Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archive 45 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 55

Best way to handle a miniseries turned into an ongoing

The James Bond 007: VARGR article describes it as a 6 issue miniseries (and some sources support that, I found others that suggest it was always an ongoing), but a 7th issue has been solicited that replaces VARGR with the new arc name. Obviously this one arc isn't notable enough for a standalone article, but I'm not sure what to rename it. James Bond (comics) is already taken. I'm partial to James Bond (2015 comic series), but I thought I'd solicit opinions first. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think if it was notable enough when it was a mini, it'd be notable enough now, but overall, I'd favour James Bond (2015 comic series) as long as it retains notability for the series as a whole, now I believe Warren Ellis is no longer attached.Killer Moff (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The upcoming issue may be called James Bond #7 but the story isn't necessarily in association with the previous six issues. The new story arc is called Eidolon, while the first story arc was named VARGR. However, we'll have to wait until further notice since Dynamite has a way of separating their franchise titles in time, like they've done previously with The Man With No Name story arcs which later turned to The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (no, the plot is nowhere near to being connected to the film of the same name despite sharing the same protagonist).--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Cont'd) And besides, VARGR will come out under Volume #1 which rules Eidolon under Volume #2 sometime late this year, I believe. This alone has them labeled as standalone titles.--ZeroMinusTen (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest James Bond (Dynamite Entertainment) is the best option, compliant with WP:NCC. Then merge "Development" and "Sequel" into "Publication history" above the "Plot" section. Remove the limited series category and add this on the end: {{Warren Ellis}} (with "type=comic" in it). Also note general style guidelines on captilisation of section headers: MOS:SECTIONCAPS. If it'd help, I can run through the article and sort that out. Emperor (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah looking at the new covers and the GCD, it is clear that VARGR is just the first storyline in a comic book title James Bond, so the article should be at James Bond (Dynamite Entertainment). I see Argento Surfer has updated the article (and I've made a few tweaks) so it is looking solid in its new role for an ongoing series. If no one can see any problems with the new title I'll move it in a day or so (or someone else can). Emperor (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing about fiction

We have a problem here at WP:COMICS and I think the Merlyn article demonstrates it well, specifically the section on Arrow. A cadre of younger editors insist on writing about the character as though he were a person, piecing together factoids from spin-off comics (like his real name) and publicity materials (like the codename "Dark Archer") to present a "biography" of the character. As you know, fictional character articles must never be written in this style. I'm constantly being reverted by the overprotective editors of this page, but the result of this approach is a deeply misleading article which would suggest to someone who doesn't watch the show that the character actively goes by the "Dark Archer" codename or that his real name had been given in any episodes at all. It's not hard to rewrite this to be more in-keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, not to mention more succinctly (given that this is only one adaptation of a very long-running character) but I feel like I'm fighting an uphill struggle to get policy enforced here and see this article written well. There's no reason why every C-list DC villain can't have a Good or Featured article one day, but this one certainly cannot achieve that status at this rate.

Could other editors please comment? How can we achieve consensus and work towards more comic articles being written with a full minfulness of their being accounts of a cultural item / creative process, and not biographies of imaginary people? Zythe (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy crap! Virtually the entire article is referenced to primary sources. I don't know the character itself, but it sounds like you're describing a general problem with superhero articles on Wikipedia. Good luck battling this Hydra-like problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck, but be prepared to deal with editors who complain that you are messing with text that is "useful and well-referenced." BaronBifford (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comics realm seems rife with this issue, from the few articles I've looked through before. Even the FAs are questionable in that they mix the topic of the franchise and the character itself (see Batman of course for canonical example). --Izno (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Batman article got FA status many years ago, when standards were lower, and it has accrued more problems since. Do not respect an FA star unless it was awarded very recently. BaronBifford (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible to combat such "fictography." In 2008 and 2010, several veteran WikiProject Comics editors found successful policy, guideline and MOS arguments to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Spider-Man, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine, and those same arguments can be used at Merlyn to push for trimming the FCB and making it encyclopedic.
Spider-Man has an excellent example, I think, of a well-done FCB that places the character in a real-world context. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zythe I'm not quite sure what you mean by "younger editors", but using such belittlement to undermine our credibility as editors is uncalled for. As for the "Dark Archer" codename, it isn't just the promotional materials that refer to him as that. Most reliable sources (primary and third party) back that up as his codename, regardless of how many times it was spoken on the show (if any). Want more citations? I'll be happy to provide them. You'd do best to remember that Wikipedia is about what's verifiable.
As for Malcome Merlyn's birthname, that was from the Arrow comics and novels. It can easily be moved from the Television section to the Other versions section, if you prefer. DarkKnight2149 00:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I object to is you presenting the name biographically as though it were ever used in the show. The language could simply be changed to say 'Although the name doesn't appear in the show, many sources refer to Merlyn by the name the Dark Archer'. But it's wrong on the face of it to say his character is "The Dark Archer" in the show. Also, no, you don't need to fan out the birth name into a separate part of the article, you just need to write the article properly. Instead of creating a fictography, you must simply present the story and creative decisions as given by the show and real-world sources (e.g. "For the third season, Barrowman was promoted to regular and his storyline featured Merlyn becoming closer to Thea while engineering a conflict between Oliver Queen and Ra's al Ghul by brainwashing Thea into killing Sara Lance. In the season finale, following Ra's death, Oliver hands over control of the League to Malcolm....") and then in a separate sentence, at the end, you could put "In the spin-off comic book The Dark Archer, written by John Barrowman and his sister Carole E Barrowman, Merlyn's birth name is given as Arthur King, revealing the name Merlyn to be an alias as in the comics. Other sources also refer to the character by the code name "Dark Archer," although that name has yet to appear in the series." That is how you write about fiction with a sense of real-world perspective.Zythe (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been a problem with comic book characters on Wikipedia pretty much from the start and is still a serious issue with C-list characters and below. The best fix is to lead by example - perhaps flag up the need to keep things out-of-universe and then start/expand the "publication history" [1]. As it grows, some people will get diverted to adding to that rather than FCB and others can be given a gentle nudge in that direction. You can then start trimming back on the FCB, reworking some material for the PH. With some focus and a steady hand on the tiller (for which you'd usually get the support of the project, unless you are too heavy-handed) the article can be turned around. It has worked on the more important articles and, while the sources get thinner the further down the importance you go, it should be possible to scrape something together.
Also in this specific case (and it is generally applicable), you can direct some editors to the more specific wikis where they can unleash their energy. [2] [3] Which is why it is always worth adding these to the external links section.
In fact, I put my money where my mouth is. [4] Looking over the FCB I can see material that could moved up to the PH and you can keep working it until it all starts to shape up more like higher class articles. Emperor (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the article could certain be rewritten to be out of universe (though the alias "The Dark Archer" should stay, as that is what third party sources and primary sources, such as marketing, are calling his supervillain identity). Some of @Zythe suggested quotes would probably work.
I think that there is a serious issue with editors feeling the need to list every single thing a character does in every episode of the TV shows (no matter how minor), which is causing the In other media sections to overflow with excessive detail. That is a problem across Wikipedia (not limited to just a few articles).
The final thing I'll bring up at the moment is that there are far too many of these character articles that rely almost entirely on primary sources (I.E. the comics). At this point, I think we should just start nominating such articles for deletion because this topic has been brought up in the past, and obviously nothing has changed. DarkKnight2149 21:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, there are a lot of articles with similar problems out there but I doubt deleting them will solve the problem. Those lacking notability can be (and a lot have been) merged to the relevant character lists and those, probably like Merlyn need the techniques I outline above - start/expand the PH, rework parts of the FCB into there (which also has the effect of reducing its size) and remind people that if they want to go mad in the FCB or the IOM section that there are better places. It is slow work but it can be done, the important thing is that project members try and keep article pointing in the right direction. It certainly looks like the Merlyn article has had a few "kitten herding" moments, but it does look to be properly wrangled at the moment. Emperor (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note to point out TriiipleThreat's work on this front removing almost all the extra plot in IOM for Ultron and Loki. I would tend to favour that approach because the material removed should either be dealt with on the relevant film's articles and if it isn't there, then it doesn't need to be on the character's article either.
So my suggestion would be to strip back IOM sections to out-of-universe material - so casting and how the writers/directors/actors approached the character. All plot elements should go. See, for example, what I added to Lash compared to the expansion. This also means that there is no room for plot bloat, as there isn't any plot to start with and it is easier to call as it is more black and white. Links to the relevant wikia sites should be added so anyone wanting to add or read up on it can fill their boots over there. Emperor (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category: Marvel Comics Characters


I've noticed that user Chocolatejr9 has been going through articles and removing this category for no reason so far as I can see. This category has been reduced to a fraction if its size, with little idea as to why some have been left and others removed. Can these actions be undone wholesale, or will it require manually undoing or re-adding the category. Alternatively, is Chocolatejr9 correct? Killer Moff (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the article for Category: Marvel Comics characters says "This category is for all fictional characters originating in Marvel Comics that are not already covered by one of the subcategories. Note that many of these subcategories are also subcategories of Superheroes and Supervillains. Also note that many Marvel characters can be classified as either Marvel superheroes or Marvel supervillains. Therefore most characters should, at a minimum, be placed in one of those subcategories instead of this main catch-all category." [emphases added by me] A glance at the article history shows that this text was not added recently. I have not reviewed all of Chocolatejr9's edits, but in at least some cases, his removal of the category is indeed dictated by this description. For instance, Karen Page is in "Category: Marvel Comics television characters", which is a subcategory of Category: Marvel Comics characters. So we should probably look at Chocolatejr9's edits on a case-by-case basis. Also, it's always a good idea to ask the editor themselves, so I've dropped a line at his user talk page inviting him to join the discussion here.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I can't say I agree with the policy (in the example given, it suggests Karen Page is primarily a TV character), but I understand it now. Killer Moff (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if I agree either, but to be completely honest I don't fully grasp the basic methodology of WP categories, so I hesitate to challenge existing policy on them because any alternative I propose may make things worse.--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting that you bring up Karen Page. I have done a lot of work trying to keep higher level comics categories as clear as possible by removing such categories where they are in a more specific one that is a child of that higher level category (or tweaking the category to move them down into a more specific one). As OCD as it might sound, the general principle is sound - it stops runaway categorisation (as otherwise any parent category would be fair game for putting in) and the more specific the category the more "meaning" it gives to a page, which would be diluted with more general categories.
However, it is that last point about meaning which is also important (in a semantic web kind of way), as you could create software that would get out the basic gist of a Wikipedia entry and rather than try and parse the text, you could go for a quick and easy version that grabs the facts out of the infobox and categories. So what happens with Karen Page? It would conclude either that she was a TV character or that there is a mismatch in the data.
That is why I don't think there are robots that do these kind of moves, at our level at least, because it isn't black and white - while the principle may work in most cases, it clearly doesn't where you have comics characters (often in a unpowered supporting role) don't qualify for a more specific category about the type of character, which is sufficiently different from the categories about media appearance to be considered to be referring to different attributes. So I think it is perfectly fine to add the "Marvel Comics character" category back in, although it'd be an idea to leave a note on the talk page pointing here to head off people turning it back.
It does make me wonder if there is a problem in the categorisation. Category: Marvel Comics characters is really for characters that appear in Marvel Comics comics and Category:Marvel Comics television characters shouldn't be a child of it. In fact, there is no corresponding Category:Marvel Comics film characters and what would be the presumed parent, Category:Comics characters in film (to match Category:Comics characters in television) was deleted. So step 1 would be to add Category: Marvel Comics characters, step 2 might be to remove it from that category (and make sure the DC one corresponds) and step 3 might be to consider deleting the category all together. You might also want to check through Category:Marvel Comics television characters to ensure this hasn't happened to other pages.
So thanks for bringing this up here, it raises a number of questions. Emperor (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would the simplest solution be creating a new Category: Marvel Comics Supporting Characters? Still implementing the solution proposed by Emperor for the TV characters, but saves cluttering up the parent category? Killer Moff (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no higher category structure for supporting characters (that I can find) but that isn't too much of an issue in itself - the Comics Project has often had to take the lead on such things, as we tend to have a lot more character articles than most (any?) other project. The bigger issue with this is more... conceptual - categories like Category: Marvel Comics characters tend to scoop all the characters who don't have a more specific designation. These might be supporting characters, but I suppose there may be cases where they are main characters who just happen not to be superheroes. I mean Lois Lane might have started as a supporting character, but I wonder if she'd be described as such now? It could get a little subjective. A better thing might be fictional profession categories, like DC Comics reporters that would go under Category: DC Comics characters and Category: Fictional reporters (or a new one below the latter for "Fictional reporters in comics" or something). This would have the effect of thinning out the top level categories, but you could still end up with a case like Karen Page. I quite like the idea if there are enough characters to support such a category (reporters, politicians, doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc. would work. Porn stars... possibly less so).
I still think the more solid fix is to address the categorisation issue, although there are a few problems with categories like Category:Marvel Comics television characters and I am unsure what is the best level to address it at. I think unlinking it from Category: Marvel Comics characters would be a start, but could lead to some dissent. Emperor (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A category for MCU characters was previously created and deleted per this discussion (4 times!). The consensus was very flimsy - a nomination, a vote to turn it into a list, and a concurring delete. The main argument seemed to boil down to "these are primarily comic characters, and it would invite categories for the Spider-Man, X-Men, and other comic-based film universes." I think a broader ones like Category:Marvel Comics film characters and Category:Comics characters in film would have better luck. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it stands, we either need Category:Marvel Comics film characters (with Category:Comics characters in film) or we should delete Category:Marvel Comics television characters (with Category:Comics characters in television), as we can't have one without the other, so we either have both or neither. The same goes for the DC equivalents if you make a Marvel one.
Just don't make it a child of Category: Marvel Comics characters and I won't have a problem with it. ;) Emperor (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed that this is back Category:Characters that appear within the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is currently flagged for speedy deletion. Emperor (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've contested that speedy deletion, and linked this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. If we create Category:Marvel Comics film characters then there will be a need for "Marvel Cinematic Universe characters", so we might as well make that it and save all the extra effort.
It's been re-nominated for the same reason. Anyone else want to weigh in on User: ‎TriiipleThreat's comments? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the page was just deleted, I'll respond here. The category was recreated by a suspected sock puppet under a different namespace in an attempt to avoid speedy deletion. Furthermore the namespace was incorrect as it was needlessly wordy but to your point it could not be a child of Category:Marvel Comics film characters since not every entry is a film character. Anyway continue on with your discussion and establish a new consensus before recreating it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "not every entry is a film character." Are you saying that if a character appears in a comic first, then that character can never be considered a film character? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I mean that some of the entries did not appear in film at all. Some only appeared on television.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Duh. Sorry. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good points. Could Category: Marvel Cinematic Universe characters go under both Category:Marvel Comics film characters and Category:Marvel Comics television characters? Or would it be better for it to go under Category: Marvel Comics? and we can "see also" over to it? In fact, it suggests we need a sub-category of Category: Marvel Comics, like Category:Works based on Marvel Comics into which we can put these and the film, TV, action figures, novels, animation, etc.? After all, DC has this structure Category:Works based on DC Comics and what works for one of the Big Two should work for the other. When/if we sort out the Marvel structure, we'll also need to do the same for the DC one so they are both working in similar ways. Emperor (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To do it correctly, you would have to create Category: Marvel Cinematic Universe film characters which would be a child of Category: Marvel Cinematic Universe characters and Category:Marvel Comics film characters. Then do the same for the television characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I was starting to conclude that was the way it'd have to go. It seems that there'd be no great advantage to this and we'd be better of working on the higher level structure. This could then be slotted into place at a later point if someone thought it was vitally important. I think that category largely came about because there is no Category:Marvel Comics film characters to put characters in and if we get that in, the need will largely go away. Emperor (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm late to the discussion and a bit confused with all the different thread levels happening here. Why do we want to create these categories (the MCU character ones), when consistent CfD discussions have been to delete them as they are listified at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List and categories are meant to compliment one another. One does not take the place of the other. The previous deletion discussions mostly hinged on the category's position as a subcategory of Marvel Comic characters, which will not be the case in the proposed system. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I don't necessarily want to create any Marvel Cinematic Universe categories (although it was an option we were kicking around). What I think needs doing is to create Category:Marvel Comics film characters and sort some of the category structure out in this and related categories. You are right that all this indenting can be a little difficult to follow, so what I might do is create a subsection of this discussion to present what I think needs doing. Emperor (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does anyone have any objections to creating Category:Marvel Comics film characters and the relevant structure? My main concern is that it shouldn't be a child of Category: Marvel Comics characters as that is for characters from the comics (as you can see from its parents). If there are issues with it that can't be resolved, then we might have to look at deleting the TV categories. I am not too concerned either way. Emperor (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections to creating the new category. My only concern would be with Category:Characters that appear within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and whether that should be a child of Category:Marvel Comics film characters , Category: Marvel Comics television characters, or both? Killer Moff (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the TV series is included in the MCU, as per List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, then, despite the "cinematic", it would go under both. I'd bet someone tries for "Category:Characters that appear inthe Marvel Cinematic Universe films", etc. but given the crossover in characters, you could end up with category bloat and it seems unnecessary too. Emperor (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any objection. Should it (and a DC counterpart) be under a broader Category:Comic characters in film to cover characters like the Ninja Turtles? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, we'll need that as there will be a lot of pages to go into that category. The oly debate is if you want that name or Category:Comics characters in film? I went with the latter above because there has been a big recatting from Category: 1975 comic debuts to Category: 1975 comics debuts, which has been a lot of work for those involved, so we want to try and get it right first. The justification for that change was because "comic" could mean comedian [5]], why the changes had to be done by hand is beyond me. Emperor (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Cambalachero and User:Johnpacklambert both voted delete on the previous discussion, they may want to weigh in. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:DC Comics characters also has sub-categories like Category:Batman characters, Category:Superman characters, Category:Wonder Woman characters, Category:Green Arrow characters and even Category:Black Canary characters, which might offer another possible solution. However, I do wonder if they'll survive as they have real problems with scope and inclusion criteria.
Marvel doesn't have any such categories (which suggests this topic also needs looking at) but it is suffering "category creep" with fictional nationalities like Category: Wakandans, Category: Latverians and Category: Genoshans (the first two are up for deletion), as well as what looks like the reappearance of what are essential team categories: Category: Hydra agents and Category:S.H.I.E.L.D. agents.
I also found a redlinked category "DC Comics humans" today, which I removed before it gave anyone any ideas. Emperor (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Presence

Somebody or somebodies are currently attempting to insert various unmotivated nonsense powers into The Presence page. These include:

"Omnipotence", which is blatantly contradicted, as the character stated that he was shaped by external forces in "Lucifer vol.1 #75", and was recently killed by an unknown metal invading his body in "Lucifer vol.2 #1".

"Omniversal", which is nonsense, as "Omniverse" means all of fiction and reality combined, not just DC.

"Boundary Manipulation", which is not even a term that Wikipedia uses.

I would appreciate some help with handling the situation. Thank you. David A (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The powers in the infobox should be the ones included (and hopefully sourced) in "Powers and abilities", so it should be easy enough to police that, if people just keep an eye on it.
However, that article has a lot more problems than that - it has a slab of what looks like original research in the middle (that probably shouldn't be in this article, apart from the fact that without better sources "God in the DCU" wouldn't make an article) and it is far from clear what in there is about the specific character The Presence. I'm not really sure how to fix it (apart from "with fire"). Emperor (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor in question continues to edit in the same illogical changes, and refuses to listen to reason and go to the Talk section as requested by myself. All of the IP addresses that do so come from the same area in the Philippines when I check, so it is evidently the same individual. David A (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just reverted it. If it happens again I'll bump the level of protection up. It shouldn't inconvenience other users too much. Emperor (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am afraid that it happened again. Some measure of page protection against IP edits would be appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK done - you have 2 weeks of protection. I've started a section on the talk page. Emperor (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help. I have responded in the talk page. David A (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring at Civil War II

A user is insisting on edit warring at Civil War II. A discussion has been opened Talk:Civil War II#Titles involved. All comments are welcomed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A mistake that must be undone

Batman & Spider-Man: New Age Dawning should be linked to Batman et Spider-Man

Spider-Man and Batman: Disordered Minds should be linked to Spider-Man - Batman : Esprits dérangés but both are linked to the wrong foreign language page. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All fixed now. Emperor (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Batman/Daredevil: King of New York should also be linked to Batman - Daredevil not Daredevil/Batman: Eye for an Eye. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Emperor (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checking the Batman / Spider-Man links to see who is adding the wrong information so I can have a word with them about doublechecking first, and it seems that you are that person. Can't you change the links using the same techniques you used to add them in the first place? Emperor (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonder Man

Supposedly Wonder Man is going to appear in the second Guardians of the Galaxy movie. However, I am concerned that the sources people have been using for this information are not reliable sources. (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed at this time. Added hidden notes too. See Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 for more info regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge of Sunday strip and Sunday comics

For all practical purposes, these seem to be identical topics, and should be selectively merged into one article discussing the Sunday comic supplement, which is composed of strips (many of which are also printed daily without color). Any objections? See Talk:Sunday_comics#Proposed_merge_with_Sunday_strip. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having had a look at them both, they do seem to cover the same topic from only slightly different angles. Neither looks too long to justify splitting them, so unless there's likely to be a substantial expansion of either in the near future, I'd say support. Killer Moff (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Tweenage characters in comics up for deletion

See here, input appreciated. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1945 DC Comics Christmas party photo

I wanted to call attention to a picture which Todd Klein posted on his website. It's a photo of DC Comics' 1945 Christmas party. This could be a goldmine of source material of cropped photos for articles which currently lack photos of various Golden Age creators.

  • Klein, Todd (January 19, 2016). "DC Comics' 1945 Christmas Party". Archived from the original on April 23, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Presence

The same anonymous IP editor as before is back adding the same inaccurate claims, instead of taking it to the talk section: [6] David A (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here he is again: [7] David A (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avengers (comics) split

The Avengers (comic book) was recently split from Avengers (comics). The problem is that most of the article's WP:Real-world information left with the split, leaving a mostly WP:PLOTONLY article. Should these articles be re-merged?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not sure they need to be merged, but they weren't split right anyway. The section on collected editions should be with the publication history. If the split is kept, then Avengers (comics) should be a DAB and the content currently there should be renamed (I have no suggestions). Both pages should have a more explicit link to the other, as well. I've alerted the IP who did the split to this conversation. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Argento Surfer. Thank you also for bringing this to discussion, TriiipleThreat. Also thank you to Favre1fan93 for doing a bit of cleanup. I think that the Avengers comic title has some legs to stand on its own separate from the titular characters, much like The Amazing Spider-Man or The Incredible Hulk (comic book) and other such long-running titles. The sources are there for both. Anything I did wrong with the split can be fixed. Avengers (comics) looked like this a day ago so any parts that need to be reverted can be done so. I tried to focus the content on the comic title article using as little in-universe text as possible to get the point across. I did remove some of the language from the "fictional biography" section that had more to do with who was writing the books and what issues the stories took place in, but I left anything referring to the fact that it was a story including the names of storylines. The Fictional biography section was written kind of strangely anyway. About 25-30% of it was "This writer wrote this storyline using his favorite story as inspiration, while this artist brought dynamic perspective to the artwork", and the rest of it was purely in-universe for a few sentences in a row, as much as you see on almost any comics character article. My feeling is that the article on the team should focus on the characters and story details (using as much out-of-universe description as possible) and the article on the comic title should focus on the creators and publication details. (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the split was warranted, though I don't feel the need to make Avengers (comics) a dab. I think a hatnote would be sufficient, something I'll boldly add, along with moving the collected edition info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"My feeling is that the article on the team should focus on the characters and story details" in other words a WP:PLOTONLY description. I think the article's should be re-merged and you should work to ensure that the remaining article can stand on it own before attempting to resplit it. Unfortunately, you left a problematic article in even worse condition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's a fair characterization of my viewpoint. My thinking was that the comic book title article has the potential to look something like The Amazing Spider-Man while the team article has the potential to look something like Spider-Man. Certainly the Avengers, as characters and a publication - both together and as separate entities, have enough history and commentary and a legacy that they can be treated well. So if this is still a discussion as to whether a split is warranted, then I maintain that it is warranted (and I think I have some agreement here).
As to whether I handled it well, of course that is up for debate. All articles are works in progress, so this is no exception. Following my own example of the Spider-Man article, notice how it focuses on the characterization and storylines without being a plot-only in-universe mess. I think we can do the same here. But not immediately. If you go back to what it looked like before the split (see the link in my reply above), you will see that the "Fictional biography" section was probably a good one-half to two-thirds in-universe. Undoing the split will not help that, but careful editing will. Still, especially after looking at my own example, I can see where I can put some of the words back to make the section less in-universe, and I will make an attempt at clean-up. Maybe I can do even a little better than that. (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we deleted Avengers (comics), renamed the Avengers (comic book) page to that name, expanded the publication history section to discuss storyline decisions (also appeasing WP:PLOT fiends) and then added some real-world commentary about the characters/themes/history of the series, we end up with a fairly good article.Zythe (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Zythe. I really think we need to focus on creating one good article first and we shouldn't be in the business of creating a bunch of new articles simply because other stuff exists.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis Hopeless

I created the page Dennis Hopeless and would like it added to your list of pages to be assessed. Not sure if there's an easier way to do this as I'm new to editing/creation. Please let me know if there's any categorization or banners I need to add as well. Thanks. Offensivename (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I marked it as a "no" for coverage and accuracy because there's very little about him outside of his comic work. What's his birthday? He's "from" Kansas City, but was he born there, or does he still live there? Maybe both? Did he attend a college, or receive any formal training? Is he married and/or a father? Has he ever named his influences? Is "comic writer" the only job he's had? I think the article needs some questions like this to be answered before it's a B level article. They don't have to be these specific questions, just basic biography information. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been unable to find his birthday or any more detailed information about his past. I know he's married, so I'll be sure to add that. Gets kinda' tricky with someone who's notable enough to have a page, but not notable enough to have a biography much anywhere else but here. I figured the bibliography stuff was the most important to get up and correct, but I'll see what else I can dig up. Thanks for the constructive feedback. Offensivename (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His Marvel work won't help, but do the collections of his indie books have author bios? There might be some useful information there. There may also be some personal information on his blog, but I can't access that from my work computer. Interviews with him, especially from early in his career and/or about his creator owned work may have some good details, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in an RfC

WikiProject Comics editors are invited to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is this edit to the lead sentence appropriate? (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone? (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been watching that get reverted for a while. I think "Bishop" is the common name - it's the name of the article, after all. I'm not a big X-Men reader, and I was unaware he had a first name until that edit. "Lucas Bishop" should be in parenthesis. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted, so hopefully HÊÚL. will come here to discuss the edit. (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Zythe just did a similar revert on Spider-Man, with a different editor. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. We should introduce characters by the common name, whichever way is best for that particular article, introduce their secret identity in context. I would champion any format which disrupts people from reading (and editing) these articles as though they were "biographies".Zythe (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree but Bishop does not have a "secret identity". He is a cop from the future and therefore often uses his surname. It is a completely different thing from Superman (Clark Kent) ou Spider-Men (Peter Parker). The character name is Lucas Bishop. HÊÚL. (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ellen Ripley supports this argument. Ravage 2099 does not, but it's poorly written. I'm drawing a blank on other non-codename heroes at the moment. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elektra (comics) suggests something similar. May I propose something along the lines of "Lucas Bishop (commonly referred to as Bishop)"Killer Moff (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Elektra article we do not have "Elektra Natchios (commonly referred to as Elektra)". HÊÚL. (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Appearance vs Cameo

This has come up before, but User:Arionapollo has brought this up on my talk page and I thought I'd invite more voices to the table since this could apply to other characters as well.

Basically, the Adam Warlock publication history currently says "The character debuted in Fantastic Four #66-67 ... [and had] a second appearance as "Him" in Thor #165-166" Arionapollo, citing CGC and Overstreet, wants to note the Fantastic Four issues are a cameo, and specify the character's "first full appearance" as the Thor issues. However,

  • The FF issues present his origin in full.
  • Old Wizard magazines note that FF 66 is a cameo, and FF67 is the first appearance.
  • Marvel says his first appearance was FF 66.
  • There was a 2 year gap between the FF and Thor stories.

I think the current wording is sufficiently generic, and avoids making a judgment on what's a cameo and what's a true first appearance. Google provides some additional support for the Thor books, but all the top hits are from sites promoting the book for its sale value.

Venom (comics) gives his first appearance as ASM #300, and specifies in the publication history he appeared in cameo on the last page of #299. Apocalypse (comics) gives his first appearance as X-Factor #5 in the lead, and the infobox specifies #5 was "in shadow" and #6 was "first full appearance". The lead and PH of Wolverine (character) mentions Hulk 180 as his "first appearance" and Hulk 181 as his "first full appearance". The infobox has Hulk 180 listed as a cameo.

  1. Should the publication history section or infobox distinguish between cameos and first appearances?
  2. Is this disagreement significant enough to discuss within the article?

Argento Surfer (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think its worth agreeing a formal definition for First Appearance, Cameo and First Full Appearance. They sound similar and in many cases may have been used synonymously with each other. A formal definition would remove the ambiguous use for each one in hundreds of articles and introduce some consistency on future edits.

I propose...

  • First Appearance: The first issue that the character can be clearly seen in the form/costume recognised by an average comic reader. Not in shadow, invisible or disguised as someone else. Venom in ASM #299.
  • Cameo: [Discuss]
  • First Full appearance: The first issue they take part in a story in a meaningful way or feature in a sizable portion of it. Venom in ASM #300.

YourGloriousLeader (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2016 (GMT)

While both articles are lacking on sources, cameo specifically notes it's a brief appearance by a known character, like Stan Lee in Marvel movies, as opposed to minor roles by actors before they became stars. First appearance is "the first occurrence to feature a fictional character." First full appearance doesn't exist. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Argento Surfer. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"First full appearance" sounds inherently subjective, so I don't think we should be using that. For the others, the definitions provided by Argento Surfer seem reasonable. BOZ (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm here because I saw the request on the RfC Noticeboard. Although I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject matter here, the basic question is one that shows up in most topics on Wikipedia -- what to do when reliable sources disagree on something. My view is that the preferable approach is to address the discrepancies in the article itself. The alternative is to try to find some agreement as to what the reliable sources should have said. But even if you succeed in reaching some consensus on the "truth" of the matter, that success will only be temporary. Inevitably, some future editor is going to decide that you got it wrong. And so, I suggest that Argento's option 2 (discuss the differing reliable opinions within the article) is the approach that will best lead to a stable article. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captain America

I had to protect this one for a few days after the (big spoiler) was revealed yesterday (I think there were over 100 edits on May 25, mostly reverted). When that expires the article will probably need some eyes on it, so any help is much appreciated. Don't know if it will need longer protection, but I doubt much more than a week. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for input

Please consider sharing your thoughts at Talk:Superman#Siegel and Shuster's school. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 05:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essex in X-Men: Apocalypse

Is this a trivial non-appearance, or do we need to include this information in the article? (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point of the scene is to namedrop Sinister, so it can hardly be called trivial. The briefcase slamming closed, dramatically revealing the name "Essex," is the final shot of the entire movie. That is why it exists. (Well, that and to obviously set up X-23.) - Chris McFeely (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But he doesn't actually appear in the film, does he? (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Amazing Spider-Man 2 came out, editors wanted to add a notes to Doctor Octopus and Vulture (comics) saying their equipment appeared in the film. The consensus was that these Easter eggs were not notable unless something developed from them. Are there confirmed plans for another X film with Sinister announced as a villain? If not, this is a trivial non-appearance of the character and shouldn't be mentioned on the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Argento Surfer, that's what I figured. (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but those are easter eggs in a scene that's about something else (setting up the Rhino for the final scene - and the tentacles are mentioned on Ock's page). In this case, establishing Sinister is the sole reason the scene exists - and it's a post-credits stinger designed for maximum drama and excitement. This isn't like the list of name on a computer screen in X2 or something. This is "Sinister will be in future films" territory, just like Thanos showing up in a stinger in Avengers. To not mention that a scene in a major motion picture is dedicated to establishing the character's existence seems silly. - 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Except that Thanos actually appeared in Avengers. This is just a name, and we've had this discussion before. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That, and "will appear in future films" is pure WP:CRYSTAL, especially if we don't have a source saying that he actually will appear in future films. How many times have we seen hints at something that is supposed to appear in a future film but neve comes to fruition? (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter whether he'll appear in future films or not; he's directly referenced anyway, so the fact that he does not appear in the scene doesn't matter as well. Since there are moments in other Marvel films in which a character's name appears (in a list with names, for example) and the page about the character includes this kind of information, why should it be any different in this case? After all, there are no rules saying that only physical appearances should be listed. Also, the sole purpose of the scene was to show Mister Sinister will exist at some extent in the MCU, even if only in the scene - something I don't believe Marvel will do, since Mister Sinister would be a great main villain for a film. - Jmcalil (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instances of "character's name appears on a list" in a movie should be removed as well. If you can find any examples for me, I would be happy to remove them. (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, thanks for spoiling this for me, guys. Since I haven't seen the film, I don't know how significant this is. Seriously, though, as Klaus Janson used to say......Bastards. Nightscream (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that, Nightscream. Wikipedia is a bad place to be when you don't want spoilers!  :) (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there might be a middle ground, in that we can state what's onscreen — something like, "a briefcase bearing the name Essex" — and not imply or interpret anything about it.
This means no wikilink from "Essex," since the link would be from personal knowledge about the comics character, which might or might not be the same as in the movie (as, indeed, the Silver Samurai in The Wolverine was a different person from the one in the comics).
While I'm here, let me throw in another reminder that we could use you veteran editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair (I haven't seen the film, and don't intend to until it is on DVD, as I've heard enough bad things) this particular spoiler had no place on Wikipedia. I especially love when Wikipedians use the word "directly" to mean "indirectly" -- it's like using "explicitly" to mean "implicitly" and "literally" to mean "figuratively". Apocalypse (comics) invited a similar OR fest when the new film's title was announced via Twitter -- it probably hasn't done the project any good that the OR wound up being "right" in that case.
The MCU articles are even worse. There, if a TV show contains some reference to something from the comics, it is treated as a "tie-in" to an upcoming movie based on those comics even when we don't know if the movie will contain the same reference to the comics as the TV show. And thematic similarities to other MCU properties are labelled "tie-ins" as there was necessarily some in-universe connection, while thematic similarities to non-MCU properties are not noted.
We need to keep on top of this shit better than we have been.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of the dozen or so people to post something about the end-credits scene in the Mister Sinister article, Strangerleumas just now was the first to do so with what looks like may be reliable sources... or should I say, any sources at all. :) Please take a look and evaluate. (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new edit (and the USA Today source) both use WP:Weasel words to make this sound like something important. It "seems to" imply Sinister will be brought into the next film, which is hardly worth mentioning. The second source is likewise vague and seems more like hype that anything concrete. If anywhere, it belongs in the X-Men: Apocalypse#Sequel section, not on the Mr Sinister page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

opinions needed for merge proposal

Would other editors please weigh in on merging Talk:Aireo to the list of Marvel Comics Characters? I thought this was a no brainer and did it boldly, but it was reverted because there was no prior discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Beyonders again

It seems like BeyonderGod has returned to his usual antics after the 1-month ban: David A (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest contacting the admins who previously blocked him for similar behavior (User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:JamesBWatson). I don't see the point in having another long, pointless discussion about this. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. David A (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have contacted them, but if anybody is interested, he has continued here, here, and here. David A (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind. He has been banned for another 3 months. My apologies for being a bother. David A (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, some folks never learn... or maybe they have to hit their heads against a wall a few times before they learn. Thanks for keeping up with this. BOZ (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. David A (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X-Men film redirects

X-Men 4 redirects to X-Men: Days of Future Past, the 5th X-Men film made. X-Men 5 redirects to X-Men: Apocalypse, the 6th X-Men film made. Shouldn't we have X-Men: First Class as #4? I didn't want to go ahead and fix it in case there was a justification for this. Spidey104 01:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking through the revision history for the redirect, it looks like there was a struggle to point it to Origins: Wolverine or the sequel section for X-Men in film before being pointed at DoFP. I think First Class would be the most obvious target, but perhaps some people saw that as a reboot/prequel and DoFP as the more direct sequel? I would redirect both X-Men 4 and X-Men 5 to X-Men (film series) and let it act as a DAB page. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Fritz the Cat (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other versions of characters

I have noticed that some new versions of classic characters have their own specific pages, such as Lex Luthor (Smallville), Ultimate Captain America, Batman (Dark Knight Universe), Superman (Kingdom Come), etc. Is there some rule on this? If we can gather enough out-of-universe info about the specific character version, can it have its own entry, or should it be merged into the main character's article? I was thinking in an article Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe), and similar ones for Captain America, Thor, Loki, Skye, Daredevil and other prominent members of the MCU. Is it a good idea, or should I forget that? Cambalachero (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As with anything, the article must have enough original encyclopaedic content, enough coverage in reliable sources, etc. Remember that all of this information generally goes at the bottom of the original comic character's article, so you are essentially proposing the splitting off of several of those sections into their own articles, and at the moment I doubt that they could support that. So perhaps work on some of these in your user space, and then everyone else can see what you are planning and if it is a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to invite User:Favre1fan93 and User:TriiipleThreat to help out once you start your sandbox articles. They've done some good work on the MCU articles and could provide some guidance, if not additional information and references. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You already hit the nail on the head regarding any "rules", just that it has to have notability and be supported by more out-of-universe info (ie creation info (both comic and media version), portrayal info, reception and other commentary). The smallest part of these articles should be the actual plot elements regarding the character, since they are already covered in the actual film/television articles. But yeah, if you want to create something, work in your userspace or the draft space, and when you have something you think is main space worthy, let me know and I'll give it a look over. Also, a good "template" (at least for MCU characters) you can look to is Trevor Slattery, created by Adamstom.97. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MODOK Donald Trump parody

Is this, posted by User:Meleemaster428, a reliable source? (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say no. The giveaway is where the source says its 'obvious', showing that they're making assumptions. It's possible, and indeed probable, but I don't think it's confirmed in that source.Killer Moff (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured as much, so I removed it. (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please comment on the removal of this link at Talk:Galactus#IGN. (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mormonism in Comics page?

Hi, I'm the BYU library's coordinator of Wikipedia initiatives. We're going to have an exhibit on Mormonism in comics going up soon, and the curator suggested that I create a Wikipedia page for Mormonism in comics. Would such a page be appropriate, or would it be better for me to make a list of Mormon cartoonists like List_of_Jewish_American_cartoonists? Thanks for your advice. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rachel Helps (BYU): In order for an article to be created and not deleted, it needs to have multiple reliable sources which can be used to verify the notability of the topic. Do you have multiple references which could be used to support an article? Also, is the purpose of the article to discuss Mormon topics which are addressed in comics, or Mormons who are in the comics industry? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Howard Tayler. I'm sure there are others, since I'm not really well versed in this topic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exhibit itself will have a corresponding webpage published by the HBLL site, which will help a lot. There are also interviews with specific authors like [this one] and a few general Mormonism and comics articles like [this one]. It might be easier if I start with the list of Mormon cartoonists, and then I can get a feel for how to subdivide them. Judging from the exhibit so far, there have been a lot of attempts to put the Book of Mormon in comic book form, so that could be a sub-section, and then another section on comics with Mormon characters. Obviously I'll have a lot of research to do! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orson Scott Card has done some comic work, and a Superman story he wrote a few years ago was never published because there was a stir about his (Mormon-related) views. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rachel: Good questions, and there's nothing inherently saying that one cannot do both, as they are very different topics, even though the people involved may be generally related, as the Sunstone article shows, there's Mormon references by non-LDS folks (heck, I've done it myself.) A few good sources to the quality of the Sunstone piece would certainly give enough basis for an article (although it would help in any concern if you had such a source that was published by a not-specifically-Mormon outlet.) The existence of the Mormonism article would actual help keep the List Of article as a defensible item. Having said that, as you may already be aware, list are generally limited to notable members of the group (see WP:LISTPEOPLE). What that means in practical terms is that lists are best limited to people who have Wikipedia pages on them, so you could include, say, Ric Estrada, but ... oh, wait, the person I was going to use as an example of someone who doesn't have a page turns out she does, so I've got no specific examples, but anyone who would show up with a red link on the page would be a no-go. And you also need a reliable source that specifies them as being Mormon, although it need not be specified in their Wikipedia article (Estrada and Atwood's articles both talk about their Mormon-related comics, but neither identify the article subject as LDS.) Whether that would leave you with enough examples for a substantial list, I don't know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wachowskis/Wachowski Brothers

In view of the inconsistency in regards to how the transgender Wachowskis are credited in film articles I have started a discussion at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead in attempt to address the problem. Your project has a stated interest in at least one of the articles so please feel free to join the discussion if you would like to have your say or if you can offer a constructive solution to the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP needing looked into

There have been a series of particular edits from 2601:585:8400:3a6e:75c9:8ba:9c81:99cc (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that I would like a second opinions. The editor added Category:Obscenity controversies in literature to a number of articles, including Lobo (DC Comics), Deadpool, Seinen manga, FLCL, etc. I know that the latter two, and a couple of other anime/manga articles, are pure BS so I rolled back every edit. Some of the edits may be good, but I would prefer someone else to check over them, especially since there was a recent occurs of CensoredScribe sockpuppets. —Farix (t | c) 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting of citations and inclusion of quotations

Please see Talk:All Star Comics#Edits of January 25, 2016 in regards to a potential dustup over formatting of citations to books with chapters written by different authors and the inclusion of quotations in citations. Mtminchi08 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Character templates

I believe that User:Sharkweekfan is acting in good faith, but we may want to take a look at how many "team/character" templates they are adding to the end of articles in the last couple of days. For example on Skrull, we went from nine of them (already a lot) to now at 15. (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user has regrouped the templates on some of the articles, but that may be missing the point? (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also seen a lot of the same activity from User:Omegariley57. I'm not sure that we need a dozen of these templates on any articles; usually 2 or 3 should suffice. (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darkhawk's first appearance

There's been an ongoing edit-war on Darkhawk for a while now, re: his first appearance. I try to get folks to discuss it in the talk page, but no go. I could use some guidance. In essence, the question is whether a cover story in Marvel Age #97 -- which was published a month before Darkhawk #1 -- counts as an appearance. Marvel Age was a promotional magazine; the issue in question has a text-only interview with a creator, followed by a six-page preview from Darkhawk #1. Darkhawk himself doesn't show up on any of those preview pages (which has caused further confusion), so basically this is a cover-only appearance. The question specifically is whether that Marvel Age cover merits a mention, and more generally what's the policy when a character's canonical first appearance is preceded by material in promo mags or zines. Thanks! Malvolio80 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green Hornet

I've recently been doing some maintenance work with categories (i.e., removing parent categories when a sub-category is already present). I came across an article that categorized the old radio and television character, the Green Hornet, as a "superhero". This struck me as odd, but I thought I'd get some knowledgeable opinions on the matter before taking action. I'll greatly appreciate any help that you folks care to provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green Hornet, like many such characters who predate Superman, is a funny one. Ultimately, for our purposes, it comes down to if reliable third party sources have described the character as such. I'd say that they do exist, I've seen an entry in a superhero encyclopedia, and that there's enough out there to allow him to fall into that category. The real issue is that the term 'superhero' is not particularly well defined, as it needs to cover Batman, who fights crime in a costume without powers, the Fantastic Four, who have powers but do not fight crime, and all manner of other combinations. Killer Moff (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct on all counts — good analysis. Like Batman I would add that unless there are a large number of encyclopedias that refer to the Green Hornet as a superhero that the few that do are WP:FRINGE. I wouldn't consider him a superhero any more so than I would the Shadow (who seems to have superhuman mental powers), the Spirit or Sherlock Holmes, none of which are categorized under "superhero." While Batman and Green Arrow, for instance, have no superpowers, they fall into the tradition of costumed adventurers; the Green Hornet's and the Spirit's trench coats are hardly costumes, and their simple eye-mask makes them only masked detectives.
I would look to mainstream encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., as opposed to purely comics encyclopedias not written by academics. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Green Hornet, and while mentioning his gas gun and his tricked-out car — which I note are no different from devices used by James Bond — it refers to him as a crime fighter and not a superhero. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also just chec Benton, Mike (1991). The Illustrated History of Superhero Comics of the Silver Age. Dallas, Texas: Taylor Publishing. ISBN 978-0878337460., and Green Hornet is not here, even though the author for some reason includes the Spirit and even the unmasked, non-costumed scuba-diver adventures the Sea Devils. I think these two examples, one from an authoritative mainstream encyclopedia and one from a pop-culture niche reference book, are enough of a range that when combined with the lack of powers and a costume suggests to me that Green Hornet does not belong in the category superhero.
Thanks again for looking into this. I also checked the on-line Britannica and found the "crime fighter" description. I then looked at their entry for "superhero" and found that they believe the concept began with Superman. But ... , the Britannica also has a "List of super-heroes" and that list includes Conan the Barbarian (despite the fact the Conan entry doesn't describe the character as such). So, so much for academic consistency.
And what does Wikipedia think of the notion of a "crime fighter"? Well, if you search for Crimefighters, you'll be taken to an article on a role-playing game. If you search for Crime Fighter, you'll be taken to a different role-playing game. If you search for Crime Fighters, you'll be at an article for an arcade game. But if you're careful with the capitalisation and the singular/plural and search for Crime fighter, you'll be redirected to ... the article on Superhero. And there we find a rather detailed description of the defining traits of a super-hero, but it's completely unsourced.
I had always assumed that the costume aspect was one of the defining traits of a super-hero, but I wonder whether that continues to be the case. I'm old enough to remember when there were plenty of non-super-hero comics, but I get the impression that this is no longer the case. So, perhaps there's a generational thing going on, wherein younger folks simply assume that anyone who had a comic book must, by definition, be a super-hero. Or maybe the situation has a much simpler cause. Back in the '60s, the Green Hornet television show had some tie-ins with the Batman television show. And maybe that was all that was needed for a Wikipedia editor to decide that Green Hornet must be a super-hero, too.
I recognize that you folks here are probably busy with other things, but one of these days/months/years, you might want to have an RfC on the question. But as things stand right now, I'm seeing a situation in which being bold will not be a virtue. I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie. Just so you know, the Green Hornet category is currently listed as a sub-category of Radio Superheroes.
Thanks again for looking into this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)(with minor revision by NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Disappointing that Britannica consider Conan the Barbarian a superhero. And given all the issues tagged at Superhero, that article is not a reliable arbiter. Since three editors have commented and since this seems actually noncontroversial, I'll remove the category from Green Hornet. If there are any objections, we can ask editors who object to discuss the issue, since it seems like it needs nailing down. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masters of the Universe split

I think the likes of Ram-Man, King Hiss and Stinkor should be split as I believe there is good third person info to justify an article any thoughts for or against would be helpful at Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labelling creators in infobox

Fluffyroll11 (talk · contribs) has been adding labels like "(Writer)" or "(Artist)" to the creators in infoboxes of comic book characters. Are these labels needed, especially if their roles are identified in the prose or explained in the linked articles? While I am pretty indifferent to it, I think such a mass change should atleast be discussed. However if his edits are decided to be kept the labels should not use capital letters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TriiipleThreat: I saw an article with the labels like that years ago before I really edit that much on Wikipedia. Then I notice some pages had it while some didn't. I liked it and started adding it to pages whenever I came across they didn't have it. I think it looks better with capitalize letters so I was just wondering why they should be lowercase? It doesn't really matter what case they are though. Also could you respond to my other reply to your other comment above please? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:CAPS advises to avoid unnecessary capitalization.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: ok I will do it in lower case from now on. Anyways can you reply to my comment on the other matter regarding info boxes? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm indifferent, but it seems unnecessary. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same here, seems like a lot of extra work. And the capitalization is unnecessary. (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some cases where this would be inappropriate. On Silver Surfer, Jack Kirby is (usually) the only credited creator. Should he be specified as artist only? And for Darkhawk, the character was co-created by editor Tom DeFalco, who never actually wrote the character. Should he and Mike Manley be credited as editor and artist? That seems like a confusing situation to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: First of all I was the one who had to go in and fix the silver surfer since people will also put stan lee down when he gives all the credit to Jack so the better example would be Dr. Strange and no you don't label it in that case but, Darkhawk yes. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would rather prefer it for the actual role of a co-creator to be mentioned either in text or in the infobox. Most people are insufficiently familiar with the biographies of artists and writers to be able to tell the difference. In the case of Jack Kirby he has a particularly large credit list as an artist (from the 1930s to semi-retirement in the 1980s) and is often credited as a character co-creator with whatever writer he was partnered with. But in the 1970s, he took over both writer and artist jobs for various DC and Marvel series, and is given sole credits for characters such as Darkseid, Sersi, Machine Man, etc. In the case of the Silver Surfer, Kirby apparently designed the character himself for use in the Galactus story, but it was Stan Lee who was responsible for most of his early characterization (he wrote almost every Surfer story until 1970 and established most of the character's backstory and motivation).

Not that the name of the creator always determines who created specific aspects of the character. Wolverine is credited to editor Roy Thomas, writer Len Wein, and artist John Romita, Sr., but his appearance out of costume, his distinctive hairstyle, most of his characterization, his powers, almost the entirety of his backstory, his civilian identity, and his large supporting cast have been created by other writers and artists over 40 years of actual appearances. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for accuracy's sake, it should be noted that Thomas isn't credited as co-creator because he was editor, but rather because he conceived the character's name and general persona, which he directed John Romita Sr. to visualize. Wein then created the character specifics. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone think Wally West II should be added back to the original Wally West article under a new section?

If not, should he be moved to a different title (like "Wally West (New 52)")? I thought we weren't supposed to use roman numerals in the titles, and his name in the comics isn't Wally West II. DrBat (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be a section under Wally West, not it's own article. And yes, the article was mistitled. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it necessary to link to List of Marvel Comics superhero debuts in every Marvel character article?

Fluffyroll11 (talk · contribs) has been adding such links in See also sections of Marvel character articles. Is this necessary?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TriiipleThreat: I believe it is since the page isn't as well travel and also is a genuine page that people who read these various articles would also like to "see also". Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not include links just to generate traffic. Per WP:SEEALSO we only to link closely related Wikipedia articles in such a manner. Being a Marvel character and having debuted does not make them related and would probably fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)No it is not necessary for "see also" sections. I believe it is since the page isn't as well travel[ed] is not an acceptable reason, nor a really good one either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TriiipleThreat: @Favre1fan93: before you guys start reverting them they are connected and I linked it so it would be a page connected to the other articles it is connected to so it wouldn't be a page hard to find. What I am trying to say is that it belongs in the see also section because it is related and should genuinely be there. I misphrased the travelled part. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As TriiipleThreat said, there needs to be a good reason for the inclusion in the see also, taking readers to another article that has relevance or interest to the article in question. Just because they are Marvel characters and they were created isn't a great reason for inclusion. A good example would be including a "See also" on Ant-Man for the article Resizing (fiction), since that is a nice direction to point readers in if they want to learn more about that, given Ant-Man's power set. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That list article also has an issue in that there's no references provided so that readers can verify these debut appearances, as discussed at WP:SAL. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Ok but, would those ant-man readers also like to go to the page in question and learn that ant-man is actually an older character than Spider-man and the avengers? Also I will start adding the verifications that was something I pointed out on the talk page but, it doesn't have an active one. I need help to fix the errors on the page and get it perfect and awesome since in my opinion it is an awesome article. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm with every other editor above who disagrees that this "see also" link is in any way needed. Each article gives the debut information for the character that the article is about. "It's interesting" that Ant-Man came first is not a good reason to clutter an article that way. And I also have to say that in two months here as a registered editor, Fluffyroll11 has created one contentious issue after another. Might I suggest he or she learn WikIProject Comics MOS and not get into untenable debates in which the vast majority of editors disagree with him or her. This editor taking up a lot of our voluntary time on his or her go-nowhere pet items. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tenebrae: This issue has already been resolved. Also why do you constantly have to insult people like what is your problem? Also stop bullying me all of those issues have been resolved so no need to bring them up. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got four discussions on this page, plus an ANI issue. A fellow editor reverted well over a dozen of your edits today. So, yes, there are genuine issues with your editing behavior. And incidentally, I did not insult you or call you names. I said very politely, "Might I suggest he or she learn WikIProject Comics MOS and not get into untenable debates in which the vast majority of editors disagree with him or her." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This issue has already been resolved." Fluffy, the edit you made just before saying this started with "Ok but" and sure sounded like you weren't convinced to stop adding these links. It's understandable that Tenebrae didn't realize it was over. You are not being bullied - you've just caused frustration by jumping into major efforts without taking the time to learn the Manual of Style or standard Wikipedia etiquette. For instance, a lot of effort could have been saved for everyone if you had come here to discuss adding this link before you actually started doing so. You wouldn't have spent time doing something that someone else will have to spend time reverting. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also would like to add to what my two colleagues have stated above about your editing behavior, that in all the interactions I have had with you, you seem very interested in the "trivia" parts of comics (who has appeared before who, who is an original character for comic TV shows, etc.) Maybe editing on Wikipedia isn't right for you, rather a fan/Marvel/comic wikia where you can add that? I'm not saying this in a negative way or to drive you away, but as us three have stated, this type of material is not suitable here on Wikipedia, a formal encyclopedia. If that is the stuff that really interests you, maybe those other sites are more suited to what you're looking to accomplish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I concur with fellow editors. I have tried to be hospitable and helpful but my patience is running thin.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok so I've made a few bad edits but, I have also made a lot of good ones and have been thanked a few times for them as well. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does the Television section require a subsection for a single entry or paragraph?[8] *Treker feels it does, I am not so certain. (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that consistency is pretty good to have, it's certainly better than awkwardly listing them by which shows he was the main character in and not, which as far as I know doesn't fit into any manual of style on wikipedia. It's not about how long a section is but about the fact that it's different enough to earn a separation. *Treker (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree with you, but if consensus interprets this the same way as you, I will leave the subsection as-is. (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen this type of thing before, and the users who don't want the live action/animation subsections usually come out on top. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with *Treker on this matter. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speculation regarding Earth's Mightiest Heroes

I reverted additions by Fluffyroll11 into several articles purporting that the characters were "intended to appear in Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes possible season 3". After one of those reversions was itself reverted[9], I think it might be a good idea to bring these here to discuss. I reverted those because to my eye, they are all clearly highly speculative. It's clear from the language of "intended to appear in... possible season 3 or in the original plans" and saying "most likely considered", which shows that the plans were not clearly known, or that these are best guesses and not known facts. Additionally, accusing Jeph Loeb of "executive meddling" is possibly a WP:BLP violation. If that is the best that can be shown about items like that, then they are really not encyclopedic and don't belong here. These were added to Impossible Man, Deathlok, Human Fly, Daimon Hellstrom, Machine Man, Monica Rambeau, Omega the Unknown, Morbius, Captain Universe, and 3-D Man, and has thus far only been restored on Omega. I hadn't removed it from Baron Blood or Rom (comics) yet, so I won't while we discuss. (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ I originally made those additions because I have seen them on pages before and I made those edits and used comics blend or one of those comics sites which on wikipedia is stated to be an unreliable source so I went straight to the source and put down interviews as well because I was told that would be enough to prevent it from being reverted. Also it's been confirmed that Jeph Loeb executive meddled with the show since he believes in the age ghetto and that why the who Ragnarok story arc didn't end the season like planned. Also in interviews with christopher host and the other guy they both stated the wrotee a "bible" guideline from the start which they have confirmed to as gone as far as 4 seasons with a theme which would be there guide for the storytelling and which guests to have. Season one was the "Assemble" season, Season 2 was the "cosmic" season, Season 3 was the "magic" season and season 4 was never stated what there plans where but, Dr. Strange was being save for season 3 along with Scarlett witch, agatha hawkins, Quicksilver, Dr. Druid, Giving more back story to the black panther and wakanda delving dealer with its magic roots a tie ins which we hadn't seen yet but were alluded to and hinted at etc. which were all confirmed in interviews. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the wording is inappropriate per WP:ALLEGED. "Executive Meddling" is a term straight from TV Tropes, where this kind of speculation is common. It may also be a WP:SPECULATION violation, depending on who the source is (I can't view it from my workstation) and how far along these plans actually were. Promotional images are always subject to change, so that by itself is not enough. It's like the long, repeated discussions on why Doc Ock's tentacles in ASM2 didn't warrant a mention on his page. I'm especially skeptical about ROM, since Marvel doesn't even have rights to the character's name or likeness. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: First of all this wasn't promotional art, second it was all confirmed in interviews I referenced and with the pictures as well. Also the don't have the rights to the micro verse but, it appeared in the show under that name also They have the rights to everything surrounding ROM and probably worked something out to have him appear since it was in development before the disney acquisition which is where jeph lobes executive meddling comes in which was also confirmed in interviews. Sorry I didn't do this right but, I was trying to do to the A; EMH page what Wolverine and the X-men page has since it hasn't been added to the page yet but, darted it with this to make sure I added it right guess I went wrong somewhere. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fluffyroll11: Ok, I'll bite - what kind of art was it? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Argento Surfer: concept art. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: Ok. Then concept art is subject to change. The point stands. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: It was confirmed in interviews that it was changed due to the executive meddling but, was how they wanted to tell the story like with Wonderman intending to return in Emperor Stark episode. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: To everyone involved in this discussion I am not trying to argue this. I am trying to figure out what I did wrong and how to fix it or if it's just not appropriate for the articles. Sorry if I came off as arguing here I am just trying figure this out as I am still learning how to become a contributing member to Wikipedia properly. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: The problem was in the wording. Read the links I shared above. If your source is solid, you should be able to use information from it without using words like "possible", "intended", or similarly vague synonyms. Don't say "executive meddling" because it has negative connotations on the executive's part. Check the film section of Vulture (comics) for a good example of a character not appearing in a film/show. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see a problem with mentioning aborted projects, provided that there is a reference to one or more sources confirming that there were actual plans to use a specific character. We have somewhat similar articles on List of unproduced Disney animated shorts and feature films, List of unproduced Hitchcock projects, and Tim Burton's unrealized projects. All concern films and other projects which were formerly scheduled for production and never really materialized. At least most of them have supporting sources on their production history. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Ok will do I guess we can consider this discussion over. Just leave ROM's page as is I want to fix his first. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so everyone know this has been put to bed as false with the revelation of this interview Sorry my bad. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Can we archive this discussion or move it since it has been resolved? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: A bot will archive it automatically after the section is inactive for a certain time. I'm not sure how long it is, but it's at least a month. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alter egos in navigation templates

Should alter egos be list separately in navboxes? Geek Pow (talk · contribs) has been listing both Green Goblin and Norman Osborn in navboxes that relate specifically to Osborn. I am of the opinion that the umbrella Green Goblin article should only be listed if the subject of the navbox relates to multiple Green Goblins. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the reason I keep putting Green Goblin on the navboxes is because that is who most of the heroes go up against. Osborn is just his identity, he doesn't go out as Norman Osborn and fights Spidy or the Avengers. Green Goblin is the major threat to the heroes. If there was links to heroes alter egos like Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker or even Bruce Wayne; you don't add there identities because that's not the person who is doing all the action, it's there alter egos. Would love to hear the thoughts from others. Geek Pow (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you are looking at this the wrong way. The Norman Osborn article is not just about his civilian activities. Likewise, the Green Goblin article isn't about Osborn's costumed adventures, it is an umbrella article for different characters that have used that moniker. That said its pointless to link to an article that deals very little with the subject of the navbox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think you're looking at it the other way. The Norman Osborn page has a lot of similarities to the Green Goblin and Iron Patriot pages. And as may I recall, while back the Green Goblin page did used to be just prominently about Norman Osborn, so Goblin is done by Osborn. Alter egos and secret identities are really big differences. But we'll wait for the rest. Geek Pow (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I am more familiar with comics from previous decades than recent ones, I would disagree than the Goblin is the threat and Norman is not. Following his "return from the dead" in late 1996, Norman spend a few years using his wealth, business acumen, and talent for manipulation to take down his foes. He pretty much gave up being the Green Goblin and even had a lackey take on the identity to use him in some plots. During his leadership of the Thunderbolts (starting in 2007), Norman again quit the Goblin identity and called the shots from his civilian identity. And the theme pretty much continued in the Dark Reign storyline (2008-2009) where Norman pretty much took over the leadership of Marvel super-villains and faced numerous heroes, all while trying to suppress the re-emergence of his Goblin personality. Norman seems to be generally treated as more dangerous when out of costume and when in control of his split personality problem. Dimadick (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric Loomis

What's the issue with creating and article for Eric Loomis? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This can be answered by what people have said above: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case its the General notability guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah and I don't see how it doesn't fit that. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you should be able to demonstrate it. You can try it at WP:AFC and they'll determine if it meets our standards.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric Loomis, the voice actor? He might fall out of the scope of this project as his credits in the Internet Movie Database mostly consist of video games. No real problem with creating a new article, if you can find relevant sources. But per Wikipedia:Notability (people):Entertainers, the requirements of notability for "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities" is that he/she:

  • "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."
  • "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
  • "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Not that I could ever understand the difference between having a fan base and a cult following. The latter is defined as having passionate fans who are dedicated to the item or person of their interest, regardless of what the general public thinks of that item or person. Isn't that the nature of an actual fan base? Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Naming Consistency

I would like to point out that characters that have multiple version with the same name from different publishers need to be named more consistently. What I mean is for example a Character that has multiple versions can be named with Character (marvel comics) or (Marvel Comics) or (Marvel comics) or (marvel Comics) can we pick one naming convention so we don't think we just linked to a red page or waist time trying to figure the right configuration? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They should all be disambiguated with proper capitalization (Marvel Comics, DC Comics). If you want to take the time to move the ones you find done incorrectly, that'd be great. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify company names should be capitalized but generic (comics) should be lower case.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because one its actually the name of a corporate entity and the other the generic name of an entire field. As a registered user, you should probably be able to rename incorrectly-named pages yourself. Do check what pages direct to both the old and new name and require manual clean-up. Dimadick (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comments

There is a dispute at Template talk:Jessica Jones, all are welcome to comment. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

I have just copyedited Captain Marvel (DC Comics), which had been on the Guild of Copy Editors list for major copyediting since August. I am pretty sure I've gotten all the major copyediting bits that needed doing, but there is one place where the text was unclear and I couldn't tell what was meant. Please see Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)# Mysterious stranger, and {{ping}} me if you want to discuss it with me. Thank you. Thnidu (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walt McDougall at Good Article nominations.

I've nominated Walt McDougall for Good Article. This biography of an early American comic strip artist is rather short, but I believe touches on the most salient and notable aspects of his life and career. Anyone is welcome to review. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of superhero television series

Hello! Members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of superhero television series#Inclusion criteria. A concern has been raised that there needs to be a way to determine which TV shows are about superheroes and which are not. Some have suggested that the list should not be kept unless objective, sourced criteria for this can be found. In other words, maybe most editors would agree that, for example, Batman is a superhero and Zorro is not, but that might not be good enough without reliable, third-party references. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 22:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riri Williams

It was recently announced that Riri Williams, the new Iron Man, will go by the codename Ironheart. The article for the character is currently located Riri Williams (Marvel Comics), while Riri Williams is redirected to Iron Man#Riri Williams. I think we can all agree that disambiguation is not needed here. However, with the announcement should page be moved to her codename? There is already an article about a 1992 martial arts film located Ironheart. Where should the character article be located: Riri Williams or Ironheart (comics)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I boldly moved the content at Riri Williams (Marvel Comics) to Riri Williams since the DAB isn't necessary. Since the character seems to have no history outside of being Ironheart, I'd be ok with a move to Ironheart (comics).
To be honest though, I think this content belongs at List of Marvel Comics characters: W. At this time, there doesn't seem to be any indication of notability outside of the comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For future reference, it's better to request a technical move than a WP:CUTPASTE but that can easily be fixed. The topic seems very notable per WP:GNG with coverage in Time, Washington Post, Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, BBC, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frank Castle as a redirect to the Punisher.

I'm trying to get the an article about an athlete by the name Frank Castle to be moved so that the name can redirect to the Punisher. I would appreciate if any other people would be willing to state their oppinion on the matter.*Treker (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Frank Castle#Requested move 24 August 2016. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 21:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Not sure anyone's around from back in the day? Popping in a bit, trying to tackle the clean up list, anything changed in the last few years? Hiding T 17:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to see you both still around! Hiding, my mentor and inspiration! Incredibly good to have you back! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey to both of you, glad you're both still around. I'm hoping there's less drama these days! Hiding T 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover of The Dark Knight Returns

Due to the overuse of the cover of The Dark Knight Returns in various articles, it has been suggested here that it also be removed from the Batman article. I think it would be a mistake to remove it from the Batman article, as the cover of the comic book suggests the very dark tone that it is discussed in the article. Please voice your opinion on whether or not the cover of The Dark Knight Returns belongs in the Batman article. I do think it meets WP:NFCC#8 and if we go by the logic of others' on the discussion page, we might as well remove every other comic cover on various characters' pages. DrRC (talk)

@DrRC: Considering that The Dark Knight Returns is a very famous storyline, there are numerous covers and editions of it. And if the reason for the removal of the image is WP:NFCC, then I think the appropriate solution would be to either:
1. Upload a different version of the same image under a different name for certain articles.
- or -
2. Upload the cover of a different edition for certain articles. I believe the most recent edition is The Dark Knight Saga: Deluxe Edition. DarkKnight2149 23:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are some examples of covers from other editions: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. DarkKnight2149 23:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a helpful suggestion. Thanks for your help. DrRC (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to be of assistance. DarkKnight2149 23:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comic Book Resources is now

Just went to the site, and saw it has been redesigned. It also looks like some of their subsites (Robot 6, Spinoff Online, and Comics Should Be Good) may not have made it over with the change. I'd say give it a few days to let them get all the kinks out, but it's possible we may be looking at a lot of dead links on our hands. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it looks like Newsarma is going to be updating their site too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on when it's appropriate to say "received mostly positive reviews"

This isn't on an article tied to the comics project, but it is about something I often see in comic articles. The question is about whether it's ok to say a work "received mostly positive reviews" and cite a selection of positive reviews instead of a source saying "it garnered positive reviews". If interested, please post comments at Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)#Request for comment. Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in need of a well cited Powers and abilities section for this article if any one can help. Also I think it may need some more watchers and copy editors too. I am not sure many are aware of this article. Jhenderson 777 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright vio?

User:Lilreader has been adding or adjusting links External links to something called the I Love Comix Archive, whose main page requires registration, though Lilreader has been editing that fact out.

From what I can tell, I Love Comix Archive contains runs of copyrighted comic strips. Should this site be allowed as an EL?

I have also posted this at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard--Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, unless those strips are licensed, which it sounds like you don't think is the case. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no licensing information anywhere on it that I can find, and the host is simply a cloud service anyone can use. It appears very much like someone has uploaded their own scans and is essentially pirating them.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bucky article needs protection

I have no idea how to get a protection on an article but I'm getting seriously tired of all the vandalism that happens on the Bucky article. Can someone help me out?*Treker (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Head on over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and follow the instructions provided there to make a request. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Thank you. I hope my request is accepted.*Treker (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wally West/ Wally West II merger proposal

I created a merger proposal on the talk page that Wally West II be merged back into the main Wally West article. DrBat (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mister Sinister

Would the cited sources in this edit be sufficient to confirm his appearance in the upcoming Wolverine movie? (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's way too much plot detail for his non-appearance in Apocalypse, and it's casting a very wide net with it's claims about Gambit and "future X-Men films". I'd limit it to the Wolverine sequel only. Other than that, it seems reliable enough to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mega-villain" vandal

A user is currently using multiple IPs to vandalise superhero and supervillain articles by replacing the word "superhero" or "supervillain" with "megahero" or "megavillain". Keep an eye out for this vandalism. I am currently gathering a list of this user's IP addresses for a sock puppet investigation. If you see any of this vandal's IP addresses, please add them to this list or simply notify me. DarkKnight2149 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do. Oy. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The sock investigation has been filed. If you spot this vandal, please report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ DarkKnight2149 23:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Character biography or character synopsis?

Most plot related sections of comic characters tend to be called "Fictional character biography" but according to Wikipedia, a biography is "a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." This isn't what these sections tend to be, they can't be that detailed since we avoid in-universe plot retellings as much as possible. Should it be renamed as a standard to something like "Character synopsis"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support "Character synopsis" seems like a very good idea and appropriate for characters which have relatively lenient continuity like say Spider-man, with characters like Batman who have been rebooted a bunch of times or the Punisher who's continuity is all screwy I think it's better to have a Characterization section or something like that where their personality is explained. Trying to write out Superman or Batman's life stories seem almost imposible.*Treker (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm ambivalent toward changing it, but I'd prefer Fictional character history to Character synopsis. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the "fictional" part is necessary, it's heavily established by that point it isn't a real person. And history falls into the same issue as biography. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DC/Vertigo Split

Since there are numerous articles stating DC and Vertigo split from each other in continuity (Including Holly Black here:, Mike Carey here:, and Dan Didio here: I think we should discuss correcting the relevant pages to reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryAce (talkcontribs) 00:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which relative pages are you talking about? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was originally brought up on 'The Presence" page, and I was told to discuss it here to find out what other characters would be affected. TerryAce (talk 17:57 27 September 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gambit's first appearance

I'm not entirely sure what Havenx23 is trying to accomplish since the end result comes out looking pretty sloppy, and has been providing no sources but proclaiming to have the "FACTS AND TRUTH" while removing existing sources. (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cameo v first appearance v "true first" debates are one of my least favorite things about comics. I'll check an old Wizard tonight and add a cite tomorrow. Hopefully that will be a quick and peaceful resolution. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for checking. (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shoot. I forgot. I'll do it tonight for sure. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the October 1994 Wizard, the annual is a cameo and #266 is the "first full appearance." Hopefully this edit will satisfy everyone. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for following up on that; it looks a lot better, now. (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Thanks for following up on that; it looks a lot better, now. (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue at hand is that people are being informed of a lie and buying a false 1st appearance. Gambit appeared in more than 5 panels. Stands off with cable. Has spoken lines and is refered to by name from storm.....hes in 1/3 of the comic. True collectores want the truth (it seems you are not a true collector). Also this has been a debate over almost all characters in the comic book world. 1 side wanting the true first appearance and the other claiming which comic book they think is the first appearance and is a want to collect a 2nd appearance as a 1st appearance by all keans but dont cheat true collectors out of the truth and in this case Uncanny X-Men Annual 14 being his true first appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenx23 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I alsi find it very entertaining that you say I have no sources when the comic books themselves point to the 1st appearance in Annual #14. Issue 266 came out more than a month and a half after and the only thing it has on the Annual is the cover which by no means makes the Annual obsolete. #266 just traveled backwards to explain the past and pretty much went he was in cahoots with storm. If this was the case of being a first appearance then all first appearance would have to be changed to the issue that takes place furthest into the character's past. Read some comics before acting like you know everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenx23 (talkcontribs) 00:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt very much that you're going to impress anyone with this sort of attitude. (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.*Treker (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont intend to impress anybody, nor do I have any attitude. The only thing I am trying to do and many others actually agree is to give truthfull, accurate information instead of leading people to believe a lie. You want to believe a lie thats you're choice but the correct information should still be made available to those who want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenx23 (talkcontribs) 03:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little tip Havenx23. If you use these things : right (like the rest of us are doing) in front of your replies people can actually tell who you are responding to.*Treker (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"nor do I have any attitude" If you can believe that after saying "it seems you are not a true collector", then I'd hate to see you when you do pop an attitude. Also, my eyes nearly rolled out of my head when you used the word "buy" in your first sentence. These discussions always seem to center around purchasing. A quick Google search returns lots of discussion, and this, which I can't view at my workstation. This seems like something that should be explained in the article. Right now, the lead sounds downright catty. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hulk powers

Can we get some consensus on what exactly should be listed as Hulk's powers. It's constantly being changed and people just introduce random terms. It was "Absolute" strength for example, I changed it back to Superhuman strength which is at least understandable, now someone has changed it to "Limitless strength, limitless healing, limitless durability", etc. His strength is hard to describe because of its range, but can we get some consensus here so that we have something to refer to going forwards as what should be there? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think characters like Hulk or Superman should get any special treatment in these cases, we should just list "superhuman strength" on all characters that have it.*Treker (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, these adjectives are WP:POV/WP:OR. More exact descriptions of his powers can be cited and detailed in prose in the appropriate section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would save the word "limitless" for a fictional portrayal of God, or perhaps some character with godlike powers like Eternity (comics). Superman and Hulk may be characterized as even more powerful than the standard superpowerful guys around them, but they are still very far from having "limitless" strength, even in plot. Cambalachero (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MCU character category again

Someone has created the category once more. It is up for speedy deletion and I have removed it from all articles. Is there someting that can be done so that it doens't get remade again? It's kind of tiring.*Treker (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe instead of deleting it or linking it to comic book character articles. We can use it it for the four original MCU characters pages and the cast list/character articles of MCU related media. Technically there is enough content for a category. Jhenderson 777 05:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case I believe it would be best of the category was named something like "Marvel Cinematic Universe original characters". Otherwise we run into the same problem where people add the category to every character that has ever appeared in the MCU.*Treker (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @TriiipleThreat and Adamstom.97: so they can join in this. I still don't know if we need the category, even for original/MCU specific characters. Because I think we'd still have this problem, no matter what the cat is called, even if done correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No matter what, there are always going to be problems with this I fear. Perhaps we should just ask whether we need a category for the original characters. If so, we can make it and just remove any other characters that are added. If not, we can just remove any new categories that are created. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm indifferent to Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe original characters but somewhat concerned with scope creep like the rest of you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We currently only have 4 MCU specific character articles: Coulson, Trevor Slattery, Erik Selvig and Claire Temple. Coulson is sorted into the AoS cat, as that is the most specific for him (and covers the other MCU cats) and the latter three are all just in the MCU proper cat at this time, which I think is still fine at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could just modify Category:Marvel Comics characters to also include Marvel characters from outside of the comics. And even if a category for MCU original characters is created, it doesn't guarantee an end to the re-creations of the "MCU characters" category. DarkKnight2149 18:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if we must create a new category, it would be more efficient to just create a category for original characters from all Marvel adaptations (or at the very least, all Marvel films), rather than characters from the MCU alone. DarkKnight2149 18:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To your first response Darkknight, we could create Category:Marvel Comics film characters to mirror Category:Marvel Comics television characters. And to your second point, are there other character articles that exist for Marvel characters that originated in media outside of the comics? Just curious about that, because I'm not aware of other offhand. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are that fit the television category, such as Firestar and X-23. There was a page for the novel character Gustav Fiers, but it was eventually merged with another article. I'm not sure if there are any for the Marvel video game characters. There might be some that I'm forgetting. DarkKnight2149 19:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was already aware there was just four fictional character articles. But still don't forget the list of character articles and cast lists article would make enough for a category. Jhenderson 777 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the category may be populated with articles focused specifically on the characters as characters within the MCU, such as Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Even leaving the plot section to a minium, there is enough out-of-universe information to use: creation of the character, the way it is used across the franchise, characterization, reception, even the influence over the characterization of the comic book character, etc. It can't be done with all the MCU characters, but it can be done with many. See for example Lois Lane (Smallville) and Lex Luthor (Smallville), which are even good articles. Cambalachero (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that creating Category:Marvel Comics film characters would be a better move, as it would encompass all Marvel film characters, instead of just those from a specific universe. And even if there aren't many film character articles that don't pertain to the MCU, there could always be more created in the future. Sony and Fox are still making Marvel films and I would argue that Wolverine (film character) is just as notable as Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe). I don't have experience with redirecting categories. Would it be possible to use Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters as a redirect for Category:Marvel Comics film characters? Because regardless of the consensus, I doubt certain people will stop trying to re-create it. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox

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

Note: This field was previously removed. See the discussion here. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I want to add relatives to the info boxes of comic book characters and were coming closes to a consensus on adding them and I was told to post the proposal here to also get some more opinions so that we can make it a reality. So what do you guys think? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The prior discussion can be seen here. The idea is to add parameters for parents/spouse (partner)/children to the infoboxes for comic characters, similar to Template:Infobox writer, among others. Concerns include sourcing and limiting non-notable relatives. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I would like to make a Request For Comment on this topic at hand. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My initial thought would be no, especially for those relatives that are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Infoboxes are bloated enough as they are.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: Ok so if your initial thought is no that means you must be open to the idea. I love info boxes and believe that relatives are desired enough to be put into them. Now we only want it to contain the important ones and not include the not notable ones as you stated as common sense states. Does that make sense? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose so, but there comes point when too much information makes the infobox less useful. Would you list each member of the Marvel Family in Captain Marvel's infobox? Would you list most of Olympians in Hercules' infobox?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: No I wouldn't just the important immediate ones as stated previously before and I believe if we set the parameters to that then it will be implemented nicely and not be abused. I believe that it won't over bloat it as for most it won't be that many where there are a few extremes that isn't very common and that it will indeed be helpful and a nice addition to the info boxes. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say important ones, I'm asking about specific examples. How do you determine which are important?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: The important ones would be immediate like parents, siblings, kids, plus spouse. If something is really close to significant or not we might be able to leave to the talk page but, it should be common sense like not that distant cousin that was in one issue from 4o years ago. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that every parent, sibling, child or spouse is important. Some characters like I mention have large immediate families. I'm becoming more inclined just to keep it like it is by only including notable partnerships.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: Ok I agree that not every one of them is significant we can use a combination of common sense and I guess the talk page to determine that. How does that sound?Fluffyroll11 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know this used to be a parameter in the infobox, but it was removed. Does anyone know when and why? (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say no, except in very special cases. For the most part, the family relationships aren't key to understanding the character, and may vary across media. Do we need to know the names of Batman's parents to understand the effect their having been shot in front of him had? What about Spider-man and Mary Jane Watson (Parker)? Is she his wife, ex wife, neither? There's too much potential for confusion. Killer Moff (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TriiipleThreat: :@Killer Moff: I know not every parent, sibling or relative is significant for example with Cyclops his mother is not significant but, his father is and his son cable is significant but, his daughter Ruby is not. Also Batman's parent would be one of the cases where they aren't significant like do they even have a page? I think to best convey different relationships Nightcrawler would be a good example his parent both Azazel and Mystique are significant, his half brother Graydon Creed, and foster sister Rogue would be significant. I do agree that spouses could lead to confusion and that not all of them are significant like if they are divorced does't need to be putout, special cases like Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne should be put or Reed and Sue Richards because those are permanent marriages. Does that make sense? So what do you say? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: The problem is what makes sense to you, may not make sense to all users. For example Hank and Janet have been divorced for years in main continuity. And just because the character is significant, does not mean that they are significant to the understanding of the main character. Azazel is significant, to pick an example, but can the casual reader get a sense of who Nightcrawler is without even knowing who Azazel is? Then Azazel should not go into the infobox. Killer Moff (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to say Oppose, there's too much potential for abuse and bloat.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support this and believe that it would make a great addition to the info boxes. Theenlightenedone (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is pretty clear but, I am in support of this. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TriiipleThreat: Can you specify how exactly? I believe there could be a little but, I think there are only a few select examples of potential bloat but, most characters aren't like that. The potential problem ones are pages that are already monitored a lot already and most likely won't get out of hand. I believe most pages other than the few won't become abused or bloated and that this should t least be given a chance. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Killer Moff: Ok maybe spouses shouldn't be included just blood relatives or in special cases. Can we make a set of parameters/guidelines to make it clear who is significant and who isn't so it doesn't become the subjective experience you have mentioned? Also what role would the talk pages have in deciding who to add and not to add? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The talk pages probably won't have any role unless there's an active dispute. Guidelines won't be very constructive because there's too many gray areas. For instance, would Jor-El or Johnathan Kent be listed as Superman's father? What happens when someone notices Aunt May isn't listed on Peter Parker's page because she's not really his parent? Especially when his parents, who aren't significant to him, will be listed by someone who thinks the fields are incomplete? Should Mayday Parker be listed as his daughter? For another example, should any of the Robins be listed as Bruce Wayne's children, or just Huntress (Helena Wayne)? I think the potential for bloat is larger than you realize. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I think the talk pages could be the right place to settle these cases as the could be disputed and have a consensus. I was waiting for the Aunt may uncle ben case and I believe they would be listed since they are significant but, his actual parent not. These grey areas would be settle by setting precedents with it as this has been implanted yet so we don't know what will happen but, can e bring this to the experimental stage? I think we can settle these grey areas and can work to make it so this section doesn't become bloated or abused. Also Robins no. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now, all but one editor has expressed reservations. Why would we implement it? Also, how would Aunt May be listed on Peter Parker's page? As proposed, the parameter would be "Parent", not "caregiver". Giving it a less precise name (or adding another parameter) would invite more bloat on other pages, not less.
Based on your edit history, you've only be active here for a few days. Speaking from experience, bloat sneaks in over time. The powers/abilities and team affiliations are two examples that have been long-running problem issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I've actually been active for a few years but am have been very active these past few months. Anyways it is a special case where Aunt May and Uncle Ben would be the ones to fill that role since that it the case for peter parker as I would say for common sense in that case but, we could use precedents to establish this and work it in. Also I don't think it could bloat it to much as they won't add much space wise to them for most of the comic book characters anyways. Also there are three in support (including me). Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Setting a precedent won't fix the parameter issue. If the parameter is named "parents", you won't get a consensus to insert an aunt's name, especially when the real parents have their own article. If the parameter isn't named "parents", then it will be something more generic and invite bloat. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having had a look at a few relevant pages, like Aunt May, Thomas Wayne, and Supergirl (Kara Zor-El), they all have their relationship to their respective main character mentioned in the lead. Do we need to duplicate this in the info box? Killer Moff (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: :@Killer Moff: Those are the big characters but, we also need to use common sense with this and most character don't have that listed right at the beginning and this would be a nice clear visible format that would be desired and look good so I believe it does add value to the info box. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fluffy, you're not addressing the issues that are being raised. Common sense says that Aunt May is not Peter Parker's parent, so she should not be listed as one. Common sense also says that she should be listed, given that she's the strongest and longest family connection he has. So, how would she be listed? Common sense says another parameter should be used. However, you can't add a parameter to one infobox without adding the option to all infoboxes. If it's present, it's a clear opportunity for bloat. Please explain how this can be avoided without saying we'll discuss it on the talk page every time. That will be a lot of wasted effort.
You're also saying this is desired information, but I'm skeptical. No one here has said "Yes, this is a good idea because I often wish that information was easily located on character pages." Please explain why you think this information belongs on the infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm copying the comment below from the Template talk page, where this has also been discussed. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would dispute that fictional characters' relationships to other characters are of no interest to readers. It is often one of the most covered matters in conversations about characters.
In Jean Grey's the basic family tree has remained fairly simple since the 1960s. Father Dr. John Grey, mother Elaine Grey, sister Sara Grey-Bailey, nephew Joey Bailey, and niece Gailyn Bailey, and all five of these supporting characters have since been killed. While Jean has had a number of clones and even children through these clones, she has had at best limited contact with any of them. I am not certain they would even count as family.
In Cyclops' case the most discussion or dispute I have ever seen is in the status of Adam X, a character created by Fabian Nicieza to serve as a maternal half-brother to Cyclops. The character and the implication was introduced in the 1990s, but Nicieza was not allowed to complete his story. Adam keeps making minor appearances but the story about his family has never been picked by other writers.
In Colossus' case, his siblings are fairly important characters with several appearances. But his parents Nikolai and Alexandra Rasputin were very minor supporting characters and their deaths were barely even mentioned. I am not sure there is much to write there. A mini-series called "X-Men: Colossus Bloodline" established that Colossus is actually a descendant of Grigori Rasputin, but this did not add much to the character.
The one character I would be unsure how to handle is the Scarlet Witch. In about 50 years, Marvel has given 3 different versions of the identity of her parents and they are recently trying to introduce a 4th one. Do we list 8 different parents? Marvel gave the Witch twin sons in the 1980s, then retconned them into magical creations, then destroyed them, then introduced two teenage characters as reincarnations of her children. So who do we list as "childen", the originals or the reincarnations? And there is not even a reboot involved, just entirely contradictory ideas by different writers and editors. Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: :@Killer Moff: :@Dimadick: :@Jhenderson777: First of all you answered your own question in regards to Aunt May so she would be listed. The way Dimadick word the Parents of colossus is exactly how I would put the common sense on that form of parent so colossus' parents would not be listed. Jean grey would only have her kids listed not any of her clones kids nd the one that a prominent and relevant. Also some characters like spider-man with be special cases that would be understood and can be applied to in i guess for a lack of a better term a precedents way. Also Argentosurtur both Dimadick and Jhenderson have said as well as myself that that information is desirable and we would like it to be put in the info box. So I believe that is now 5 in support of it. Also do either you or killermoff have potential solutions to your concerns if mine aren't working for you? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure why would Spider-Man be a special case. After 50 years of appearances, his most prominent relatives (excluding an army of clones) are his long-dead parents Richard and Mary Parker (CIA agents who mostly appear in flashback tales), his paternal uncle/adoptive father Uncle Ben (who was actually killed in the very first Spider-Man story but keeps appearing in flashbacks, dreams, hallucinations, etc), his paternal aunt/adoptive mother Aunt May (a supporting character with over 50 years of appearances), and his former wife Mary Jane Watson (a marriage that lasted about twenty years and ended in a magically-imposed annulment by orders of Mephisto). He has had one of the largest supporting casts in comics but very few actual relatives. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spider-Man would be a special case because the parameter "Aunt/Uncle" was not initially proposed specifically because very few of them are significant. The problem, which has still not been answered, is that adding an aunt/uncle parameter will invite bloat on other articles. Please explain how this can be avoided without saying we'll discuss it on the talk page every time.'
Also, could you please link to Jhenderson777's support? It's not on this page... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait a minute. Different parameters for any conceivable relationship? Isn't a parameter of "Family" or "Relatives" with the specific relationship in a parenthesis enough? Something like "Family: a (parent), b (sibling), c (spouse), d (offspring)." Which characters are significant enough to mention may vary largely when dealing with different characters or stories. Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without adding specific parameters, we leave ourselves open to people adding Batman's 7th cousin, twice removed, who appeared in 1942 and hasn't been mentioned since. Which is what we're trying to avoid. Killer Moff (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: :@Fluffyroll11: Forgive me, but exactly was the question regarding Aunt May answered? Specially how would she be listed. I think my solution to the problem has been clear: Don't add relatives to the infobox. For the vast majority of characters it's simply not required, but would be added because the parameters are there. For the few where the relationship is integral to the understanding of the character, it can be mentioned in the lead. Beyond that, I fear there's a real danger of furthering the tendency on Wikipedia to deal with these characters in an 'in universe' way. That said, if the consensus is against me on this one, I won't fight further. Killer Moff (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: :@Killer Moff: First I want to say Killer Moff that is a cap out and we are looking for a compromise that could work with this being added. Also it been established that Aunt May would be list but, the other thing is I do think his parents are significant enough to be list in spider-man's special case. So let's start thinking of how we can deal with these special cases? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: I'd argue it's a cop out. The issue is whether or not to do it at all, Not we're doing it, now how do we do it. Killer Moff (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found JHenderson777's "support" on Fluffy's talk page - " I am mostly ok with the idea except for the idea that it's kind of Wikipedia:IN-UNIVERSE territory" - not a glowing endorsement. By my count, four people oppose - Me, Baron Bifford on the template talk page, Triiiplethreat, and Killer Moff. I only see Fluffy, EnlightenedOne, and Dimeadick showing real support.
And Fluffy, you still haven't explained how to add Aunt May without adding a new parameter that invites bloat in other articles. I don't see a solution, which is why I'm opposing the proposal. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: Don't forget that guy with the numbers in the name is in support. Also Baron Blifford isn't against anymore and is leaning more towards support now just look on his talk page. Also Jhenderson I would count in support. :@Killer Moff: I believe that it is worth doing and is desirable information that others have also stated is desirable so yes we should do it. Also I think Argento needs to look again as the support and oppose again. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guy with the numbers in his name.... that helps. Link please.
And from Baron's talk page: "I'm ambivalent, leaning towards opposition" Argento Surfer (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: this guy with the numbers (talk). Also scroll down Baron says after that. If you continue reading it appears he's more neutral but, open to the idea of this being added. So as of right now I wouldn't count him as a supporter or opposer. Also I would count Jhenderson777 as a supporter indeffinently after rereading his post I would count his as support. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: also when you reply to my post can you do the thing with the reply so I get a notification when you make a reply? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: IP didn't support or oppose. He asked a question.
As for User:Jhenderson777, let's ask him to weigh in here since we seem to disagree on the strength behind his comment.
Also, I've asked twice now for you to comment on the Aunt May scenario, and you seem to be ignoring me. Please respond. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BaronBifford: :@Argento Surfer: So are you saying you are neutral on this matter as of right now? Also numbers sounded like he was a support let's ask him to make an official statement. Also I guess there is no full proof way of preventing bloat or abise but, that is the case with a lot of thing already on wikipedia and so I guess we will just have to manage it like everything else on this site. I believe it will be worth it since this is something I believe is desirable and should be present in the info boxes. Also as for Aunt May common sense says she should be list and therefore should be list and is a special case I thought I answered you on it and worded t better than what I just did. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: I don't know how I can say more clearly that I oppose this proposal. I also don't know how you're construing the IP as support, when all he did was ask a question. Speaking of questions, should I take your continued silence as an "I don't know?" Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that Fluffyroll11 really wants a consensus! I hardly don't want to disappoint him but honestly I at first didn't think of it being too much of a problem when I said that I am mostly ok with it. Since I was thinking of essential characters like Uncle Ben/Aunt May for Spider-Man and Thomas Wayne/Martha Wayne for Batman and characters with articles on it appearing in a infobox, it clouded my judgement on how I felt about it. But I can imagine (definitely with the conversation going on now) that it can be a big issue down the road with bloating of many characters (like TriiipleThreat already noted). Also trying to figure out what is significant is a problem already used on navboxes. I think it being in infoboxes seems like more like something Wikia already has done excessively and is better kept there. I should note that I think if there would be a infobox containing such a parameter only characters that would have articles would be the best route. I think I am going to change my once unsure support to an oppose. I think FluffyRoll11's intention may not be bad but other editors (especially IP editors) may be a issue for such an addition. Also it still is in universe issue. I would at least note it as "fictional relatives" if added. Jhenderson 777 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jhenderson777: That's it! I thought I mentioned it but, after rereading realized I didn't put it in. That would be a way to definitely lessen bloat and abuse if we could make it only characters with pages. Also we both have discussed in the past the subjectiveness of significance which is something that plagues superior enemies list as well as other heroes villains appearing on that list as well but, anyways would this be a purpose of the Talk page, like what is the purpose of the talk pages anyways? would they be useful in this department? Also yes I want a consensus but, one that figures a way to solve these issue or quell these concerns and have it added. Anyways if we are able to come up with a solution would you be in support because you don't seem to be totally opposed? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: that neutral thing was directed towards Baron. Also silence on what? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: Silence on the question I've asked about repeatedly. I'm not typing it again. Scroll up until you see bold text. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - As other editors have stated, there are too many variables as to who or what is significant, and parsing the criteria for fictional characters with clones, alternate versions, retcons, etc. would create an inordinate bureaucratic density in what is supposed to be a quick-glance box of simple, non-controversial information. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-Support - I know that we once did something like that in the comics before someone discontinued it alongside their statuses ranging from active or deceased. If the relatives part is re-included, I might be down with adding it's re-addition to it's template. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)|Reply[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Looks like it was removed too quickly. Anyways cross linking pages is another reason why this would be good. Also I believe the effort would be worth it. Also clones and alternate realities have both been address and resolved here. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, where have the clones and alternate realities issues been resolved? Give a time-stamp or a diff to there. Also, I'm seeing one redlink user failing to recognize that consensus so far is almost unanimously against him, yet he continues to argue without any support except a single "semi-support." I also find him arguing in favor of tabloidy speculation in this talk page's "Speculation regarding Earth's Mightiest Heroes" section. Continuous argumentativeness in the face of multiple editors opining against one's position is not a positive attribute. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tenebrae: Did you read the entire discussion? There is myself, Enlightenedone, Dimeadick and an IP address in Support and also a Semi-supporter which makes 5 for and there are also some opposed but, not everyone is against me here. Also I would say there are two Semi-opposeds out there that you say are opposed if the semi part is that significant. We said clones are there own characters and don't count but, on there own pages should have their own relatives listed if they have some as they are there own character so Madelyn Pryor's parents aren't the same as Jean's and she wouldn't have any listed just any kids that she had which I believe is Cable. Alternate realities I believe established don't count. Please read the entire discussion before making insulting remarks no one has been insulting any else in this discussion so lets keep it civilized. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read the discussion. I'm seeing one vociferous editor writing reams and reams of text. I missed Theenlightenedone, but Dimadick is hardly unqualified support: "Which characters are significant enough to mention may vary largely when dealing with different characters or stories." (18:18, 4 August 2016), which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. Anon IPs carry no weight as far I'm concerned; if they were serious about contributing, they'd register. So, no, I'm not seeing any great support for this at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - The criteria of whether a character is important or not is already fulfilled by the existence of an article for such character. The field can be defined as relatives in the current main continuity, with alternate or previous continuities defined in a section in the article itself. The relatives to be included: parents (including adoptive or caregivers), siblings, children and spouse. Examples:Aunt May is Peter's adoptive mother or his caregiver. Mary Jay is Peter's "ex" regardless how the divorce took place. Dick Grayson and Tim Drake were adopted by Bruce, even if they don't use the "Wayne" last name. All these should be included. Cassandra Cain was adopted by Bruce in a previous continuity, so shouldn't. Neither would the marriage of Green Arrow with Black Canary. So, support for close relatives with articles from the current main continuity.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coquidragon: That is a very good way of wording it and I agree with the current main continuity thing as well, thought I said that but, didn't but is really how it should be. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This proposed guideline is a violation of Wikipedia:Recentism. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you miss where I said that "alternate or previous continuities defined in a section in the article itself?" The reason for this long debate is the possibility of infoboxes been too convoluted due to the dynamic changes in the world of comics. Infoboxes don't necessarily need to include everything. Using "current" information in an infobox does not necessarily violate Recentism, especially if the information is well-handled in the article.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I don't think it is because the main continuity isn't opinionated Earth-616 is the main marvel continuity. Also can we have the RfC put back I guess it could be considered that didn't realize it was a violation of anything and those original comments were slightly biased when I reread them wasn't my intention was try to have it appear as a positive message wasn't my intent to be biased when I saw her point was when I fix them to adhere to the wikipedia standards. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: Marvel isn't the only publisher. Things like "Cassandra Cain was adopted by Bruce in a previous continuity, so shouldn't [be listed]" is the part that violates Wikipedia:Recentism. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I know there are more publishers than Marvel it was just an example. I like both Marvel and DC. Anyways ok I can see that point then but, what do you suggest? Also can we restore the Rfc to this discussion? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: I suggest not adding the parameter. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Argento Surfer: What about restoring the RfC and moving that Canvassing Vio because new people to the discussion are getting confused and commenting down there when they should be commenting right here so we can have this properly discussed? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I can see having parents and even say like Supergirl is Superman's cousin that kind of stuff but I see this getting way out of control at some point and the info boxes becoming a jumbled mess. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on both procedural grounds (canvassing) and because no discernible effort has been made to address the issues raised in the discussion which removed that content from the infobox in the first place. -RfCbot invitee VanIsaacWScont 07:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vanisaac: Well the canvassing is still being disputed and until that is resolved the conversation has been put on pause but, the issues noted above will most likely have solutions or compromises once we resume the discussion once the canvassing thing has been put behind us. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - As much as I want to support this. The nature of the comic medium causes the information to constantly fluctuate. This would cause many inconsistencies among all the character articles. DrkBlueXG (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canvassing vio

This RfC needs to end right now: Fluffyroll11 is canvassing editors with talk-page advocacy such as "Hey if you want to help bring back the comic book characters relatives field in info boxes comment [at this RfC] [15]. "[C]anvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Read the guideline: This RfC has been irredeemably tainted, and certainly, no responses that followed the canvassing, including Coquidragon's above, can be considered. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what Fluffyroll did on other userpages, but with me, the invitation was: "Bringing back the relatives file in comic book character info boxes. What's your opinion on this topic? Want to weight in on it here?" There is no advocacy in here. I could have come to oppose the idea. Anyways, you can all decide what you believe is more appropriate.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Tenebrae is referring to edits like this, which have been corrected. It is worth noting though, he only invited contributors from the previous discussion who opposed the removal, NOT those in favor. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I think I will have to withdraw my support. I said Fluffy could experiment in his sandbox, but that won't do anything to prevent the sort of tedious squabbles that I've seen over the Abilities and Team affiliations lists. Fluffy doesn't think this will be a problem, but he can't promise that. BaronBifford (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Sorry I don't know when or why I changed the wording I'd say half were like Coquidragon's and then I changes it for some reason. Also I thought I sent one do the man in black who was the guy who got it removed in the first place as I thought he would have some real good value to the discussion. Also I message Tenebrae and she was in opposition to this so you can't say I only mentioned people that would support it, I was messaging people who were active users that showed an interest in comics. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is what I just posted at Fluffyroll11's talk page in response to "So can the Rfc be restored as this has been resolved?":

It doesn't look at all to me or, I believe, Argento Surfer that the issue has been resolved. If you'd like, we can go to the Admin Noticeboard and ask for an admin to give an opinion. Otherwise, as it stands right now, my feeling is that this RfC is tainted. An admin may well feel differently. But until we get such an opinion, I don't believe any admin will be comfortable closing this RfC one way or the other.

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tenebrae: Well seeing as the only three people to actually comment on the RfC from my message were ones who received my unbiased message and that I fixed the ones that received the slightly biased message before they saw it or commented on the RfC would in fact mean the RfC hasn't been tainted as this was swiftly corrected before it could become tainted as well as the fact I did message more than just people who I thought would support it but, just people I thought would have an interest in the discussion since it was comic book related. So I feel we can call this resolved and restore the RfC. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fluffyroll11: The person who is accused of something cannot be the person to say that the thing for which he is accused has been resolved. That's not objective, but self-interested. Why are you so afraid of letting an objective third party render an opinion? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tenebrae: When did I say I was afraid? I was just saying how it played out and how your claim of it being tainted aren't true for the reasons stated previously. I am just wondering how long it will take for the admin to resolve this. Also your hole case resolves around coquidragon's post but, you weren't even able to comprehend the situation. Their post which they have said countless time was neutral and could not be the result of canvassing and with that said seeing as the discussion was never tainted by canvassing this matter has been resolved in my opinion and the RfC should be restored. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fluffyroll11: You say the discussion is not tainted. That's your opinion. I say it is. That's my opinion. Per our discussion, I asked for an objective third-party source to say which opinion was correct. Then you began legalistically arguing your case on the page where I had made the request. If you were confident in your position, you would have just let an objective third party decide. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tenebrae: I didn't like the way you worded it and especially hated the last sentence. Anyways how long will it take until we get a decision? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. It depends on how busy the admins are. In any event, there's no deadline and this isn't anything that has to be decided immediately. RfCs generally last 30 days anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban evasion from BeyonderGod

My apologies for bothering you again, but BeyonderGod seems to be back to edit some of his favourite topics about supposedly "omnipotent" characters within fiction again: David A (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2) Desperate need for copyediting (Highfather)

Yes, I know new sections belong at the foot of the page, but it isn't working. I've tried three times, iirc, to add this section: twice with the "New Section" tab and once by adding }} at the apparent end of the blue archived RfC section. But whatever I do, my text appears at the end of the RfC, on the blue background as if it were part of the RfC. Apparently the archiving template call is ill-formed, and I have NFI (= no idea whatsoever) how to fix it, so I'm adding this at the top. Please, whenever you get that greedy blue blob fixed, move this section to its proper chronological place.
Now to my actual content:

Highfather, or much of it, is very badly written, full of misspellings, rambling chunks of sentences thrown together without connections, and so on, like this one (Highfather § Conflict & Loss of Humanity):

Having recently lost a dear friend in the battles that followed Izaya began to waiver in his conflict, he set out to the multiverse hoping to find the answer he seeks commune from the source.

I do a lot of copyediting and usually enjoy it, but this one has kept me up far too late (3:52 a.m. local), and it's just making me sick. Someone else please take over, someone much more at home with the series than I am. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved it to the bottom for you. (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I had started a discussion at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Charlie-27 merge because I did feel that the latest version of the article now had adequate sourcing to meet the WP:GNG and be retained as an article. However, another user completely ignored that discussion and restored the merge without comment. Can anyone add more feedback to that discussion; does it have enough sources (or can you find and add any more) to keep that character as an article, or is it still insufficient and needs to remain merged. (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one who originally merged, per reasoning at the link discussed above. User:TTN was the one who restored the merge.
The latest version has 26 sources, only 6 are not comics featuring Charlie-27. Sources [2] and [3] is information from third parties, but is a reiteration of information found within the comics themselves, not actual analysis. Sources [1] and [5] talks about the team as a whole, not Charlie specifically. Source [4] discusses Charlie's role within the team. Source [26] shows existence, and is not about Charlie specifically. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am skeptical that this person is notable, as I'm unable to find much (really, anything) in RS about him - but I'm not sure how to evaluate notability of a comic book author. Can someone with more experience in this area take a look and weigh in? The page has been subject to some promotional editing in the past so take some of the claims/credits with a grain of salt - ie, there are books listed as his works which he may have only edited or contributed one of many pieces to. Thanks in advance! Fyddlestix (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're certainly right about promotional content. I don't see any indication of notability. Most of his wikilinks come from lists of writers involved in something notable, not from something particularly notable that he has done. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Batman FAR review

I have nominated Batman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DarkKnight2149 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

formatting help needed