Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Here we go again

Haven't we already seen Category:Comic characters adapted into the Marvel Cinematic Universe or something like it, at least a dozen times or more before? Is this a sock do you think, or could this be just a new person who thought they saw something that needed to exist? 2601:241:4280:161:7CB9:D7A6:1893:1E73 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The editor's first contribution was to create the category, and every edit since then has been to add characters to it. I'd wager it's a sock. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I opened a sock puppet investigation. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

schmidt-austin is still active?! He's been creating sock accounts for almost as long as I have been around on Wikipedia (which has been for YEARS). I don't understand why someone would be that committed and willing to sacrifice so much of their time just to categorise Wikipedia articles, only for it always get reversed. As an administrator told him in April 2018, when I spotted one of his socks, surely he must know by now that the categories will always get deleted. I assumed he had quit since then, but I'll keep an eye out. DarkKnight2149 22:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, CensoredScribe still shows up a lot. We've got a similar problem at the video game project with a user (who used to edit under a bunch of accounts named "Andy"/"Andrew") who always goes around adding fake release dates to articles only to be instantly reverted. JOEBRO64 23:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For reference, since the user was banned back in 2014, is it necessary to semi-protect some articles to prevent further disruption? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. They're almost always instantly reverted. We basically have this place on lockdown. JOEBRO64 00:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured they would be reverted, immune to WP:3RR. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, five years. Yikes! I remember reverting his categories and participating in discussions about them as early as 2015/2016. I last spotted one of his socks in April 2018 and reported it to the proper SPI. I assumed he would have given up by now, but then I noticed this thread and checked his SPI page... He's been cranking out socks regularly since then :/ DarkKnight2149 01:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to blacklist certain titles of categories? Is so, perhaps we could use that to blacklist variations of "Category:X-Men franchise characters" and the like before he creates them. Or that the very least, have them creation-protected. DarkKnight2149 01:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I can ask an admin to sprinkle some salt on 'em. I'll try to start a list of these categories he creates as well so we know what to watch. JOEBRO64 01:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Or since it's been five years, we could travel through their edit history to collect Infinity Stones, forge a new gauntlet, and snap to make all the dumbass categories he creates vanish. JOEBRO64 02:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Is there an administrator that most deals with this user? Looking at the SPI, Ponyo, Bbb23, MarnetteD, and NinjaRobotPirate show up a few times. If we can compile a list of titles of the categories that are constantly having to be deleted, perhaps one of them can create-protect the categories (and any title variations) as proposed?

I'm not an administrator but it seems like a better idea than constantly playing wack-a-mole until this user gets tired... Which, at this rate, is never (It almost feels like these categories are his life's work, with the rate that he has shown up in the last half-decade). DarkKnight2149 05:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There's the title blacklist, but I don't know if the categories CensoredScribe creates would work as a regular expression. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: That's why I think create-protection would be a better option. But I'm not an administrator; maybe there's something I'm not considering? Doing so would mean that no one can re-create these categories without discussion, but that's already the consensus to begin with. CensoredScribe/Schmidt-austin is also absurdly relentless when it comes to creating these sock accounts just to create the same categories that everyone firmly agrees shouldn't exist (which has led to some editors, including myself in a couple of instances, spending hours across hundreds of articles reverting the categories). DarkKnight2149 02:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What categories is he recreating? If I notice it, I usually salt pages if they're repeatedly recreated by sock puppets. If he's creating the same general type of category with a different name each time, salting them won't really do anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

He recreates the exact same categories, but he often uses different variations of the names of the same categories whenever possible so that we don't notice they were recreated. There's only so many names possible for a single category, however. We can create a list of the ones he has used and link it to you. DarkKnight2149 06:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A list of titles might be useful to determine whether the title blacklist can be used. However, if he's repeatedly getting caught because the title is obvious, forcing him to learn to be sneakier might not be the best solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we're already passed that point. Over the course of years, he is already doing everything he can to not get caught. That's why he started thinking of different variations for the names of the same categories to begin with. And when your entire M.O. hinges on going back and re-adding those categories to the exact same articles, you can only be so sneaky. DarkKnight2149 17:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's a start: User:TheJoebro64/sandbox/CensoredScribe categories JOEBRO64 23:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Channel on WP:Discord

A few of us over at the Webcomics work group happen to frequent the Wikimedia Discord server quite a lot, and we are considering asking the moderators there to create a space (channel) specifically for our discussions. ferret (talk · contribs) suggested we'd ask the larger project if they are interested first, though. This would involve a certain level of activity on Discord and a banner on the WikiProject page. If there isn't enough interest here, I suppose we'll make it a purely webcomics-focused one. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the Phoenix Force a "supervillain"?

Just asking[1]. I am of the opinion that cosmic entities like the Phoenix, or Galactus, etc, are beyond such classifications, but I could be wrong. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:142D:D882:130F:3CEB (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia uses sources and outside universe perspective. Then yes I would see it ok at least as a category. For example: Dark Phoenix being ranked as the top comic book supervillain by IGN. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not fond of it, but I guess I can live with that logic until a better idea comes along. 24.13.141.28 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Rape of Ms. Marvel"

This series of edits is concerning me; is that independent commentary "POV-pushing", as the editor suggests? 2601:241:4280:161:DDA9:A4FF:741:DFFD (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, and User:Logan3043 was mistaken when saying the page "doesn't exist" because an archive link is available. I have restored the material. Hopefully Logan will discuss here (or on the talk page). Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

New article on Frank Cirocco

I have created an article on Frank Cirocco, a comics artist and video game designer. Within the comics industry, he is best know as the co-creator of the Alien Legion series for Epic Comics. Cirocco has worked in the video game business for several decades but I have no proper reference sources for his extensive contributions in that field. Anyone who has expertise and reliable sources for the history of video game design/development is welcome to expand the new article. Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Two things

1. Swamp Thing (2019 TV series) has been canceled after one episode. Several pages will require update:
   • The article about the series itself
   • 2019 in American television — I'm too scared to do this one; here's why.
   • Template:DC Universe programming
   • Any other pages that mention the series and its airing
   • List of television series canceled after one episode
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group/Cleanup listing has not been updated since 2016. The last edit by a bot was in 2010, when WolterBot (talk · contribs) was retired. Its intended replacement, CleanupWorklistBot (talk · contribs), last edited in 2014 and was never approved for use on enwiki. As a result, it has fallen into disrepair — for instance, several pages (such as Powers and abilities of Superman in May 2018) have been deleted since being listed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group/Cleanup listing is also due for an extensive update. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A current clean up listing for the comics project as a whole can be found here. I don't know if there's a page for the publisher workgroups. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion of Bob Morane

I have started a discussion of whether Les tours de cristal should be merged into Bob Morane (comics) if anyone is interested please join at Talk:Bob Morane (comics) Dwanyewest (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Tense for IOM appearances

Just curious for what the consensus would be. User:Btpowers91 has been going around for some time changing "This character appears in this movie/game/whatever" to "This character appeared in this movie/game/whatever" or "This actor portrays" to "This actor portrayed". I for one thought that since we use present tense for fictional descriptions, should we not also use that for appearances outside of the main fiction? As in, whenever you read a comic, watch a movie or TV show, or play a game, those events are happening (over and over again, as it may be) while you are viewing them, rather than considering them past events? I'm not sure though, so I figured I would bring it up here. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

In universe descriptions use present tense. "Han Solo rescues Luke Skywalker from freezing on Hoth." Real world uses past tense. Harrison Ford and Mark Hammill reprised their roles as Han Solo and Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not sure. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as Lightforce?

As in the opposite and equal to Darkforce presumably? User:Penguin7812 has added this to Cloak and Dagger (comics)[2] and Darkforce[3] without citation, making it impossible to tell if this is an actual thing from the comics, or if it is WP:OR. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The better question: Why does that article exist? --Izno (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That may be your question, but mine remains unanswered. If a concept does not even exist in the comics, we should not be mentioning it at all. 76.231.73.99 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

[4] Penguin7812 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we call Shang-Chi a superhero?

As per this edit? 68.99.79.11 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Just from looking at other pages, it appears that "fictional superhero" is the normal term to use. Also--the definition isn't a question of neutrality, but rather accurately describing a fictional character with superhuman powers. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"character" is the preferred word. "Hero" might be obvious for some characters, but there have been countless edit wars over "anti-hero", "anti-villain", and the like. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this was the last time it was discussed. Consensus wasn't as clear as I remember, but I might be thinking of another conversation. With keywords like character and superhero, the topic isn't easily searched. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted it to just "character" again. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible MoS proposal on fictional characters

There's a discussion regarding a potential WP:MOS on all fictional characters. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Manual of Style for fictional characters?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A few new categories

Are these legit character categories? 68.99.79.11 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cwf97: Have a look at this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment request: Fiend-ship Is Magic

There's an ongoing dispute regarding My Little Pony: Fiend-ship Is Magic at Talk:My Little Pony (IDW Publishing)#One-off or not.. Although it ran for five issues, Fiend-ship was published alongside Friendship Is Magic (IDW's primary publication) and Friends Forever (the secondary publication at that time), it did not replace Friends Forever as a secondary title outright, and all its issues were published within the month of April 2015. So I view Fiend-ship as a one-off publication like annuals, Holiday Special, and other specials. But someone thinks otherwise, and claims Fiend-ship should be considered as a secondary title along the lines of Micro-series, Friends Forever, Legends of Magic, Ponyville Mysteries and Nightmare Knights. Care to give a comment? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Actors in lead sections

Just perusing various comics related pages and noticed that someone seems very keen on inserting lead section paragraphs on character pages, naming actors in (usually recent) movie adaptations, usually in the form "made his/her cinematic debut...". This often follows mentions of other media appearances, but no other voice actors etc are usually mentioned, privileging movies over all other media, even the original comics. The original creators, or relevant historical creators, are rarely mentioned in these lead sections. Just actors.

Perhaps it is relevant in some cases, but even minor appearances like Mac Gargan in a recent movie are placed in the lead. Isn't the "In other media" section the proper place for this? Otherwise, why are only movie actors considered important enough for the lead section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.48.158 (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Creators should be mentioned in lead sections. The lead should also mention the types of other media the character has appeared in. If the film actor(s) are the only ones with blue links, I would be inclined to only use their names. These seem like areas for improvement though, not additions that should be reverted. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Kree: Does this sentence make sense?

"Yahn Rgg and Ro-Nan also appears in this reality where he is the Ultimate Universe version of Yon-Rogg and Ronan." Reading that sentence straight on, it doesn't seem to make much sense. Are we talking about two characters, or one character with two identities? If we are talking about two characters, why are we using "appears" and "he is" instead of "appear" and "they are"? If we are talking about one character, why isn't this rewritten to make that clearer? I certainly am confused by this sentence, how about you? Perhaps User:Penguin7812 can explain the intention on keeping it reading in such a format[5]? 2601:241:4280:161:C03A:7EE:6362:F5B1 (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The source provided doesn't support the claim that's being made (that they are Ultimate versions of Yon-Rogg and Ronan). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, a non-issue then. Hopefully User:Penguin7812 understands why you made the edit you made. I see this sort of thing all the time, you know, such and such is an alternate version of such and such, or inspired by, or whatever. Most of the time I leave it alone, but sometimes you really need a source to prove it. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Nyx article?

Hello guys, I have been thinking about creating a article about Nyx, the main villain of Avengers No Road Home, most specifically this character [6]. I think the character should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I don't if it should as a article or as a section in List of Marvel Comics characters: N. What do you think? Penguin7812 (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this specific character, but my general rules can be seen here. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry I already finished that, Nyx (Marvel Comics). Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 10:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate?

An editor has been adding a paragraph to dozen of articles along the lines of this example from Al Williamson:

Williamson was one of the artists photographed in his studio for The Artist Within: Book 2: Behind the Lines ISBN 978-0692917565 by photographer Greg Preston, published in 2017.

References

It's always referencing one of two books in the The Artist Within series, and the strong majority are comics creator pages (there are some animation and other artists, but it leans comics enough that this seems the relevant project.) I want people's input on whether this is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As the editor in question, please find I started adding the info (with appropriate references) about The Artist Within to the various pages of those artists who agreed to be in the project not as promotional - but as a reference point, because the books document those artists within their creative working spaces. In that many of those artists have now passed, the collection of artists within the books serves as an important reference point of popular artists of the 20th century. It has become enough of a reference point, that venues such as the Academy Awards, the Eisner Awards, and publications such as The Atlantic Magazine, The Washington Post, and Newsday have utilized the portraits within it. While studios and processes are sometimes described within some artists wikipedia pages/articles, the Artist Within collection of the two books uniquely documents those artists and their individual creative workspaces. I hold that 1. being included with the overall collection of artists assembled is significant and not trivial, and 2. That the portraits of the artists within and depicting their native studio spaces is also significant as documentary reference on those individual artists and how they work/worked. My edits were perceived as being promotional when that was not the intention, and would like to seek discussion and consensus if the information is appropriate, and how it may be included. I suggested perhaps reworking the original sentence and including it as a book citation? Thank you for your thoughts. Martinishot77 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Being included in these books isn't like being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, receiving an Oscar, or some other curated professional honor, which speaks to their notability. It's one photographer's choice of whom to photograph for his book, and the fact that these artists sat for him tells the reader more about his notability than it does about theirs (which is established by the rest of their articles), which makes the insertion of it into those articles smell like spam. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

References for more information about the subjects of articles are not generally placed in article text. They are either included as references for statements of significance about the subject (and as you've shown no such information to be gleaned from these books, do not try adding them thusly), or in Further Reading or External Links sections (and again, adding this book to a significant number of articles even in those ways would come across as promotional.) The subjects of the articles that you are adding these to are generally people who have been covered via interviews and histories in a number of sources; the inclusion in this one pair of books does not stand out as being worthy of special notice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I would challenge that I'm not sure that being included in the collection isn't an honor, since it is a collection of arguably many of the most noted popular culture artists of the 20th century. That said, I understand the concerns of the information seeming promotional or spammy when added across multiple pages, and thus in coversation Nat Gertler asked for this discussion to be opened. Again, what I do hold that the photographic documentary aspect of the individual artist(s) within their working creative space is what makes it a unique and significant reference point for an encyclopedic article on that individual artist(s) and their work, but understand if that may not be everyone's POV. Nat Gertler as I mentioned before, I have not and will not be adding any more edits with regard to this topic until some consensus is reached. I'm not seeking to to violate Wiki policy or precipitate edit wars. Thanks again for your thoughts and candor.Martinishot77 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a noted honor, like an Oscar is; it's a single individuals selection among the people they were able to get, and that person doesn't seem to be of any particular notable influence.

I should also note that even if the second book had any information that might be of use on a page, we could not use it as reference in most cases. It's a self-published volume, and we are barred from using self-published sources for information about living or recently dead people (unless it's self-published by the person in question). --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Finding no support for the poster's view that these are appropriate additions (and with my hand slowly getting better - that was slowing me up from doing things), I am resuming deletion of these additions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a clear case of WP:REFBOMB; see the first bulleted example in particular. REFBOMB is an essay, not a policy, but I strongly agree that sources should be used only to verify meaningful content about the subject, and not hitch a ride on statements which amount to no more than "The article subject is mentioned in the cited source."--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Chameleon allegedly in the new Spider-Man movie?

After discussing at Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Does the Chameleon appear in this movie? and getting no response from User:Hhggtg3279 who would rather edit-war[7][8] than discuss his sources, it is clear to me that it is mere speculation to say that the Chameleon appears in Spider-Man: Far From Home in any capacity. All the sources I have seen which try to claim that a character named Dmitri is actually Chameleon have a lot of "may be" and "we think" sort of speculative talk - in other words, I have not seen a source which can confirm that this is the same character instead of just some random character who happens to be associate of fake-Fury. So, how do we determine that this Dimitri is really supposed to be an extremely low-key supervillain, using such dubious sources as "Blasting News", and then the link to comicbookmovie.com which says things like "May Introduce A Different Take On Chameleon", and notes that the director said "We're not specifically saying that he's...but we're not not saying." and somehow this user is translating that into proof that it was definitely the same character? Do we even have a source on the character's last name in the film being the same as the character's last name from the comics? Alternately, there is the ScreenRant link, which says "This immediately tipped off Marvel fans that he could be playing Dmitri Smerdyakov, better known as classic Spider-Man foe Chameleon. This role was never confirmed to be who Acar was playing, but we learned some surprising details about him." So, again, do the sources support the assertion that this is the same character? It looks to me like these sources are just speculating, and that there is no official confirmation and the movie doesn't identify him as such. Meanwhile, if my assertions are correct, then the user needs to stop edit-warring to include this information and find better sources to confirm his viewpoint. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Smerdyakov is not the only Marvel character with the name Dmitri, though he is the one most closely connected to Spider-Man. See here.

The most notable of the others is Dmitri Bukharin, the longest-serving character to use the Crimson Dynamo identity. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's no conclusive proof, but the creators are keeping their options open if they want to use him as that character. However, unless there's a reliable source stating that this is definitely the creators intention, we shouldn't put it in articles, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't put spoilers for recent films in your subsection title because this page shows up on people's watch page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Thor family tree

I have updated the Template:Thor family tree with its new current members. However, User:TriiipleThreat keeps reverting it to its original outdated form. We need to solve this as I don't see a reason why not to include these members of Thor's family as they're legit members and deserve to be in the main body and not just mentions. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 11:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the dispute, just from reading the edit summaries, is that it has to do with the need for sourcing rather than the inclusion or exclusion of the family members.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the source is actually there if check the template. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 16:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The source cited for the actual tree does not mention these characters. Penguin7812 is using WP:OR for their placement. Is Cull Odin’s youngest brother? Is Angela older than Loki? Etc. That’s why these characters are mentioned in the notes and not in the actual tree.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:. I'm not doing original research. Who said that the placement judged the age of the characters. Plus, Cul is the younger brother of Odin and we don't know the age of Angela so she may be older than Loki. This tree needs to be updated, similar to Template:Venom family tree. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 05:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Who said that the placement judged the age of the characters. That’s how family trees work. They read top down and left to right. It’s best just to mirror the actual source. These new characters are still mentioned in prose, so no information is lost. I have no idea what’s going on in Template:Venom family tree. That looks like a mess.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Does this fact also aply for Template:Skywalker family tree and Template:Flintstones family tree? And don't make fun of me, I'm trying to solve this argument with polite, its not my fault that I don't how most things work, since I'm still learning about this. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 12:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

They should. Whether or they do is another question. I’m not making fun of you but I am not sure using a family tree is the best way show the relationship between symbiots since it appears that their family structure / reproduction is so different than our own.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, these family trees need to go as being expressly how we shouldn't write about fiction. But that wouldn't fit the MO of the persons in this section I suspect. :) --Izno (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, these are all the Fictional family tree templates in Wikipedia. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 14:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would stop, if you showed a me a proper reason why my edits are wrong, since I don't see a reason why. If you or a admin could tell the proper and convincing reason, then I'll stop. Also, I don't see any other editor who supports your reasoning. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 13:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat:, we're still talking. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 11:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we are. I don’t have a problem with the use of family trees in articles about fiction in general, if the article is plainly and clearly described as a work of fiction. However, as stated earlier, I’m not convinced that a family tree is the best fit for Venom.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about the Thor Template not Venom. I want you, along with other editors to provide me a proper reason, why my edits on the Template:Thor family tree are wrong. If you can't or won't give me the reason, then I will edit the template again. I'm asking just this. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 09:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I did. Also discussion doesn’t work like that. As the person who wishes to make the bold change the burden is on you to gather consensus in support of that change.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Aight, @Argento Surfer: @Jhenderson777: @Bd2412:, do you support my change about the Template:Thor family tree? Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 10:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of the trees linked from this discussion are worth including. Relevant family should be named and linked in the prose. I don't see how a diagram will help readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is a family section in the List of Thor (Marvel Comics) supporting characters. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 13:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so a diagram helps on that page. It doesn't need to be a template placed on the page of every character named in it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yea you right. These Templates are actually kind of useless, since there are sections on articles already talking about these subjects, why not just delete them? I actually would support this. Once the consensus is reached, I will discuss the deletion of these Templates on the talk page. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 12 Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Brother Voodoo

Is this a WP:CRYSTAL violation? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be. Crystal #5 says it is not a collection of rumors. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if it weren't crystal, it still wouldn't be worth including. Lots of characters get discussed when these films are being made. It's not notable until they're confirmed and cast. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Lex Luthor

This page might need some looking into. I can’t edit war with him. I just wanted factual information. Not just what DC said. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it anywhere outside of edit summaries? The account hasn't edited outside of that article. The information should be restored to the stable status quo until the dispute is resolved.

I'll check some of my price guides tonight and see how they list the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It is important to note that even the Grand Comics database backs what I am saying. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Mik’s amazing world of comic has a source for its on sale date. You can see the source by the magnifying glass 🔍 Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Grand Comics Database is peer editable just like Wikipedia. It is not a legitimate reference. It is ironic that this other user isn't interested in "what DC says:, given that they created the character. Of course, it's not just DC, it is also Overstreet, CGC, CBCS, and pretty much every comic book oriented database you can find online. Literally the only thing the other user tries to use- in contravention of all of the above other, actually factual sources- is Mikesamazingworld.com, which of course if you click the magnifying glass the other user tells you to, specifically states that "publication dates are NOT release dates", and that DC did not even release official release dates until 1958. Which is why "Mike" only gives "Approximate" release dates. Given that the other user is trying to edit Wikipedia to be in direct opposition to all known and accepted comic book authorities (Overstreet, CGC, CBCS), as well as DC Comics themselves: https://www.dcuniverse.com/encyclopedia/lex-luthor/ he should be required to come up with a much less flimsy citation that does not even actually say what he was attempting to edit. -jaydubp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubp (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please just stick to this page and please use Wp:tildes. I am going to be busy for a bit so maybe other people can weigh in. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You do realize I never said that Action Comics #23 wasn’t the first appearance right? You keep acting like I do. It’s not like any of my edits removed it from the first appearance. I even said that most sources cite it as first appearance. So therefore I was inclusive with it. I just have a concern that the other comic was released first. We may need further digging. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Can we uninvolved get a...TL;DR for what's going on here? Reading that edit history was... interesting. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Later...unfortunately I am off to work. Yes it’s been interesting. lol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Roger that...about to board a flight myself. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I may have a little bit of time. Basically he is disputing this one edit I made. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the 41st edition of Overstreet, Action 23 is the first appearance, and Superman 4 is second appearance. Both entries note that it's with red hair.

According to the 57th issue of Wizard, Action 23 is the first appearance, there was no information with the value fore Superman 4.

I could not locate any mention of Luthor's first appearance in Jones or Benton.

At this time, I do not think Mike's Amazing World is reliable enough to warrant adding the release date claim to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the source is only going by newsstand date. Which is the only thing that states it earlier. So I am going to remove it and a similar claim in Cheetah (comics). I only assumed this was a Sandman (Wesley Dodds) type of first appearance which happens every now and then. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok so a similar claim that I placed in Cheetah (comics) is removed. Since same source and all. @Argento Surfer: Is there any sources that can also confirm newsstand date. So I can nip this in the bud once and for all. I don’t see how Mike finds the sources for newsstand date but I am curious. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

An unreliable source but a well summarized read IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsstand dates for most Golden Age comics are just about impossible to pin down. Publishers were inconsistent on how far out their cover dates went and they were low priority for distributors who didn't always get them delivered to newsstands at the first available opportunity. One of the few ways to confirm a release date is through an in-house ad promoting a new book, which is where the release date for Action Comics 1 came from. User:Tenebrae and I discussed this at one point, but I'm having trouble locating the conversation. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I figured it out. The supposed source that the website uses is an House ad of Action Comics #22. Page 14. Man I am slow sometimes. :p Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Venom/Symbiotes navbox

Hi, I've been trying to clean up the Template:Symbiote Family and Hosts to make them in line with how the vast majority of comic characters naboxes are formated (not including every single series/film/game that the character has apperead in for example) but another user keeps adding all this cruft back in. Last time it happened they reverted every single edit I had made to the template, even those which are unrelated to cruft links (such as the category link at the bottom) and called the version I had created a "mess" for whatever reason, while instead making this rather hard to read version with odd child boxes with small text instead of a propper use of subjeaders.★Trekker (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just put the a single section named hosts, so no reader will be able to know which person had hosted which symbiote and also remove those video games and storyline where the symbiote species play a major role in, because it's just "too much". Yeah great "idea". No just kidding, I totally disagree with you. You could check the Template:Skrull and Template:Kree as have suggested. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 15:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am the creator of said Navbox. So I feel that Spider-Man 3 belongs but not Spider-Man tv shows/ comics books outside of episode or story arcs that center on symbiotes.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Spider-Man 3 being there, if we did that we would have to create a standard where in a character playes a decent part in a story we include it in their navbox we're going to be overflooded with minor cruft in navboxes. We have already decided that the Captain America: Civil War film shall not be included in the Spider-Man in film or Iron Man navboxes because of this reason, despite them being a major part of the film.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your passive agressive sarcasm isn't going to impress anyone. And neither of those templates should honestly really need to exist that way in my opinion at all. Just because you managed to find two other bad templates that doesn't make the Symbiotes templates less bad in it's current shape. Also, how come you keep reverting back to the barely readable version of the navbox with the miniature childboxes inside of other boxes instead of just trying to at least use the version that existed first that looked decent?★Trekker (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and been bold and removed the "other media" cruft from the Kree and Skrull templates, character navboxes should only include media in which the character is the focal point of the work, otherwise it's going to turn into navboxes simply being borderline articles instead of navigational tools. At one time Penguin I used to feel the same as you, that any media where a character playes a part should be linked, but then as years pased by I realized how unwieldy that becomes.★Trekker (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this up to other editors now. I feel like I have said my piece and have nothing to add. Others on this project can decide if this navbox will be overturned, get special exception or if our standards for navboxes should be overall changed, in any case I would like to see consistency on this subject. Happy editing.★Trekker (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If your idea is to remove the in other media section of Template then I'm OK with that, but I do disagree with the host section since it still need clarification. Look, I recently had a similar pretty heated discussion over Templates with TriiipleThreat, as you may see above, and it ended in pretty bad terms and I don't want to end up in the same. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, I just wanted to joke a bit. I hope this ends well. Thank you for reading this. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 literally was centered on Spider-Man having the symbiote suit and technically was the main antagonist throughout the film. Someone might feel different about that though. I welcome any opinion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Plus, I wouldn't call those Template bad, since they're Fictional species Templates just like this one. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 12:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Origin of Batman

Just giving a shoutout to anyone who can maybe help out or expand on this article. It’s off to a rusty start.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I slapped a GOCE tag to remind myself to take a look at it. I'll try to do it in the next day or so. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: OK, I just did some surface level copy-editing. It looks mostly good. The article does feel a bit repetitive, so you might want to find ways to address that. At points I was deleting the same sentences repeated verbatim in different sections. Also, for the Dark Victory comment, you should really cite where it came from so you don't get revdeleted for copyright violation. Lastly, check out WP:CITEKILL. There are a lot of places in here where there are really too many citations. 4 or 5 at a time is just too much. BUT overall it's good. Nice work here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the suggestions and input. I only take credit to the reception section though for the most part. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Danny Figeroth's book "Superman on the Couch" had a chapter on Batman and other orphans and why they resonated so strongly with everyone. There might be some insights there that can expand the analysis section. You can view some excerpts of it here (page 64, if the link doesn't take you straight there). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

StickFigure1993

I am concerned that the user StickFigure1993 may be a sockpuppet. Either way all he does seem to be doing is adding fancruft in navboxes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems like @*Treker: had a few warnings with him too. But I am concerned an editor like that doesn’t listen. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I try to remove as much fancruft as I can on navboxes, but I can't say I remember this specific editor, but their patern is very familiar.★Trekker (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Overcategorizing?

Is Category:Spider-Man (2002 film series) characters a legitimate category? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Or Category:Fantastic Four (film series) characters for that matter? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Short Answer: No. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Should they be merged, or just deleted? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Argento Surfer (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Another one of the same type by the same editor: Category:Daredevil (film series) characters. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Could this be another CensoredScribe sock? This certainly appears to be in line with previous socks' behavior. JOEBRO64 23:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  User:Cwf97 has been around since 2016, if they are a sock that was a long time to be evading! 2601:241:4280:161:ECC1:5E28:8D30:2FB (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  We just had a longterm editor caught and banned for socking elsewhere. The length of time is irrelevant besides that CheckUser data lasts only for a short period. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it immediately reminded me of that behavior though I didn't recall the name of the account offhand. I would support an WP:SPI filing for the editor. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

These should all be deleted. Wikipedia has established that we do not categorize characters by their apperence in adaptations.★Trekker (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Superman and Lois Lane

Is this article really necessary just out of curiosity? I can understand things this and potentially Batman and Robin (duo) being notable topics if done right. But I am not sure it is. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say as a couple they're pretty notable. But "necessary"? I'd say most articles on comic book stuff isn't actually what one would call "necessary". I would not support a deletion of the page, but I wouldn't cry over it either, there is much content which could be added to it I think as of right now to make it better.★Trekker (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I am kind of lazy to see if it is or isn’t a content fork for right now. That’s what I mean by "necessary". Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting much when I followed the link, but it looks well sourced and mostly free of POV and OR. There are far too many non-free images though, and I didn't give the prose a careful examination. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Banned user's creations

User:Penguin7812 was banned indefinitely yesterday as a sockpuppet of an account that was banned last year. Some of his contributions (image files mostly, a few templates, and a few articles) could have been useful in general, although I know we do not accept material from that sort of account. I don't know that restoring any of it would be acceptable, and I'm not even sure that trying to find another way to use any of it would be good, other than doing it over from scratch. Does anyone have an idea on what the ethics are for "I want it but can't have it" situations like this? :) Maybe it's a silly question, but I'm asking all the same. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not to retain contributions you think are valid. I thought most of his efforts were too fanboyish and I have zero interest the templates he made, but I think doing a blanket revert on everything he did during his tenure would be counter productive to improving Wikipedia in general. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolute Carnage looks like it was built using RS, so if any of them could be viewed as salvageable, it may be that one. I will look more into that later today as a test case. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I second restoring that article. Absolute Carnage is a big crossover that has lots of RS coverage. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That is indeed a well known current arc that is going on. Also I kind of supported his work of Knull (comics). It wasn’t perfect but it can be improved on. I think the character met Wp:GNG IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Okie dokie, I restored those two articles after reviewing the above comments. If someone has an issue with that, hopefully they will address it here since I put a link in my edit. BOZ (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

BOZ, it appears that despite the histmerge, the overall article was still CSD G5'ed for sockpuppetry / banned user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Any other ideas? BOZ (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion on Spider-Man (Insomniac Games)

I just had an GA nomination review saying I should probably change the infobox of this character out of confusion for readers which as of right now is the comic book character one. But I feel like I disagree on that. I feel like it should probably be like Harley Quinn etc. where the character was integrated as a character within the comic book universe. What are your thoughts on that? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Top characters" lists

In a number of articles on superheroes, the lede mentions lists of "Top 50 superhero characters" or whatever from various "prominent" magazines like IGN. I don't think these are insightful. Even if these magazines are "big" (however you judge that), these lists have probably been written by one or two geek-head journalists who were probably working on a tight deadline to make some click-bait article for their boss. If we want to demonstrate the significance of a character, we should use a more objective metric, such as movie ticket sales, comic book distribution, or merchandising revenue. That's what I tried to do in the Superman article. I found some figures for merchandising sales and comic book sales and put them in the article. Kurzon (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, I'd like to see the removal of female characters appearance on 'Sexiest superheroines' lists. Is there any need for that at all? --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, "top" lists are not very useful unless there is context and reasonings for the ranking. Writing about why a character was placed on a list or is well liked is insightful, not the ranking so much in itself.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In movie articles, we routinely list awards from the Golden Globes or the Oscars. I think that may worthy of inclusion because those awards are voted on by a large body of people (industry insiders) so they carry a little more weight than a list that was probably written by just one or two geeks. Kurzon (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can I ask that Kurzon doesn't go around removing big chunks of text and leaving behind broken references based on a discussion he started 24 hours ago and which has had 3 replies? The Joker article does not mention any of that stuff in the lede for the same reason movie articles don't mention specific awards in lede (or shouldn't if the MOS is being followed correctly). If the publication is itself notable there is no reason not to present them IN the body text. If it's a trivial source and a trivial list like "sexiest" characters then yeah get rid (I'd probably remove the WhatCulture list on Joker in the modern day), but I'd rather this discussion actually play out AND a larger consensus be reached before massive chunks of text and broken references are just whacked into articles en masse thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this discussion needs to continue before any action is taken.★Trekker (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. I've reverted all changes so we can get more discussion. JOEBRO64 11:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• My two cents: I think including the "top X superhero/character" lists are fine for inclusion in articles. If they're from notable publications, they demonstrate the critical and cultural impact the characters have. However, I do think the information should be condensed into something like "[character] has been ranked among the greatest superheroes of all time, including by IGN, Wizards, etc." JOEBRO64 12:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should be dismissing journalists from notable publications because they may or may not be geeks. Also sales are not an indication of critical reception plenty of well-received series have not sold well and vice versa. If the publication is notable, then so is the list. However, we should limit inclusion to say the top 10. After awhile the superlative becomes less impressive. I don't think anybody cares who is #57 on any list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just how do you judge the "notability" of a publication? Shouldn't it be the specific journalist who wrote the article? A lot of these lists are anonymous articles. Kurzon (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:IRS. No, obviously we can’t use WP:SPS sources but as long as the author is employed by the publication it isn’t our concern who they are.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Would you cite Tucker Carlson as a reliable source on anything concerning Donald Trump, since Carlson is employed by Fox News? Kurzon (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Straw man aside, that’s just not how we determine reliable content per policy.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The big problem with these lists is the lack of objective criteria. A publication/journalist states that character X is 'greater' than character y. How is this decision reached, beyond WP:ILIKEIT? Even a list voted by the public will be problematic owing to self selection. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There is never objective criteria for art. We write "X expresses that the character" and "X feels that the character" just like we write for films that are considered good.★Trekker (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is why it's so bullshit! If a subjective opinion is believed by a large share of the population then it is notable because it is a popular opinion. That's why Academy Awards and RottenTomatoes scores are something to take notice of, even if they're not the Word of God. But with an IGN list you're only getting the opinion of one or two journalists and their editor. How is that insightful or noteworthy? Kurzon (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's better than nothing honestly, which is what most of our comic book character articles have right now.★Trekker (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Then put some bloody effort into finding something better! Wikipedia editors love to hold committees but very few ever step up to get shit done. I put a lot of effort into the Superman article but got no respect for it. Kurzon (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

How unfortunate for you, but that's neither here nor there. I can say myself that I tend to cite books more than IGN for reception sections but I don't think it's bad if people do cite someone from IGN. I would prefer if it was more than just random numbers listed tho.★Trekker (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is literally random nerds on random sites giving their opinion on something which is then collated using a secretive method by a website owned by a company with a self-interest in film. It's possibly the most dishonest site we can use, but it's also all we got son. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Film critics for the most part are not "random nerds".★Trekker (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My two cents. There is actually nothing wrong with a reception of a journalist ranking characters on the greatest or worst or whatever. Wikipedia could use info like that more on the comic book articles more like the video game articles. Sure it's subjective but it works if the source is reliable. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not insightful. Reliability is irrelevant in this context. Kurzon (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Argento Surfer

I think citing "Top xx" lists is mostly useless and don't want to see bare rankings in a reception section, much less a lead. However, I also think they are better than nothing at all and should only be removed if other third-party sources are present in the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, don't put them in the lead. Kurzon (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to move them from the lead into a reception section, I'd be behind you 100%. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I too feel like they should not be in the lead. The lead should summarize the reception. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV may apply here. An opinion on value of a character is only worth mentioning if it's held by the majority of the population, and some journalist's personal Top 10 list does nothing to prove his opinions are shared by the majority. On the other hand, things like TV ratings, box office takes, reader polls, and merchandising sales can provide some metric of popularity and cultural significance, even if not perfectly reliable. Kurzon (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We also got to seriously ask ourselves what makes a source notable. Anything that Albert Einstein said about the cosmos is worth mentioning in any physics article, because he rewrote the book on physics. Einstein earned that respectability. What has IGN done to make its opinions more respectable than that of the guy who runs your local comic shop? It's website ratings? Fox News and Breitbart get high ratings -- do we consider these respectable sources of information on American politics? Kurzon (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not how NPOV works.★Trekker (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sales, and box office receipts, etc. are all well and good but it doesn’t replace critical reception. Besides, we include reviews that our contrary to popular opinion all the time. IGN meets all the standards set by WP:IRS. Also if your local comic shop guy was respected enough to get his opinions published by a reliable source then we’d include them too.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose IGN is reliable for facts but why should we care about its opinion? And if you want critical reception, use something like RottenTomatoes or Metacritic (which can only really apply to stories, eg Kingdom Come, not characters like Superman who can be either shit or wonderful depending on who is writing). Kurzon (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course IGN is reliable for opinions. It's one of the most respected entertainment websites in the medium, and about 70% of their content is reviews/opinions. Also, Fox News is literally listed as a reliable source at WP:RS/P. JOEBRO64 12:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Review aggregators (ComicBookRoundup.com is the only available for comic books) are great for overviews, but good reception sections will still require pulling thoughts from specific reviews. Even then, not all of the sites aggregated by CBRU meet our standards for reliability. Plus, those reviews are for individual comic books, and we're talking about a reception characters for individual characters who may or may not be the stars of the works being reviewed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: IGN is a reliable source for getting IGN's opinion. But why should we care about IGN's opinion? That is what I'm asking. Kurzon (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Because IGN is a reliable source. Their contributors are not random nerds shouting in the dark. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If we can't accept IGN, who's opinion should we be listening to? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's, I suppose. We don't need a Top 10 list. Kurzon (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on that I suppose. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 05:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Octopus IOM section plot

Would you consider this edit to be dumping an excessive amount of plot info? I tried to remove it for that reason, but I was reverted and I do not want to edit war, especially if I am wrong about MOS:PLOT. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Way too detailed for our purposes, and creating an almost unreadable wall of text. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks! The IOM section on that article is huge enough even without that addition. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source for voice actor

Is this a reliable source to identify that a certain actor voiced a certain character in a cartoon? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Have never seen the site before myself.★Trekker (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I see. Any thoughts on its reliability? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well on a first glance it looks professional, al the writers have full names and it seems to cite reliable sources itself. I think we need input from more people tho.★Trekker (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Massive slew of comics-related deletions from one user

I don't know, but... does this (hundreds of edits already going back to just Aug 25, mostly just applying the deletion templates and warning the users who created the articles, little other activity) seem like quite a lot of PRODs and AFDs to be applied to comics character articles from just one user? I mean, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article alerts hasn't yet caught up with all of that, but I'm afraid it will implode epicly once it does. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This is normal cleanup of articles continuing to be subpar. It's more or less TTN's MO, but in most cases his judgement is correct. --Izno (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

And to add: TTN's actions in the past has been reviewed by ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2), and is the origin of WP:FAIT. As Izno states, from these, TTN's judgement are usually correct. --Masem (t) 02:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing those links you provided, they don't seem like they would work in TTN's favor. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This entire discussion is alarming. And I have seen similar discussions here.

What is wrong with this Wikiproject. It seems to have gone off the rails, and is engaged in agreeing with and suborning the destruction of information on its subject, and for insufficient cause. It seems to be populated at least partly by people who don't seem to like comics very much. Maybe it should be renamed to WikiProject Anticomics or something.

I mean, other Wikiprojects don't have this attitude. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations doesn't go around deleting articles on railway stations or cheering on people who do. Quite the opposite: they are interested in increasing the number of articles on railway stations. This is, you know, normal for a Wikiproject with that name. (There are surely a lot of people who have no interest in articles on railway stations and perhaps think they're dumb. Those people probably haven't joined WikiProject Stations, because that would be silly, and instead go and and create information in the areas that do interest them. Why it doesn't work this way with this Wikiproject I don't know. But sometimes entities get disfunctional. It's alright; it happens. The thing to do is right the ship, is all.)

It there isn't some kind of reform, such as suggesting that that people who have the wrong attitude perhaps look for other work, we are going to need outside eyes on this Wikiproject, and bring in the larger community to take a look at it, and decide what's to be done. Herostratus (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem is that there are thousands of comic articles which are very poor and lacking in notability.★Trekker (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Trekker here. Part of this is a respect-from-other-parts-of-Wiki thing. Writing about popular culture, we're automatically viewed as being churlish fanboys. And you will find that there is a lot of support here, as Trekker and others pointed out, for deleting some of the cruft. The issue, Herostratus, is that you are comparing apples and oranges. It's very well and true that we could use more articles on train stations, and that expanding coverage of those is a good thing. But those may have (and likely satisfy) completely different notability standards, and, say, no equal non-Wikipedia database that is accessible. It's very easy for us to be told "Oh, this should just be on a FANDOM Wikia." We struggle with a bloated amount of content, as evidenced by this deletion spree, that completely fail notability guidelines.So I really don't see the need to sound all the alarm bells, as you have. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

There are also way too many comic character articles that are just plot recaps instead of reception/influence/analysys content, even if the character is very notable that ends up looking poor.★Trekker (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

False premise. WikiProjects are not just for creating content, they are also for curating content. Sometimes curation requires removal of content which does not meet our core guidelines and policies. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the community, the community would seem to agree else the AFDs would not end in deletion. --Izno (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether you are viewed as churlish fanboys. I don't care if you think that you "end up looking poor". We are not here to make friends but to build an encyclopedia. I do not care if people tell you "Oh, this should just be on a FANDOM Wikia". Neither should you. You have a job to do here, and fuck those people.

Overall, our job here at the Wikipedia is "To make the internet not suck." Remember? Our subtask here is to make the internet not suck for people looking for information on comics. I mean... the existence of an "equal non-Wikipedia database that is accessible" is not a good reason for deleting a Wikipedia article. If it was we should perhaps consider deleting half our articles or closing down the Wikipedia altogether. Wikipedia articles have inherent value for a number of reasons. And to hear an editor imply otherwise is alarming indeed.

I don't mean to be harsh. It's easy to lose one's way, especially if there's peer pressure. You make this decision, you make that decision, and one day you wake up and you're running a shabby and illegal bear-baiting operation behind an abandoned strip mall in Campton, New Hampshire, and you realize that somewhere you took a wrong turn. We've all been there. It's alright. It's just a matter of getting back on the right path. We do not really want to be in the position where are basically replacing perfectly fine articles with this:
Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You really are something else, Herostratus. The great thing is, of course, that we can always recreate something that is deleted if someone feels it can be greatly improved. But I think you're presuming a lot about the comics cruft we have being "perfectly good" and "nice". Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• The nominations are done in good faith, but given how many have resulted in merges and redirects I think TTN could apply a bit more effort at exploring alternatives to deletion. That said, TTN might not be knowledgeable enough about the subjects to know what targets would be ideal. He may also be in favor of deleting the character lists entirely, in which case proposing merges now would be disingenuous. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  The particular problem of alternatives is that they do not work. Place a merge tag? Nobody responds, and then someone gets mad and reverts them when I redirect them after a month of no responses. BOLD redirect? Someone gets mad, and it gets reverted. Take my time to fully merge relevant information without opposition? It gets undone en masse by some anon IP a year later. Ask relevant projects for input? They don't care whatsoever, and the articles are still an issue literally a decade later in some cases. I understand some of it may be in part due to my reputation, but regardless pointless bureaucracy gets me nowhere. I get that some people may feel that I'm being overly aggressive and rushing things, but we're talking about articles that have existed for close to 15 years. Nobody cares about them until someone points out that they're a mess. I generally believe outright deletion and then a new redirect is the best course of action anyway, as there is rarely anything worth merging. TTN (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  I can sympathize with that. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright. So moving on, I made my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonmage (2nd nomination)] and another place. Nevertheless, the article was destroyed (via conversion to redirect), basically on the basis of "Destroy, per above" votes. I believe that I provided sufficient demonstration that the article ~~meets~~ met the WP:GNG, and at any rate this was not refuted I don't think. However, the vote was 9-3 to destroy, and altho its not supposed to be a vote... it's a vote. You are almost never going to find a closer going against a 9-3 vote and taking the resulting shitstorm.

The two nominations I looked at, I believe they meet the GNG. Like very many articles, it's a judgement call and others may disagree. It's hard to get an objective answer, because everyone comes in with their own point of view about these things. This includes yours truly, and it also includes you, Dear Reader. I think there's a fair amount of snobbery here at the Wikipedia to be honest. I see it often enough. But maybe I'm an anti-snob. However, I would say that if an article meets the GNG (or could), or even if it's evenly debatable, the presumption would be not destroy the information and render future readers unable to enjoy the access to it that current readers do.

I do know a little of this. I wrote the Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist. I don't think I'm too liberal. Maybe I am. Ref vetting is an art. I also sampled 100 articles. I found that 49 were covered by the GNG or probably could be without too much trouble, 22 covered by an SNG (Special Notability Guideline), 29 probably not meeting the GNG or easily made to do so. That is 29% (or 50%, depending on how you feel about SNGs), which comes to 1.7 millon articles to trim. Or more. So, lot of work to do there, if one is so inclined.

So, I mean there's really no call for User:TTN to be picking on comics in particular. It's his right to do so (maybe -- but that's a different discussion). Why he would do this, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader. At the same time, it's the right of Wikipedians to expect a project named "Comics" to defend our articles on the Comics-related subject against stuff like that. We appear not to have one functioning at this time, but that can be maybe corrected. That's another discussion.

Well, User:TTN, who is not a member of this project and is hostile to its goals, can crow tonite. This project ought to be ashamed of itself, to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your objections as a non-project member are noted. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashamed of what exactly?★Trekker (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"I don't think I'm too liberal. Maybe I am." - you are. You were (maybe still are) under the impression that membership in the LoS was sufficient to meet GNG. In reality, no fictional aspect of a character conveys notability. You need something real. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To my mind, I think he's focusing on the wrong things here. Are there a great many articles about characters that fail GNG? Absolutely. We, as the Comics Project, should not allow comics related articles which are unencyclopaedic. However, there is a way to be positive about this. Make articles which are. You can't create an article on a member of the Legion of Superheroes, so write the series, or the creators. Did they have their own series, or a back-up strip? Were they a character in an anthology? Do these avenues pass GNG? I think it's much more realistic to focus on the tangible facts of comics history. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Well, the main point being whether one is hostile to the idea of expanded coverage of comics or not, not whether someone put their name on a list. Yeah and OK "ashamed" is a bit rich, I just mean that in this particular instance I don't think that this project did what I personally think it should have, and what I believe other projects might have. Don't mean to get all combative there. I do that sometimes.

So anyway, I wasn't talking about being too liberal regarding whether articles should meet the GNG. Let's say, for now and as things stand, that they should, or perhaps must. Let's say we can all agree on that. The question, on which I could be accused of being too liberal, is what refs are sufficiently reliable to be counted toward meeting the GNG.

So I mean, of the two articles on The Big Hit List that I looked at, Dragonmage meets the GNG and Uni-Mind could have been made so -- that is, I think they meet the GNG; it's something that reasonable people can disagree on, but IMO I have a strong case and I made it -- and it was destroyed anyway. This is, to me, a shame.

Alright. I have some points/questions/comments about the more general questions, and I'll make them in separate threads below, for anyone to engage or ignore as they see fit. Thank you for your engagement and sorry if I came off a bit strong. 19:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References could use some refreshing or discussion about appropriate reliable sources. Some sections of it are a little questionable to me; I'd prefer to see clear and obvious delineation between reliable and unreliable sources on that page. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I support this fully.★Trekker (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes this seems worthwhile. Obviously a lot of love went into that page and it'd be worthwhile to keep it current. It's a lot of research to get these things right tho. Herostratus (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mycomicshop.com and AtomicAvenue.com commericial sales sites used as citations

Several Wikipedia articles have an incredibly large number of citations made to two commercial websites - Mycomicshop.com and AtomicAvenue.com. While I would like to assume good faith, the sheer volume leans toward WP:CITESPAM and WP:NOTADVERTISING

See the following articles:

• List of Marvel Comics publications (A–C) - 702 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 19 citations to Atomicavenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (D–G) - 651 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 32 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (H–L) - 429 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 12 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (M) - 481 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 14 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (N–R) - 330 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 91 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (S) - 17 citations to Mycomicshp.com and 585 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (T–V) - 20 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 319 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

• List of Marvel Comics publications (W–Z) - 19 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 520 citations to AtomicAvenue.com

That's at least 2,649 citations to Mycomicshop.com and 1,592 citations to AtomicAvenue.com (a total of 4,241) spread across just eight articles. Wikipedia is not here to drive sales traffic to online retailers. Would we allow a "citation" to Walmart.com or Target.com on a clothing-related Wikipedia article? If someone wishes to buy a comic book, they can certainly find their own retail option of choice as in WP:YELLOWPAGES

Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think its intentional spam, someone likley found it and used it because it was easy.★Trekker (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted. However, it's still a massive number of links to sales sites. We're concerned with WP:NOTADVERTISING rather than if something is "easy". Is Wikipedia just a glorified billboard for someone hawking their wares? WP:NOTLINKFARM Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Compared to finding other sources, yes using a simple website that just lists stuff that you can click trought is rather easy. Finding articles to cite on the other hand would have taken far more effort for the person. You said that you "would like to assume good faith", that's what I did, I gave a possible reason for why someone would have used the site. I'm not arguing that it's not garbage that should be remove, it certainly should.★Trekker (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

These should, if possible, be replaced with Grand Comics Database citations. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a separate discussion about this here. I have provided my justifications for using these two sites as sources at this discussion here. In short, I believe that my use of these two e-commerce sites as sources was appropriate under the WP:AFFILIATE policy, and does not qualify as spam. For a more detailed explanation, please see the linked discussion. @Etzedek24: Grand Comics Database would not be allowed as a source under the WP:UGC policy.Wilkinswontkins (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not want to pursue this matter further per my most recent posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Thor's abilities

Looking for input, but was I right to revert this edit? The new editor who added that was apparently upset that I reverted their sprawling list of added abilities to the infobox, and tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page, but honestly their response is a bit rambling and I'm not sure where to start, so hopefully you have some input to help. It's not the first time (or the longest addition) that I have reverted from Thor's infobox, and I feel it is honestly long enough already without adding a dozen or so more things. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Housekeeping?

Any objections if I go thru the member list and remove those editors who haven't made an edit in two years (informing them what has been done)? @Herostratus: go for it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Would anyone like to comment on the dispute happening here and at Taskmaster (comics)? It would appear that the user Amakuru wasn't aware of the discussions that took place in 2017 that led to WP:NCC being changed and is blocking certain page moves just because a lot of pages haven't been moved since then. DarkKnight2149 23:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Superhero fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Superhero fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Superhero fiction (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Old Man" comics

Some years ago Mark Millar wrote the Old Man Logan comic, set in its own continuity, the Wastelands. First it was a miniseries. Then there was a new one, which was actually a tie-in to Secret Wars: it started in the wastelands, then had him roam across other realms of Battleworld, and finally he landed in the main universe. The wastelands were eventually explored again in the series "Old Man Hawkeye" and "Old Man Quill", Logan returned to it in "Dead Man Logan", and now there will be a new one, "Avengers of the wastelands". Which is the correct place to talk about all this? The Old Man Logan article, or a new one? And if a new one, should it be called "Wastelands (Marvel Comics)" or something else? Ultimate someone (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless you have sources that discuss the subject with enough detail to sustain an article, you could add brief details to the appropriate box at Multiverse (Marvel Comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion invitation

An RfC that affects your project has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Please review the discussion and contribute as you see fit. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

edit war on Darkseid

Somebody might need to look into this dispute on images. All I am aware is that I prefer the current image for now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 09:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems like they are both pretty clueless, and do not know about 3RR. I'm leaving a note on the talk page, should anyone else want to join discussion. I agree that the current image is better than the previous one. If any further EWing goes on after I post my note I will report them for warring. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have left both editors edit-warring warnings on their talk pages. I've also reverted to the original image per WP:STATUSQUO while discussion is underway. There's no reason why anybody else can't start discussing which image is preferred. You don't need to wait for the edit warriors. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The talk page could benefit from others who have a good understanding of the WP COMICS MOS with regard to infobox images. The warring editors are missing the point. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Darkseid infobox image

WP:COMICS editors are welcome, nay encouraged, to comment on the Darkseid infobox image discussion and RfC because we are nowhere near a consensus. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. I will see to it if I can decide what is my favorite image when not busy. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Identifying sources (late 1980s–early 2000s)?

Hello there, WikiProject Comics! A couple Wikiproject doors down, I've taken up the somewhat masochistic task of trying to organize all the topic space covered by Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons. We have a little bit of crossover space, in terms of List of Dungeons & Dragons comic books. Excuse the sad state of affairs in that list; an organizing list for the subtopic didn't even exist until a few hours ago.

Surprisingly (to me, anyway), although both D&D and comic books suffer from, if anything, an overabundance of articles on drilled-down microtopics, Wikipedia's coverage of the D&D-themed comic books is depressingly bare. Nevertheless, there are fairly big names attached to some of these series. I can't imagine its impossible to get reliable sources about their announcement, their release, and likely even reviews in contemporary reporting. But, um... I usually pride myself on my ability to source random topics, but I don't have the faintest clue where to look for reliable information about pre-Internet-era comic books. And if there are going to be articles on some of these titles, we're going to do them right.

So, does anyone have suggestions on where I'd look? I assume print periodicals are the go-to here, but I'm not sure which ones to start with (assuming I can even locate them! -- stuff I have a hope of finding is, of course, preferred). I'm most interested in quality sourcing for the major licensed runs: the 1987–1991 DC Comics titles, the 2001–2004 Kenzer & Company titles, and the 2004–2008 Devil's Due Publishing titles. The IDW stuff is recent enough to have web reporting, so that's just a matter of cleaning up the composite article we have now, sourcing things properly, and getting individual topics written where appropriate; I can do that. The earlier stuff... that's where I could use a hand! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As a list article, stuff like Grand Comics Database will be able to help as far as confirming that they exist. Some people are under the impression GCD is user-generated but additions to that site are verified and vetted. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideally you'd want access to the weekly industry newspaper Comics Buyer's Guide and to the monthly disfributor catalogs, mainly Diamond Comics' Previews. Not sure how you'd lay hands on either, mind you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wizard (magazine) and Hero Illustrated probably covered the 1990s and 2000s books with a blurb or two. I have a good-sized collection of both, and if you can pin down the time frame for me I'd be happy to take a look and see what I can find.

Amazing Heroes probably covered the 80s material. I agree with Nat about CBG and Previews. Both are usually available pretty cheap through mycomicshop.com, although it'd be a crapshoot on if you were getting the right issue.

I'm sure Alter Ego (magazine) covered the comics written by Roy Thomas in one of the issues spotlighting his career. I have all of them and would be happy to try locating relevant material for you.

Michael Witwer's book Empire of Imagination (2015) might cover the comics, but I'm not sure. I'd suggest browsing the index of it before committing much time or money. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that list isn't daunting in terms of actually acquiring the sources. Nope. Not at all... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll check some of my history books as well. I don't remember any D&D references specifically, but I might find something usable. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Comics Journal and Amazing Heroes published by fantagraphics might cover publishing details as well. For the UK market Speakeasy and Comics International would be of interest, they might have run interviews. Tripwire is also a possibility. Hiding T 20:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi-Beast

You are invited to join the discussion here. My two cents is I feel like comic book related articles are now being ganged up by non comic book fans to be merged. As an mergist (when not notable) I am usually not bothered. But I feel they are quick to judge "not notable" just because an article is not perfect. Which should be a no-no. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackgate Penitentiary. Always the same editors that vote delete. This is why it is essential to prove notability to help prevent deletionists from erasing everything. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As one of the "deletionist" editors, who is also a comic book fan, I think you are being very unfair. Sometimes comic articles just don't reach the levels of sourcing that WP:GNG requires. You may also want to look as WP:CANVAS, in particular the section on campaigning, to see that you are treading on very shaky ground here. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No I am not canvassing. I just said my two cents. I said I am too a deletionist. Pay attention. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

I linked the article and then stated an opinion on what I am thinking is going on. Per Wp:Goodfaith. I didn’t intend to canvass. Just link and share an opinion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you AGF that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all I never did an accusation as near as bad of canvassing of any editor. I am an deletionist too. The worst thing I accused was that the editors were deletionists and are appearing in the same topics with statements like "not notable". That's it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're picking Bi-Beast as your mountain to protest on? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What mountain? Protective? I am just telling a cautionary tale as to what happens to articles being not notable proving. No need to gang up. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually yes. Although I am not protesting still for that one character. Although the character has been around in Hulk titles and in Marvel and is referenced in books. We have articles on more obscure characters. There may be potential. Sounds like you are judging by the cover. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I figured I am allowed to post this here? Since it’s relevant and same AFD nominator. Don’t mean to canvass although I would vote Keep or actually merge it (not delete it). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar (Marvel Comics). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Themyscira (DC Comics)

Was I wrong in thinking this is a notable topic? I personally thought so since it’s a major Wonder Woman location. But it could use more sources though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You were right to contest. I found at least two reliable secondary sources in about five seconds. It was a bad BEFORE and a bad PROD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s now a bad AFD too. But that’s none of my business. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Marvel Comics characters

The various lists of Marvel characters is pretty much just treated like a graveyard for non-notable characters. The DC lists are simply either tables or just lists of links. Should the Marvel lists be formatted to match DC? I feel like the characters currently in the lists should be redirected to relevant series articles in which they appear. It makes much more sense than having X amount of articles redirected to the lists, and then culled when the lists get too large. TTN (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No the DC lists should match the Marvel list more IMO. Which I am trying to work on and scrap the ridiculous subjective minor DC comics characters list all together.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no objective criteria for inclusion. Between DC and Marvel, you have probably a combined 150,000+ characters when counting alternate versions. Even if Wikipedia is covering 1% of those, you'd still have overpopulated lists that could maybe dedicate a single sentence per character at best. The current form of multiple paragraphs is simply not sustainable under the current structuring. When redirecting to series in which they originate, you can at least figure out which characters from each series is suitable for inclusion. TTN (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Marvel lists used to be a bulletted list. The transition to paragraphs began about 7 years ago after a lengthy discussion on this talk page. The main purpose of the list is to house information for characters who are only notable within the fiction. That prevents articles that refer to the character from needing to repeat content.

There was no formal qualifications, but most of the early redirects were the result of individual merge discussions. After general guidelines were established, a few editors began merging characters boldly. A couple years later, another user began pruning the lists of characters who were too minor to be included. Some editors protested, and consensus was that characters should be removed from the lists one at a time (he'd been removing them in bulk) so they could be contested/restored more easily.

There have been attempts at objective criteria - I've developed some that I apply in discussions - but in general they're difficult to implement because there's always a gray area.

There were plans to treat DC lists the same way, but I think we underestimated how long the Marvel project would take to complete. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I Agree that neither the DC or Marvel character lists are suit for purpose, the DC lists having no information, and Marvel too much. The Marvel lists in particular are being used to store non-notable information, and they both seem to fail every guideline of WP:LISTN and WP:LSC. In particular: "For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." Similarly, we should not list every Marvel character, and certainly not provide in-depth bios. What I may be okay with is a much reduced table, providing character name, first appearance, creators, and a few sentences at most describing them and their powers. Think the back of a trading card. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to change the format, I would prefer to do so in a formal RfC so we can get input from a wider cross section of editors. We'll need clear options to choose from though. @TTN: would it be accurate to summarize your ideal as a bulleted list of blue links? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Optimally, I'd say a list of only blue link articles so the lists could likely be condensed seeing as DC and Marvel each should have maybe 500 notable characters, but failing that I'd be fine with a table set up similar to the DC A list or Killer Moff's suggestion. The criteria for inclusion should be very specific if it will include non-notable characters. TTN (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Just a heads up. That this relevant draft exists. It is in need of constructive copy edits as I take a much needed Wikbreak. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Bucky a villain?

There has been some disagreement at the Bucky Barnes page as to whether the page should include villain categories. One argument is that since he was depicted as an antagonist in some story lines so he should be considered a villain, and the argument on the other hand is that since he was brainwashed he did not do these actions of his own volition so should not be considered a villain. What is the consensus for whether these categories should be included on this article? 2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bucky is a character. The consensus at this project for a long time has been to use a generic term and let readers decide for themselves if a character is a villain, anti-hero, or whatever. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Him being a brainwashed Winter Soldier does not make him warrant having a supervillain category. Also @Argento Surfer:, you do realize the editor is talking about a category right? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware. If we're not classifying them in prose as a villain, they shouldn't be categorized that way. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I figured! 2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue Ear

Is there somewhere this could be merged? It definitely has enough sources to stand alone, but it feels like it would be better placed as a section of an article rather than left as an eternal stub. It's more of a charitable publicity stunt than an actual character. TTN (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of any good merge target off hand, but it could be revised to be about the one-shot comic instead of the character, which would increase its scope. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Superhero and Supervillain - or just "character"?

This has been discussed here numerous times before, but new user Classifiedleague has been adding the labels "superhero" and "supervillain" to the lead sentence of many character articles, including to those for whom such labels are not very clear (like Magneto and Loki, for example). I reverted some of them, but I think it would be a good idea to discuss, or at least remind ourselves why we use the neutral term "character" in many cases? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Juggernaut is another example. 2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to discuss this again, since it's covered by WP:ANTAGONIST. We provide the generic term (character) and the reader can evaluate their hero/villain status for themselves. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, if I spot Classifiedleague doing that again, I will point that user to this discussion. This WikiProject needs an FAQ for this sort of recurring situation as a guide for new users (and some established users, too). ;) 2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Any other suggestions for what should be on it? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I am sure there are a few items that come up again and again, but I cannot think of one off the top of my head. That may be worthwhile to look into, though! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, here's one - trivial non-appearances, should they be included?[9] Answer: almost never. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that's come up one, two three, four times before. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)