Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Comics and animation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...

Scan for comics AfDs

Scan for animation AfDs
Scan for webcomics AfDs
Scan for comics Prods
Scan for animation Prods
Scan for webcomics Prods
Scan for comics template TfDs
Scan for animated series template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Comics and animation

Amanda Sefton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirety of character's reception relies on short quips from listicles, including some unreliable sources. A WP:BEFORE showed no supporting signs of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin Morgan-Richards

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, in short, this person does not seem to be WP:NOTABLE. The majority of the sources listed here are low-quality and seemingly self-published works, many of them outright published by Morgan-Richards himself. Pages associated with him, like Simon Snootle and Other Small Stories (a self-published children's book), are similarly low-quality and non-notable (many blogspot references on that page.) This page was previously deleted, in 2012, and note that it looks like someone tried to WP:Gaming the system: random IP editors and apparently single-use accounts, including one with a reference to Morgan-Richard's band, who was later banned for sockpuppetry. wound theology ◈ 16:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating for deletion the following related pages because they were created by the same single-purpose account, lack reliable citations, and don't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notice that the 'interviews' that Morgan-Richards has done ([1], [2], [3]) are associated with this strange little website: Voyage Interview Invites or clones of it. I think this is some sort of vanity press. wound theology ◈ 17:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Icon News and Carmarthen Journal are just outlets for press releases. The Express reference mentions Moran-Richards as a witness, and the source is used inappropriately for something it does not concern. wound theology ◈ 18:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Susangrigg1 has made other pages on Wikipedia sister sites, like Wikiquote:Lorin Morgan-Richards. wound theology ◈ 16:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 17:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations in the article are low quality and a search in both the Wikipedia Library and news sources didn't turn up any significant coverage. The related articles on his work The Goodbye Family also doesn't appear to have any notable coverage or reviews.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as wound theology ◈ said above there's an entire ecosystem of articles about Lorin Morgan-Richards on Wikipedia, with this navigational box template showcasing the various articles. Should we consider expanding this AfD to include all these articles? The articles all appear to have been created by a single-purpose account and appear to lack reliable citations supporting notability. SouthernNights (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it can be done here, we should absolutely consider all of them together. wound theology ◈ 07:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Poetry, Theatre, Comics and animation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SouthernNights and User talk:Wound theology above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - Thanks to User:SouthernNights above for noticing Template:Lorin Morgan-Richards, which shamelessly lists all his books and includes seven other existing WP articles that share the same patterns of sourcing to his own social media and retail listings. Everything has been primarily edited and/or created by User:Susangrigg1...

...but if we delete this one article on the author, all the others (plus the template) will be orphaned and will have to be handled in some fashion. That would leave us with a procedural mess. I think this needs a coordinated effort to tackle all the articles in a higher-level discussion, but I'm not sure of the proper procedure because it might end up as a trainwreck. After that, I would recommend a salt restriction. I must admit that an impressive amount of work has been put into this ecosystem of unsupported promotion. Too bad all that effort was dedicated to the wrong platform. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(EDIT: true vote is now below.) For what it's worth, I am in favor of Delete for the author page nominated here but kudos to him and his supporters for giving us such a mess. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have an itching feeling that Susangrigg1 (talk · contribs) might have a conflict of interest, to say the least... wound theology ◈ 16:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RELATED ARTICLES BUNDLED INTO AFD. I have bundled in all the related articles that should be considered for this AfD. I recommend people state their views below regarding if all the articles should be deleted, even if you originally stated an opinion above. As an FYI, I have followed the directions for bundling multiple related articles into one AfD as found at WP:BUNDLE.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of this discussion is to delete everything, the remaining Template:Lorin Morgan-Richards would then be ripe for deletion because it would have nothing to navigate to, but just note that there are different criteria for deleting a template. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. My reason above for deleting the original article also applies to all the related articles, ie, the citations in the articles are very low quality, don't support notability and a search doesn't turn up any significant coverage.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per my procedural comments above. I was a little concerned about the trainwreck problem, but deeper inspection shows that all these articles were created by the same editors for the same reasons and with the same weaknesses. Relevant policies are WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NBOOK, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Another is probable -- WP:COI -- and could be fully investigated if anyone tries these shenanigans again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not seeing any higher quality sources out there for the several of these I've looked into, and additional related bios by the same editor, Jason Shepherd and Peter Anthony Freeman, appear to be of equally poor sourcing and notability. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I missed the related Jason Shepherd and Peter Anthony Freeman when I bundled the other articles into this AfD. Since we're well on the way to reaching a consensus on the already listed articles, I'd prefer to not add two new ones to the mix. We can create a new AfD for them if needed. SouthernNights (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is sound. Taking another glance, it looks like the other listed contributors at Celtic Family Magazine have already been deleted and turned into redirects, except for the Hope twins, who appear to be more notable. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these promotional, poorly sourced articles per the above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above, etc. wound theology ◈ 16:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comix

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't currently show any WP:SIGCOV. A search only resulted in how-to articles, which fail WP:NOTGUIDE. I have a feeling this will remain as a WP:PERMASTUB. 11WB (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. 11WB (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Turn it into DAB: There are articles that has "Comix" in it. (i.e. Comix Book, Comix India, Comix Fair). Second option is Redirect to Comics and tagged as mispelling. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Fighter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was about to move it to create a disambig (since it doesn't appear to be the primary meaning), but... is this even notable? No references, Korean Wikiepdia article is no better, this substub doesn't even tell us what year this is from (it's from 2005...), and my BEFORE fails to find any WP:SIGCOV reliable material. Even Korean popular Wikipedia contributor with the usual low bar for popculture trivia doesn't have much to say about it (Namu Wiki entry). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was merge to Donald Duck (film series). Editors are free to exercise discretion in merging to other related pages as needed. Left guide (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duck Presents

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This show is just a compilation of old shorts. Is it really notable enough to have it's own article? Nejvis (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nejvis (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Disney. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Duck (film series). Fails WP:GNG, even if the book reference in the article is significant coverage, it's not enough on its own. --Mika1h (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mika. Could it also be merged to Donald Duck or Donald Duck universe? G🎮mmeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Duck (film series) Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Powtoon

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:RS. Primary sources substantiate a majority of the content found on the page currently - hardly any third party coverage. 30Four (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not meet WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence, Software, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to be about the product rather than the company: The pre-AI flagship product appears to be notable, see e.g. [4], which states "PowToon as a learning medium has been studied several times" and references various studies. There are other sources such as [5]. Much of the article content can be salvaged in a potential rewrite, so I am weakly opposed to deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I just reverted a major addition of content that was added before the AFD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Helpful Racoon, should be rewritten to be about the product. Additional sources[6][7][8][9]. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helpful Raccoon's argument is convincing. Schnookums123 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to American Express#Marketing and advertising. ✗plicit 00:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Seinfeld & Superman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable with WP:SIGCOV for its own article. Could be merged perhaps into American Express (where already enough material for these tiny webisodes is present, and maybe something else on Jerry Seinfeld's page or something else, but this is not independently notable. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and United States of America. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 19:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 20:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Express#Marketing and advertising is probably the best target. Definitely lean redirect, but I am not firm, on the target. I feel like the MacGyver advertisement for Mastercard was (slightly) more notable, but I may be a bit biased. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Express#Marketing and advertising: hasn't had much of a lasting effect since the ads came out. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Golf War

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the number of guest stars, I do not see how this episode specifically is notable for a page and deserves more than a redirect, considering the sources used. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 13:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 13:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the avoidance of doubt, I assume the redirect alternative to deletion the nominator is referring to would be to Gravity Falls season 2, in line with other not-separately-notable episodes of the show. (I don't have any formal opinion on this article, however.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The reviews from The A.V. Club and The Mary Sue are good, but I could see the argument for the latter not being a notable enough website to count towards GNG. (This review also falls into that latter camp; this review is pretty trivial to me.) Fully agree that if this isn't kept, it should be redirected. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect TMS is reliable (it's owned by Gamurs who are pretty reputable) The other two are fanblogs, I couldn't find a good third review Olliefant (she/her) 02:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RunningTiger123, two reviews are enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Other than the list of celebrity appearances, the article contains very little notable information other than the plot summary, which has already been marked for being excessively long. Most of the non-plot information included is also already mentioned on the season page anyway. Two pieces of toast (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other deletions

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Dino Aventuras (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2025)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R comics with possibilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Template:R with possibilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R comics from alternative name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Template:R from alternative name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R comics to list entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Template:R to list entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R comics from merge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Template:R from merge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R comics from related word (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Template:R from related word (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R comics to section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Template:R to section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:R comics with possibilities with Template:R with possibilities; Template:R comics from alternative name with Template:R from alternative name; Template:R comics to list entry with Template:R to list entry; Template:R comics from merge with Template:R from merge; Template:R comics from related word with Template:R from related word; and Template:R comics to section with Template:R to section, respectively.
Note that this isn't a proposal to merge all these templates into one huge template, but to merge the comics redirect templates into their non-comics equivalents. I think the comics redirect templates should be merged into their respectively similary titled templates, without the word 'comics' in them, because they otherwise serve similar purposes, and I don't see the point of them being separate. I'm open to the proposals of the templates without the word 'comics' in their titles having the {{{comics}}} parameter instead if that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and its participants want. I'm surprised these proposals weren't made sooner. I've deliberately excluded 'Template:R comics naming convention' from this proposal because it serves a specific purpose and because there's no non-comics-related template similar to that one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll wait for the rest of the discussion before formalizing my position here, but I don't find this template scheme in today's landscape the correct way. If this is a valid scheme for comics, then there is no reason why this isn't valid for films, television, horror, NZ politics, F1, etc. For the same reason I also don't think adding a parameter or having the categories (for example Category:Comics redirects from merges) are a good idea. Other media have templates such as {{R from film}}, {{R from television program}}, {{R from song}}. If comic books need a redirect template, then {{R from comics}} or {{R from comic book}} can be created (characters already have {{R from fictional character}}). If the comic book WikiProject wants to track their pages, then just add {{WikiProject Comics}} to the talk page of the redirect. Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've long felt there are too many near-duplicate rcats. I see no reason to have separate versions just for comics. Alas, I don't work in comics articles so I'll leave it to others to hammer out the specifics. I see you've announced this TfD on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, so that's good. — voidxor 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure I completely understand the ask here. If you merge, for instance, Template:R with possibilities and Template:R to list entry, what are you wanting to merge them into? I've particularly used both of those redirect templates on numerous pages that have nothing to do with comics. Maybe instead of merging, you more correctly want to delete all of the "R comics..." type redirect templates, and simply start using the correct redirect templates? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹(Tadg^Talk-Email) 19:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TadgStirkland401: The nominator wants to merge all the comics into the non-comics. I.e. merge the first with the second ("R comics with possibilities" with "R with possibilities"), the third with fourth ("R comics from alternative name" with "R from alternative name") and so on. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2025-11-09 I feel that the proposal is clear enough (replace all the "R comics" templates with their regular counterparts), and I weak support because this also seems unnecessarily redundant to me. If anyone has a good reason for keeping them then I'd be interested to hear it! But my hunch is that it's just historical cruft. Hopefully an automated replacement can also automatedly "add {{WikiProject Comics}} to the talk page of the redirect" or whatever (if anyone actually cares about that; I don't really know) as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per voidxor. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the actual intent here. This was mislisted as a single merge (i.e. to one template), when the intent is clearly to merge {{R comics with possibilities}} to {{R with possibilities}}, then separately merge {{R comics from alternative name}} to {{R from alternative name}}, and so on. This should be done unless there's a compelling reason we need to divide each of these "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" rcats into topical subdivisions, and that comics in particular should be one of those subdivisions. (Even if that's actually true in some case, it is not necessarily true for all of them.) We shold do all of these merges in absence of a strong showing that one or more should not be merged. This is basically useless micro-intersection, of a sort that badly mixes categorization types and purposes. The identification of something as a comics topic is already accomplished (and is a reader- as well as editor-facing matter) by comics topical categories of the usual sort. Meanwhile, "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" categories are maintenance only and just editor-facing (nor do these generally need to be topically split, since editors working on categorization of, and other maintenance pertaining to, redirects that go in such categories are doing so on a cross-topical basis. Another way of putting it is that a redir being from an alternative name (or whatever) and it also pertaining to comics is a trivial intersection and non-defining characteristic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support what was presumably the intent here per SMcCandlish. There is no clear reason why comics, or any other topic, needs a distinct version of the general purpose RCAT templates. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support intent per SMcCandlish. Happy Editing -- IAm Chaos 23:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SMcCandlish.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the actual intent here i.e. to abandon the need for comics to have their own set of redirect templates. The generic set of templates do the job perfectly well. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question to supports: You are all saying you support the nomination, but three of you said per "SMcCandlish" which (if I read correctly) isn't in support of continuing with the comic-specific categorization. So it would seem the intent here is to replace (or redirect), rather than merge any functionality. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no need to differentiate FaviFake (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only Support merging the comic variants of these R-cat templates into the corresponding general templates with matching names. For the avoidance of doubt, I Oppose merging the various R-cat templates that do not include the word comics. The proposal is badly worded and confusing at first glance. It would have been clearer if a separate proposal was made for each template that it was proposed to merge with its corresponding target template; as I interpret the proposal, it is only proposed to merge Template:R comics from merge into Template:R from merge, etc. This is not actually a proposal to merge all these templates together, even though it appears to be one based on the way the templates are listed. Hence my partial opposition. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 23:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the "redirect comics" after they have been replaces with the "normal" R-templates. My first vote was support, but it was unclear what I was supporting, but still per user:voidxor. strong oppose merging. Christian75 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support if I've understood correctly that this is fundamentally equivalent to replacing "R [media type] from [relationship between source and target article]", at least for those articles to do with comics. If we have "Redirect from alternative name", we don't need a more precise "Redirect from comic with alternative name", for example. I think I'm in agreement with BobKilcoyne. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOPAGE Freddy^{[citation needed]} 18:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 15:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Will this have any effect on the 109,000 uses of {{R with possibilities}} other than to add that template to a few comics redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to clean up PK2's confusing nomination to make the intent clear. BD2412 T 18:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks so much for doing that. PK2 (talk; contributions) 03:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Daask (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support mergers of 'R comics xyz' to equivalent 'R xyz' templates and categories. The duplicate 'comics' categories serve no useful purpose. There is no clear rationale for comics' special treatment and this is likely to lead to inconsistent tagging. Oppose adding 'comics' parameter as I have not seen any rationale for adding this. Overall, I support simplifying Rcats and not having a million ways to subcategorize them unless there is a meaningful benefit to maintenance or another aspect of the project. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.