content

David A (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)