This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
I know that this has been hashed out numerous times, but bear with me once more. If a character does not appear in a film, video game, or TV episode, but is merely mentioned by another character, or their equipment is shown in one scene, or that sort of thing, do we make note of this in the character's article or is that too trivial to bother mentioning? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 23:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
My question is, are the sources provided in this edit considered reliable sources to demonstrate a good reason why they should be included in this article? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a weight issue to me. Twenty years from now, will even fans care about this trivia? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it at all appropriate to use the Cite Episode template as a "citation" for a character's appearance in an upcoming episode of a television series as seen at the Dracula and Red Skull articles? 50.141.204.194 ( talk) 03:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of comics articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from April 2015, and I've noticed in reviewing them that some appear to have only primary sources, namely issues of comics, as their references. See, for example, Porcupine and Mad Thinker. Others do not have in-line references, for example Marvel Zombies: Dead Days and Last Hero Standing.
I have looked through some of the WP:COMICS pages, and I have been unable to find a guideline or policy that says that this sort of (non-)sourcing is acceptable for articles about comics characters. What am I missing? An article with this sort of sourcing in other categories would be proposed for deletion quickly for not having significant coverage by reliable sources. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is requested at Template talk:X-Men media#Short titles. -- Izno ( talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:San Diego Comic-Con International#Poster. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that some characters have trivial abilities listed in their info boxes. I've seen editors remove "martial arts training" and "hand-to-hand combat training" since many comic book characters have this type of training; I agree with the removal of such abilities. However, if the training is essential to the character's persona or background (ie: Bronze Tiger, Batman, Deadpool), then I would leave it in the info box. Also, when it is listed in the info box, I think it goes well with other similar abilities in the same bullet. For example, in the Deadpool article, his training in the martial arts, swordsmanship, and marksmanship are grouped together, rather than listing each discipline in its own bullet.
Also, I believe the bullet format looks better than simply listing the abilities, as this reads easier and prevents confusion from the previous line. If we see a character whose info box does not have a bullet format in the abilities section, I think we should make the change.
I'd like to get the opinions of other editors on this matter. JosephSpiral ( talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have invited 24.42.17.117 ( talk) to join this discussion, as they spend a great deal of time editing these infoboxes. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The ability of "genius-level intellect" is in the infobox of numerous characters who aren't known for having a gifted mind. Like an accelerated healing factor, a genius-level intellect should be reserved for those characters who are known for this ability. JosephSpiral ( talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen over the second paragraph of this section of the San Diego Comic-Con article. Can editors voice their viewpoint in the discussion on that article's talk page? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 06:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this an actual game? [1] We don't have an article on this game. 2601:D:B482:CCE0:3173:7EC3:9DDD:3452 ( talk) 16:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I think many of our comics and comic book artists articles are rather poorly illustrated, which I assume is because of the copyright problems. Has anyone thought of approaching publishers and artists directly asking them to release some artwork into the public domain for specific articles? It seems to me that publishers would have an interest in having well illustrated articles about comic book characters, and artists as well. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Joker_(comics)#Requested_move_12_May_2015 that is related to this topic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Joker (comics) to be moved to The Joker (character). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Big Hero 6 (film) to be moved to Big Hero 6. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Propose the development of categories:
The idea would then be to place the categories into:
Currently there is already an established category:
Which acts as home to:
and to articles:
amongst many others
My suggestion is that all appropriate universe related articles could have namesake categories created for them and that these categories could be placed into the umbrella categories mentioned above.
I would also suggest moving other contents into a "universe" based navigation scheme:
This whole issue has been brewing in the back of my mind for a while and things came into focus in discussion of a requested move of:
Thanks to Unreal7 as the nom who has been diligent with these proposals and, from this one (and before it occurred to me that The Joker might qualify as primary topic), I first wondered about a possible destination as The Joker (DC universe).
There are many similarly notable comic genre characters who have appeared in both comics and films, such as the much debated "Wolverine", might be comfortably given titling such as Wolverine (Marvel universe). This would be more precise than Wolverine (character) but does not suffer from the occasional imprecision of Wolverine (X-Men) or Wolverine (comics) while offering about the same extent of precision as Wolverine (Marvel character) or Wolverine (Marvel universe character).
My main thought here is that the comic/graphic novel, film, TV etc. manifestations of this genre might be brought together by using a Universe based classification, navigation and categorisation scheme. Greg Kaye 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If this suggestion carries through, I would propose that the categories should be called "Fictional Continuities", rather that "Fictional Universes". The latter is not logical, as many fictions by far exceed single universes in scope (multiverses, higher-dimensional space, etcetera). David A ( talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Several articles about comic titles have fairly massive plot sections, listings of republications, and precious little else. I’d just like to know the thoughts of project regulars about such articles. To me, it seems to indicate that the fictional events of the comic are the most important aspect about it in the real world—often with no context, no discussion of any impact the story may have had on the real world, which seems like a huge WP:WEIGHT issue (if not a WP:NOTABILITY issue). So, am I missing something? Is there a legitimate reason to describe each story arc in detail without establishing their real-world significance? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe there are enough sources for the documentary to have its own article. Anyone care to help me out with the creation of the article? Thanks! Npamusic ( talk) 03:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs of characters mention their first appearances. Often, this is mentioned in the past tense. Should this not be in the present tense? For example: "Superhero X first appears in Comic Book Y #1 (May 1940)". Character biography sections that recount characters' stories tend to be in the present. What do editors think of first appearances being written in the present as opposed to the past? JosephSpiral ( talk) 17:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Minor but odd question. Adamantium is perhaps one of the most cribbed terms from comic books, showing up all over the place in popular culture, and so it's probably one of the best known creations of its creators (they also created the villain in Avengers: Age of Ultron, so that tells you something). Is there a category for this, a la "Characters created by..." categories? That doesn't seem like the right place, but it seems you'd want to know, say, Roy Thomas was perhaps the first person to ever write down the word "adamantium" when you went to the list of his creations. Nor is it redundant to know that, like it might be if you made an entry for Power ring (DC Comics) on Finger's or Nodell's lists because they created Green Lantern, since "adamantium" isn't really associated with its first appearance in comics in most people's minds, but with Wolverine. Just curious. ComicsAreJustAllRight ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been informed that Reed Richards was diagnosed with autism in "Fantastic Four: Season One", and also remember that it was mentioned in "Fantastic Four: 1234". Thus, I would like to request that he is added to this category.
It would be a welcome addition, given the lack of diversity in comics in this area. Autistic people comprise 1.47% of the world population. Yet we have mostly had to make do with being represented by Legion, who has usually read like an offensive stereotype. David A ( talk) 04:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we list every alternate version of an otherwise notable character no matter how minor of a role that version plays and is not mentioned by any WP:THIRDPARTY sources? It seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE would apply here. Am I right?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
“Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.”— 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 02:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a notice that a frequently used source by this project, http://www.screenrant.com, has been requested (and added) to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The request can be found here, and the request for removal can be found here. Editors are invited to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A user going by the name Kurzon has been recently deleting entire paragraphs of various articles and rewriting entries with unsourced material. Very recently, this user has repeatedly deleted a section of the Justice League without consensus on the talk page. Despite my constant undoing of his revisions until consensus, he continues to edit the page.
Can editors please weigh in? Thank you. JosephSpiral ( talk) 13:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across Category:Title pop on Alex + Ada, but it's extremely unclear what it does, or what it is for. Is this still in use? In that case, the category page could use some explaining. I think few people other then the people who set it up would understand what is meant with "Those listed under "Γ" use {{ Infobox comics object and title}} or {{ Infobox comics team and title}} with the group as the primary focus; Those listed under "γ" use {{ Infobox comics set and title}} or are a secondary focus of {{ Infobox comics object and title}} or {{ Infobox comics team and title}}." 92.64.31.85 ( talk) 15:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for Justin Green's Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary as a Featured Article Candidate. Please take part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Rymax23 has been adding quite a few templates to character articles. Someone may want to review these edits to see if this level of coverage is appropriate. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: User Haleth has decided that some templates, such as {{ Uncanny Avengers}} and {{ Peggy Carter}} are "Not notable enough to warrant a template". However, instead of simply removing these template from articles, he has been moving them to {{ West Coast Avengers}}, effectively deleting the templates altogether [2] [3]. I've tried to restore what I can, but the histories for those templates are now reversed. So far, all attempts to communicate on his talk page have been removed, with a response on my talk page to mind my own business. Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The user Cebr1979 is deleting the word "American" from the phrase "American comic books" in the lead sentences of comic book articles. The user claims using the word is "trivial". However, the American comic book genre is very different from comic books from Japan and elsewhere; hence, American comic book has its own article. Another editor brought this to my attention, and I'm bringing this to light for other editors. JosephSpiral ( talk) 03:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " King of Hell" is under discussion, see talk:King of Hell (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Lg16spears regularly posts information to character articles about other media appearances. The problem is that he seems to often post rumors, uses non-reliable sources, and sometimes even adds information that is very clearly not supported by the information in the sources that he does use. He does not seem to respond when his edits are reverted, or when warnings are placed on his talk page. What can be done in this situation? 2601:240:C703:5340:D477:9535:887D:52C ( talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
User:TriiipleThreat has been removing the info from lots of character pages (like this one). I think this kind of information belongs on the character pages, and I think it belongs in the media section based on the broader fine arts definition. However, I can see an arguement for removing it based on the narrower communication definition. I guess it comes down to how you view comics and comic properties, and I wanted to get a general consensus before I reverted any of his edits. Argento Surfer ( talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Can a compromise be reached where we have articles about the toylines, which include lists of which characters had figures? 2601:240:C703:5340:8DE2:1EDF:95B5:86C8 ( talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a consensus here that while toys are not necessarily a communications medium, they may or may not be a fine arts medium; however, given that various forms of children's dolls and similar figurines have been found almost throughout recorded history, there is also a broader historical/cultural context. Plus, these things are about as close to mass-produced sculpture as many characters are likely to get, but no less culturally significant for that fact. And I think requiring something to be "fine art" relies a little too much on opinion. I would support third-party sourced inclusion, especially for characters for which representation in the medium of action figures and/or the medium of other similar toys is surprising (for instance, there is a real licensed action figure for the Flaming Carrot!). There are surprisingly encyclopedic collectors' guides available online and in print, especially for comic book superhero characters. Certainly one could reference those among other sources. I also agree with TriiipleThreat that for the most part, prose is preferable to a laundry list. Boomshadow talk contribs 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
AggressiveNavel has come up with one possible solution to this dilemna at the Psylocke article. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
In the List of highest-grossing films and Batman (1989 film series) we have the film Catwoman as part of the Burtonverse film series. This is all due to a picture of Michelle as Catwoman in the film. Is this really enough for it to be official part of the franchise or could it maybe be just some random Easter egg? Jhenderson 777 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
What it appears like to me:
Is anyone else seeing this? Is this a mistake? Ranze ( talk) 02:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello chaps. I've noticed that for a lot of female comic characters we specify where they rank in some "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list. However we don't seem to do this for the chaps. This strikes me as unfair and not a little ungentlemanly. We shouldn't be behaving like boors by alluding to some kind of attractiveness ranking for anyone in my opinion, but if we are going to do so we should at least make it an equal opportunity thing. Otherwise I would recommend we drop this rather tawdry bit of trivial fluff from female characters articles. Quintessential British Gentleman ( talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think TriiipleThreat nailed it with the reasonings why that shouldn't happen. Although I do feel that OP's comment was quite amusing even if it wasn't intended to be. Jhenderson 777 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I brought this here because I think it should be discussed. I undid this split, first of all. Should we split the main character who used this name from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?
This field doesn't seem to be clearly defined only featuring the description "Partners include any current or previous partners. Please stick to notable partnerships. Also, please avoid "employee/employer" relationships." As seen on articles like Batman and Superman it's ripe for abuse in listing pretty much anyone the character has ever worked with and since the guideline is so loose, there's no real way to determine if it is being misused or not. It also seems redundant in some cases to the Team Affiliations field, since for instance Batman has "Batman Family" under team, but then all the individual members thereof. Ideally I think this field is not essential to the infobox and should be removed, but if need be the guideline needs to be rewritten to clarify what it is for and what it is not for, and perhaps put a limit on quantity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite the RfC we had in May this year that determined we are not required to use "that" to refer to fictional characters (e.g. "Nelvana is a fictional superhero who ..."), Cebr1979 is edit warring at Wonder Woman to force "that" where "who" was being used. He has been informed of the RfC on both his user page and mine, as well as in an edit summary. Can we do something about this contentious editing? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not particularly satisfied with the current She-Hulk image, and would rather change it to a version that i.m.h.o. better embodies what the character is about.
I have posted a suggestion in the She-Hulk talk page, and would appreciate community input. Thank you. David A ( talk) 09:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I've run into a question while trying to clear out Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. The comics categories listed there, e.g. Category:1949 comic debuts redirect to Category:1949 comics debuts. I modified a few templates (now reverted) to match this scheme. However, it seems not all categories follow this convention. E.g. Category:1990 comic debuts is the main category - there is no redirect to Category:1990 comics debuts. So, which is the correct naming scheme? Avic ennasis @ 17:27, 18 Elul 5775 / 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never written an article about a comic before so I find myself looking at a lot of unfamiliar sources, but I've been working on Millennium (2015 comic book) and would like to know if Comic Book Round Up, and/or any of the "critic reviews" it lists can be considered reliable in terms of the critical reception of a work. Thanks for any advice. GRAPPLE X 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate caption for that image, or is it original research? 2001:558:6033:DB:4CB2:272E:895F:9F1A ( talk) 11:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Cyberforce has been debated whether it should be merged to Image Comics anyone interested in participating can join at Talk:Image Comics
These are usually deleted when they are recreated: Category:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone point me towards a good example of an In Other Media article? I'm struggling with how to layout one for the Joker. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Is a separation like this necessary? I am concerned because the other character articles do not do this. Are these sections in the Doctor Strange article too long and need to be split in the first place? 2001:558:6033:DB:4CB2:272E:895F:9F1A ( talk) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:DC Television Universe. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Because the current version of Template:Infobox comic book title here creates comics debuts categories, I've listed Category:1982 comic debuts for merger into Category:1982 comics debuts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 25. If there are views in the alternative, please comment there. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Because of both Loki's nature as a deity, and his changing role as a character over the years, I am concerned that labeling him as supervillain is a bit simplistic. Therefore, I contend that "fictional character" is a better description. 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 12:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add sources to Civil_War_(comics)#Reception because the first paragraph makes general statements about reception while citing nothing. I know plenty of sources worth citing. However, I then saw that the second paragraph quotes me, so I should not touch it. I bring this up here because the link citing me is dead. I took the paper off the Internet once it became a journal article (which has now been reprinted in a book). So leave it alone, remove it altogether, or fix the citation. I obviously have COI, but the dead link bugs me. I'll add the correct source information below. Do with it (or don't) as you will.
Langley, T. (2015). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. In K. M. Scott (Ed.), Marvel Comics’ Civil War and the age of terror: Critical essays on the comic saga (pp. 69-76). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Langley, T. (2009). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. International Journal of Comic Art, 11(1), 426-435.
Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a problem with the categories for debut year. The template for infobox automatically puts them in categories with comics ex:
Category:1996 comics debuts. The problem is that they don't exist. They instead exist as
Category:1996 comic debuts. This needs to be made consistent one way or the other.
JDDJS (
talk) 00:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I've similarly fixed Template:Infobox comics object and title. Someone should check any other templates that are used here. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have created the article Comics collection and it is linked to on a few pages. It has been marked as needing to be developed from a definition to a full article. If anyone wants to help, much appreciated. Or offer input on whether it should just be a dictionary definition (that's okay too)! Bod ( talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Tank Girl (film), which is under the scope of this project, is at FAC. All comments on the nomination are welcome – see here. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 04:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A two-man vandalatron today; would some of you go through the last months changes? Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone has been creating articles for each entry on List of Marvel RPG supplements. I question whether these supplements are notable enough to warrant a separate article for each of them. Please join the discussion at Talk:Concrete Jungle (supplement)#Marvel RPG supplements. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Created a navbox with {{ Comics}}. JJ98 ( Talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If anyone here has a DeviantArt account, would you please consider posting this link at the main forum there? I would be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor using various IP addresses starting with 68.184.79 have been removing this information. Can someone check on this? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Win Wiacek's "Now Read This!"? I didn't see it in the "reliable online column archives", but I see that it is used [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22now+read+this%22+wiacek&fulltext=Search]. I started looking into this while checking/improving references for Draft:Kenneth Mahood. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is everyone on the project satisfied with one of the main articles on the subject: Comics? The owner of that page, since about February 2013, has a very specific idea of what that page should be like. It is not at all the article I expected to read. It feels archaic and erudite and even obscure. I would hope there would be support from the project to allow changes to that page. Otherwise, it will just stay the same. Bod ( talk) 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion regarding the histories of the characters at Venus (Marvel Comics), where one character was retconned to be the other. Please see the discussion at Talk:Venus (Marvel Comics)#Aphrodite.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is to notify fellow comics editors that I posted the following at Talk:Justice Society of America#Comics Manual of Style. Feedback there would be appreciated.
Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#In-line use of dates and issue numbers "The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance" Please note the term "cover date" rather than "made up date". The Grand Comics Database gives the cover date of All Star Comics #3 as "Winter 1940-1941" and an on-sale date of "1940-11-22". The ComicBookdb gives it as "Winter 1940". Mike's Amazing World of Comics also gives a cover date of "Winter 1940" and an on-sale date of November 22, 1940 and has a snippet view of the Library of Congress copyright record as verification!
So why in the name of Gardner Fox did someone change the cover date of All-Star Comics #3 to "December 1940"? The cover clearly shows the word "Winter" NOT "December" or "Dec."
In addition, I posted this at
Talk:Superman (comic book)#Comics Manual of Style. Feedback there would be appreciated as well.
Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#In-line use of dates and issue numbers "The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance" Please note the term "cover date" rather than "made up date". The Grand Comics Database gives the cover date of Superman #1 as "Summer 1939" and an on-sale date of "1939-05-18". The ComicBookdb gives it as "Summer 1939". Mike's Amazing World of Comics also gives a cover date of "Summer 1939" and an on-sale date of May 18, 1939 and has a snippet view of the Library of Congress copyright record as verification!
So why in the names of Siegel and Shuster did someone change the cover date of Superman #1 to "June 1939"? The cover does not have the word "June" anywhere on it.
Mtminchi08 ( talk) 00:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Mtminchi08 ( talk) 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
IJVin added Category:Fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder to Iron Man, claiming that In "Iron Man 3", Tony displays PTSD resulting from the Battle of New York in "The Avengers". I reverted, challenging that there was no specific diagnosis in the film and that this is an original research assumption (not to mention, we don't generally add attributes of "In other media" versions to the articles on comics characters unless they also apply to the comics version of the character). Calidum added the PTSD category back, claiming " Its obvious." Is this an appropriate category for this article? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 00:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
An SPA redlink editor at Superman has been making wholesale edits, many of which have pushed a particular book, by Brad Ricca, that was never cited in the article and now has been cited there several times. I suspect a COI issue. In any event, this editor, with very few edits outside this article, has been combative when I've pointed out Wikipedia guidelines, MOS and even a policy ( WP:NONFREE) that he was breaking. For example, this passage on the talk page:
I've tried to accentuate the positive — thanking him on the talk page for his often very good copy edits [4], and for this initially collegial response [5] — but he was edit-warring until I pointed our WP:BRD and overall has been behaving WP:OWN-ishly. As I pointed out to him, some three-quarters of his edits have gone through without issue. But he clearly wants what he wants, apparently primarily to push this Ricca book, and I'd simply like to ask other editors to look at the talk page, particularly at Talk:Superman#Superman, the immigrant story, before anything continues to escalate. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, things are working out very well so far, and I certainly invite other editors to take a look and contribute if you can at User:BaronBifford/sandbox. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject#Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images (of/in ...)" Thank you for your time. JJ98 ( Talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted most of the changes by new user Mothmz on Moon Knight, because as I explained in my edit summary, a lot of wikilinks were removed for no apparent reason, and some of the additions appear to be unsourced original research and opinions. I may or may not have cut back too much? I did try to retain most of the updated material on the newer comic series that the user added though. The user reverted my changes, and went on a number of talk pages trying to explain themselves. What is the best way to resolve this situation? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at Green Lantern, and trying to work on it. But its a little difficult. I barely get the gist of it through youtube videos. But there has to be a better way of organizing character information. Especially if there are retcons and such. I was thinking. The first thing i thought would be beneficial is having a physical list of publications regarding these characters. The only thing is to actually make the list. At least that way Comic book articles can feel a little more tangible to edit by just following the order of their release. Of course the retcons is one of the most difficult things to look into. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors, please weigh in on which actors should or should not be listed as portraying Batman on screen. You can do so here. Basically, the chid actor who plays Bruce Wayne on the TV show Gotham is being listed as playing Batman. It's argued by an editor in the edit history that Bruce and Batman are one and the same, so he should be listed in the lead paragraphs as playing him. However, I do not believe it's the same thing, since Batman is the costumed superhero who the article is about. This child actor does not appear as Batman in costume on this TV show. If we're to list child actors who play Bruce and not Batman, then we should list all the child actors who played Bruce Wayne on film. I don't think we should be listing these child actors who have appeared only as young Bruce Waynes and never as Batman the costumed superhero. DrRNC ( talk) 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted an IP address who added this to an article, and then searched and found it used in 40 other places. [6] Their FAQ on their website says they are not connected to Marvel and do not have any access to any access to information other than what they read on news sites. Its used as a reference in many articles right now. Any bot that could remove these all at once? Dream Focus 03:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with wiki's guidelines for notable podcasts. Would someone who is mind to review Uncanny X-Cast? It's a rather long article filled with inappropriate content, and I'm not sure if it should be trimmed and salvaged or just nominated for deletion... Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The usage and topic of The X-Files (season 10) is under discussion, see talk:The X-Files (miniseries)
As The X-Files Season 10 is a comic book title, I thought I'd let you know.
-- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 05:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The usage and topic of The Super Girl is under discussion, see talk:Supergirl (Japanese TV series) -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A couple years back, i recommended re-organizing the templates by splitting up media-related articles from in-universe related into their navboxes. I didn't get a lot of traction on it, but this time i took the liberty to re-organizing template:Green Lantern navbox by separating media and in=universe into two sections without splitting the navbox. I believe we should take this format as an example for all the other navboxes.
The navbox is designed to help readers (and editors) navigate through articles. If they get too convoluted, it wont be easy to navigate to, and prioritize. What do you all think about this new format? Is it better?04:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Lucia Black ( talk)
The X-Files Season 10 has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:The X-Files Season 10 -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 05:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading Genesis, and got confused -- is it a "short" graphic novel? Who decides what length is a "graphic novella"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add some information from the Stan Lee interview in Alter Ego to the "publication history" section of Green Goblin, but I immediately hit a snag. The info concerns the unveiling of the Green Goblin's identity, and the existing info on that subject uses WP: Weasel words: "According to one theory, Lee always wanted him to be someone Peter Parker knew, while Ditko wanted him to be a stranger, feeling this was closer to real life." The use of weasel words is perplexing, since the statement is sourced. Unfortunately, without knowing who this "one theory" comes from (it might be the reference's author, but it might not), I can't properly integrate my new info with the existing info. The same statement also appears in Norman Osborn, with the same reference and the same weasel words. Is there anyone here who has access to the cited source and can tell me who this "one theory" originates from?-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Folks, I could use a little help. At this point, both the pages Peanuts and The Complete Peanuts talk about the book series The Complete Peanuts as being 25 volumes. That was the original plan, but the series has been extended to a 26th volume. I cannot edit that information myself because I have a strong COI here, as I've got an editing position on volume 26. I've left requests on both talk pages that this be updated, including links to a Fantagraphics catalog announcement of the 26th volume - both that link and an Amazon search for a new volume should confirm to you this is true. It's drivin' me up the wall seeing that misinformation there and not wanting to sully it with my COI fingers, so if anyone else could tackle the changes, I'd appreciate it! -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Iron max 3 has been adding many navbox templates to character pages with seemingly little justification in many cases. Just figured that might be good to discuss it here. 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 01:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we finally get rid of Trade paperback (comics)? The ridiculous "graphic novel vs trade paperback vs graphic album" thing belongs to a dead era. The article is almost entirely unsourced and will almost certainly remain unsourceable; regardless, the term "graphic novel" has long since completely absorbed the US comics-specific definition of "trade paperback". The article should be merged into graphic novel, or obliterated entirely (honestly, I question whether it even deserves a footnote). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, I have been heavily active in the field of webcomics lately. However, I have very little interest in comics generally. Therefore, I'm wondering if there are people interested in reviving the Webcomics Taskforce. Regardless of whether you guys have much interest in working on webcomics, I will be posting questions and discussions on its talk page in weeks to come, so feel free to watch the page and respond if you want. ~ Mable ( chat) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this on the Black Panther article an appropriate use of Marvel's website as a source? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a comic expert so don't know how to advise this guy on finding valid Reliable Sources, but since this comic is talked-about enough that even I as a non-reader have heard it mentioned, I figure this is something y'all might want to help him get published. Enjoy! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite anyone here to participate in the discussion at Talk:Tarantula (Marvel Comics). This debate concerns not only the article in question, but a general content inclusion policy on articles about comic book characters.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149 and I appear to be having a disagreement on the talk page over whether the character was created for the TV show having been loosely inspired by a different character with a different name in a single earlier comic, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show. The sources don't agree, but most of the sources can be reasonably interpreted as supporting either one of these options, as any detailed history of the character will mention both. After the TV show either created or popularized the character, he was apparently introduced back into the comics, and the earlier appearance was retconned as being the same character going by a different pseudonym (or something like that). This makes it very difficult to analyze most of the less-detailed sources, as they just say the character's first appearance was in 1959. More input, preferably with more sources that explicitly address the issue, would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this has come up before, but do comics produced (not just reprinted) by Marvel UK technically count as "American comic books"? I don't know how big a problem it is, if at all, but I'm pretty sure some of their books are (were?) in continuity with the mainstream Marvel universe and featured cameos by major characters originating in more "purely American" fare. I was just looking our Peggy Carter article and noticed this in the lead, and thought it might be an issue that wasn't addressed whenever it was decided to specify "American". Obviously one solution would be to say, for example, "first appearimg in American comic books", as that is something we can actually quantify quite easily, but implying they have only appeared in American comic books when we don't necessarily know that seems problematic.
(FTR, I don't know if this problem even applies to the Peggy Carter article, or even if the character in the original comics was British, although my gut tells me that if the latter is true the former is more likely to be true than otherwise. It's peripheral to my main concern either way.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Flashpoint (Elseworlds) I am thinking of writing of a new article is this sources credible. [7] Dwanyewest ( talk) 17:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm contemplating a major restructuring of the article List of Spider-Man enemies. I invite anyone with any interest in the article to weigh in at Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies#Classification system.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 19:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently tried to deleted the "In other media" section from the Superman article and merge its contents with the "Publication" section near the top. Tenebrae took issue with this and reverted, so now I want to present my case.
Firstly, the "In other media" section was under "Cultural Impact", which makes no sense because the franchising of Superman is not a cultural effect. Secondly, it makes no sense to me to discuss the comic books and the movies and TV shows apart. The TV shows and movies have a much bigger audience than the comic books. For most people, Superman is someone they see in cartoons or in the cinemas. Development-wise, there is a lot of cross-pollination between the comic books and the TV shows and movies. The radio serial gave us kryptonite. The Fleischer cartoons made Superman fly. The 1978 movie gave us the messianic overtones. Lois & Clark married Superman and Lois.
I feel that most superhero articles were written by comic book geeks for other comic book geeks rather than the general audience, and they have the bizarre notion that the TV shows and movies are a minor aspect of the Superman mythos, and that the current "mainstream" comic continuity is the "definitive" version of Superman. Superman is not strictly a comic book character. He is a fictional character who merely got his start in comics, but then quickly expanded to a wide variety of media. Just a few years after Action Comics #1, Superman was on the radio drawing over four million listeners, which is a bigger audience than the comic books have EVER had.
So I want, in the Publication history section of the Superman article, to discuss the radio serials, TV shows, and movies alongside the comic books. It just makes sense. BaronBifford ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to rewrite the Fictional character biography section of the Superman article, but another editor keeps reverting me. BaronBifford ( talk) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Argento Surfer and Tenebrae: "The IOM material should not be mixed with publication history. That's partly because radio/TV/Film isn't really "published"
This is just a matter of semantics. "Publication", according to Wikipedia's own article on the matter, is making content available to to public. Broadcasting a radio show or selling a DVD is technically publication, particularly under US and international copyright law. And if it isn't, I can solve this by changing the title. This a weak argument.
"and partly because I don't believe the material can be presented together in a coherent fashion"
You don't believe. I think you've never tried. I have, so I think I can speak with authority on this matter. Take a look at my Sandbox where I have drafted a new Publication and Fictional character biography section. In the latter, I discuss the common, enduring elements of the Superman mythos, like when he got his name or when kryptonite was introduced. A lot of this stuff comes from media other than comic books. Kryptonite appeared in the radio show. Superman's first team-up with Batman was in the radio show. Superman gained the ability to fly in the animated serial because flying looked better on film than leaping. The 1978 movie decided that Smallville was in Kansas, and also gave Superman the messianic overtones that still show up in stories today. It's rather absurd to think that the radio show, cartoons and movies have had little impact on the books. Their audience are much larger. Many current and past writers at DC Comics fell in love with Superman through watching the cartoons.
"I'm not suggesting we downplay the other media. I'm pointing out the article is about the comic book character. Until you're ready to revamp the FCB to cover comics and other media equally,"
I'm absolutely ready and willing to rewrite the whole article.
Now let me discuss the FCB section in its current state. Firstly it refers stories that have left no permanent mark on the character, such as Superman being killed by Doomsday and the New Krypton storyline and the Kents passing away. These have been retconned out. There's also a lot of recentism, like mentioning Superman's T-shirt and jeans combo which is a change that certainly won't endure. There are also some useless lines, like "His origin is again revisited in 2004." Superman's origin has been revisited so many times that fans get annoyed by it.
The Fictional character biography section was built piecemeal over years by multiple editors each with partial knowledge, rather than one researcher who has fully studied the whole matter. Someone needs to take a flamethrower to the whole thing and rewrite it.
Another issue is that this article is not just comics-centric, but "mainstream"-centric. That is, somehow this community decided that what DC Comics calls the "mainstream" DC Universe is the definitive version of Superman, which is strange to me and something only comic geeks do. And I think it's bad practice because it prevents the article from presenting a broad picture - and a broad picture is what the main Superman article should be about. You begin with the general and link to articles focusing on the specific. The article on Physics gives a broad description of all the branches of physics across history and the influences they have had on each other, and it provides links to more focused articles like quantum physics or fluid dynamics. Why don't superhero articles follow this sensible logic? BaronBifford ( talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
For lack of a better comic was created on the 11th, and was then nominated for deletion on the 12th. Based on a google search, I think there could be notability here, but I'm not familiar with this comic or what's usually expected for a webcomic article. Is there anyone out there who could help improve it, or confirm non-notability? Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Are these edits acceptible? No source was added, and the grammar and formatting seems a bit off, so I am skeptical. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh nothing is wrong with the edits i already gave sources and as for grammar and etc i have to rush things but you don't have to keep undoing all my edits because of small errors and as for David A now he also doesn't have perfect grammar if i can show you his own errors you will see that perfect grammar doesn't exist anywhere and that its just a tool for people who think they are above others now if you want to chat then don't undo all my edits just fixed the problems. Beyonder ( talk) 13:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
I have now cited my sources thank you very much. Beyonder ( talk) 13:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
Those are OLD the one i posted is basically of THIS era aka 2006 its not hard to see the differences between the old and the new. Beyonder ( talk) 13:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
I gave the issues already and i fixed the errors i made to the article page so your revert has been Rollback. Beyonder ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
There's some broken code showing at the top of Aquaman. I'm not sure how to fix it. Could someone sort this out? — DangerousJXD ( talk) 21:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some aid in dealing with an IP sock vandal. This person loves removing the word "fictional" from articles about fictional characters. Even though the editor is not inserting meaningless profanity into articles, this behavior is still vandalism. I am often the only one around to ever revert this person on the spot and it's tiring. Attempts to talk to the vandal are pointless as they have never actually said anything at all (no edit summaries, no talk page posts etc.). Aquaman has been protected twice because of these edits; since Aquaman is currently protected, the IP has branched out to other comic book character articles and is more actively making the edits. The person has used around ten different IPs total. By "aid" I mean help in reverting these edits so I'm not the only editor doing so. I suppose this section's true purpose is to raise awareness: If you see these edits, revert them. If you see that an article about a fictional character is missing the word "fictional" from the opening sentence, add it. — DangerousJXD ( talk) 07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we should the info boxes as is and add the alliance if they joined them. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Then if they join the avengers let's say. Just put avengers there, not secret avengers or avengers academy or west coast avengers. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I just think if they joined the team it goes in the infobox. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 09:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Tenebrae, Zythe, and Argento Surfer: How big should an infobox be allowed to be? I don't think an infobox should jut beyond the table of contents and into the main body of the article, as is currently the case in the Superman article. It's causing me formatting headaches, all to include some minor trivia. BaronBifford ( talk) 11:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
But shouldn't we give them a lot of information to have? 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 18:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
They're superhero partners. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 21:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Although there are a lot of articles that has one and more infobox which each character of a legacy. When one infobox would do. I would say having Wayne Enterprises be added to Batmans alliance in the infobox, because it's part of the story. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that dick Grayson joined the justice league and it should be there. It was during his time as Batman that he again joined the justice league. With Donna Troy, star fire, cyborg, and others. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 17:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Which points? The only thing I would agree with is getting rid of various avengers teams. That I agree with. Like Hank Pym. Do we need avengers ai there? 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Is there consensus? 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on two versions of a "Fictional character biography" at Talk:Superman#Request for comment. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Is previewsworld.com considered a reliable source particularly for future series/events?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Injustice Guild has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dark
Knight
2149 13:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have articles: Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy) and Spider-Gwen as separate articles? Both articles cover the same character as the Gwen Stacy article covers Gwen in the Marvel Universe in general. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought that was my suggestion? Even though I am still against it. The article doesn't prove it but she has had enough coverage to stand out on her own from the Gwen Stacy article if you do your own web research IMO. You can do a consensus on it of course since you do seem desperate for it to merge. Henderson 777 11:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this level of separation necessary? Do we need a separate section for one (albeit large) paragraph? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 4#Batman and Superman would be appreciated. I believe an article on Batman/Superman crossovers would be viable. -- BDD ( talk) 16:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I’m a blogger: and have managed to come up with a well received post about Batman’s first appearance, which I’d initially thought was in March, 1939. After all, it WAS mentioned in the relevant day of the year entry. (For 30th March) My of my regular readers, however, found THIS link: on DC’s own site, that stated the original release date was 17th May!
Can we do something to this?
Or add an try to 17th May?
Thanks!
Cuddy2977 ( talk) 07:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
I know that this has been hashed out numerous times, but bear with me once more. If a character does not appear in a film, video game, or TV episode, but is merely mentioned by another character, or their equipment is shown in one scene, or that sort of thing, do we make note of this in the character's article or is that too trivial to bother mentioning? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 23:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
My question is, are the sources provided in this edit considered reliable sources to demonstrate a good reason why they should be included in this article? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a weight issue to me. Twenty years from now, will even fans care about this trivia? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it at all appropriate to use the Cite Episode template as a "citation" for a character's appearance in an upcoming episode of a television series as seen at the Dracula and Red Skull articles? 50.141.204.194 ( talk) 03:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of comics articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from April 2015, and I've noticed in reviewing them that some appear to have only primary sources, namely issues of comics, as their references. See, for example, Porcupine and Mad Thinker. Others do not have in-line references, for example Marvel Zombies: Dead Days and Last Hero Standing.
I have looked through some of the WP:COMICS pages, and I have been unable to find a guideline or policy that says that this sort of (non-)sourcing is acceptable for articles about comics characters. What am I missing? An article with this sort of sourcing in other categories would be proposed for deletion quickly for not having significant coverage by reliable sources. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is requested at Template talk:X-Men media#Short titles. -- Izno ( talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:San Diego Comic-Con International#Poster. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that some characters have trivial abilities listed in their info boxes. I've seen editors remove "martial arts training" and "hand-to-hand combat training" since many comic book characters have this type of training; I agree with the removal of such abilities. However, if the training is essential to the character's persona or background (ie: Bronze Tiger, Batman, Deadpool), then I would leave it in the info box. Also, when it is listed in the info box, I think it goes well with other similar abilities in the same bullet. For example, in the Deadpool article, his training in the martial arts, swordsmanship, and marksmanship are grouped together, rather than listing each discipline in its own bullet.
Also, I believe the bullet format looks better than simply listing the abilities, as this reads easier and prevents confusion from the previous line. If we see a character whose info box does not have a bullet format in the abilities section, I think we should make the change.
I'd like to get the opinions of other editors on this matter. JosephSpiral ( talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have invited 24.42.17.117 ( talk) to join this discussion, as they spend a great deal of time editing these infoboxes. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The ability of "genius-level intellect" is in the infobox of numerous characters who aren't known for having a gifted mind. Like an accelerated healing factor, a genius-level intellect should be reserved for those characters who are known for this ability. JosephSpiral ( talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen over the second paragraph of this section of the San Diego Comic-Con article. Can editors voice their viewpoint in the discussion on that article's talk page? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 06:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this an actual game? [1] We don't have an article on this game. 2601:D:B482:CCE0:3173:7EC3:9DDD:3452 ( talk) 16:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I think many of our comics and comic book artists articles are rather poorly illustrated, which I assume is because of the copyright problems. Has anyone thought of approaching publishers and artists directly asking them to release some artwork into the public domain for specific articles? It seems to me that publishers would have an interest in having well illustrated articles about comic book characters, and artists as well. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Joker_(comics)#Requested_move_12_May_2015 that is related to this topic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Joker (comics) to be moved to The Joker (character). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Big Hero 6 (film) to be moved to Big Hero 6. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Propose the development of categories:
The idea would then be to place the categories into:
Currently there is already an established category:
Which acts as home to:
and to articles:
amongst many others
My suggestion is that all appropriate universe related articles could have namesake categories created for them and that these categories could be placed into the umbrella categories mentioned above.
I would also suggest moving other contents into a "universe" based navigation scheme:
This whole issue has been brewing in the back of my mind for a while and things came into focus in discussion of a requested move of:
Thanks to Unreal7 as the nom who has been diligent with these proposals and, from this one (and before it occurred to me that The Joker might qualify as primary topic), I first wondered about a possible destination as The Joker (DC universe).
There are many similarly notable comic genre characters who have appeared in both comics and films, such as the much debated "Wolverine", might be comfortably given titling such as Wolverine (Marvel universe). This would be more precise than Wolverine (character) but does not suffer from the occasional imprecision of Wolverine (X-Men) or Wolverine (comics) while offering about the same extent of precision as Wolverine (Marvel character) or Wolverine (Marvel universe character).
My main thought here is that the comic/graphic novel, film, TV etc. manifestations of this genre might be brought together by using a Universe based classification, navigation and categorisation scheme. Greg Kaye 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If this suggestion carries through, I would propose that the categories should be called "Fictional Continuities", rather that "Fictional Universes". The latter is not logical, as many fictions by far exceed single universes in scope (multiverses, higher-dimensional space, etcetera). David A ( talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Several articles about comic titles have fairly massive plot sections, listings of republications, and precious little else. I’d just like to know the thoughts of project regulars about such articles. To me, it seems to indicate that the fictional events of the comic are the most important aspect about it in the real world—often with no context, no discussion of any impact the story may have had on the real world, which seems like a huge WP:WEIGHT issue (if not a WP:NOTABILITY issue). So, am I missing something? Is there a legitimate reason to describe each story arc in detail without establishing their real-world significance? — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe there are enough sources for the documentary to have its own article. Anyone care to help me out with the creation of the article? Thanks! Npamusic ( talk) 03:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs of characters mention their first appearances. Often, this is mentioned in the past tense. Should this not be in the present tense? For example: "Superhero X first appears in Comic Book Y #1 (May 1940)". Character biography sections that recount characters' stories tend to be in the present. What do editors think of first appearances being written in the present as opposed to the past? JosephSpiral ( talk) 17:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Minor but odd question. Adamantium is perhaps one of the most cribbed terms from comic books, showing up all over the place in popular culture, and so it's probably one of the best known creations of its creators (they also created the villain in Avengers: Age of Ultron, so that tells you something). Is there a category for this, a la "Characters created by..." categories? That doesn't seem like the right place, but it seems you'd want to know, say, Roy Thomas was perhaps the first person to ever write down the word "adamantium" when you went to the list of his creations. Nor is it redundant to know that, like it might be if you made an entry for Power ring (DC Comics) on Finger's or Nodell's lists because they created Green Lantern, since "adamantium" isn't really associated with its first appearance in comics in most people's minds, but with Wolverine. Just curious. ComicsAreJustAllRight ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been informed that Reed Richards was diagnosed with autism in "Fantastic Four: Season One", and also remember that it was mentioned in "Fantastic Four: 1234". Thus, I would like to request that he is added to this category.
It would be a welcome addition, given the lack of diversity in comics in this area. Autistic people comprise 1.47% of the world population. Yet we have mostly had to make do with being represented by Legion, who has usually read like an offensive stereotype. David A ( talk) 04:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we list every alternate version of an otherwise notable character no matter how minor of a role that version plays and is not mentioned by any WP:THIRDPARTY sources? It seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE would apply here. Am I right?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 22:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
“Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.”— 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 02:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a notice that a frequently used source by this project, http://www.screenrant.com, has been requested (and added) to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The request can be found here, and the request for removal can be found here. Editors are invited to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A user going by the name Kurzon has been recently deleting entire paragraphs of various articles and rewriting entries with unsourced material. Very recently, this user has repeatedly deleted a section of the Justice League without consensus on the talk page. Despite my constant undoing of his revisions until consensus, he continues to edit the page.
Can editors please weigh in? Thank you. JosephSpiral ( talk) 13:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I stumbled across Category:Title pop on Alex + Ada, but it's extremely unclear what it does, or what it is for. Is this still in use? In that case, the category page could use some explaining. I think few people other then the people who set it up would understand what is meant with "Those listed under "Γ" use {{ Infobox comics object and title}} or {{ Infobox comics team and title}} with the group as the primary focus; Those listed under "γ" use {{ Infobox comics set and title}} or are a secondary focus of {{ Infobox comics object and title}} or {{ Infobox comics team and title}}." 92.64.31.85 ( talk) 15:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for Justin Green's Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary as a Featured Article Candidate. Please take part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Rymax23 has been adding quite a few templates to character articles. Someone may want to review these edits to see if this level of coverage is appropriate. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: User Haleth has decided that some templates, such as {{ Uncanny Avengers}} and {{ Peggy Carter}} are "Not notable enough to warrant a template". However, instead of simply removing these template from articles, he has been moving them to {{ West Coast Avengers}}, effectively deleting the templates altogether [2] [3]. I've tried to restore what I can, but the histories for those templates are now reversed. So far, all attempts to communicate on his talk page have been removed, with a response on my talk page to mind my own business. Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The user Cebr1979 is deleting the word "American" from the phrase "American comic books" in the lead sentences of comic book articles. The user claims using the word is "trivial". However, the American comic book genre is very different from comic books from Japan and elsewhere; hence, American comic book has its own article. Another editor brought this to my attention, and I'm bringing this to light for other editors. JosephSpiral ( talk) 03:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " King of Hell" is under discussion, see talk:King of Hell (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Lg16spears regularly posts information to character articles about other media appearances. The problem is that he seems to often post rumors, uses non-reliable sources, and sometimes even adds information that is very clearly not supported by the information in the sources that he does use. He does not seem to respond when his edits are reverted, or when warnings are placed on his talk page. What can be done in this situation? 2601:240:C703:5340:D477:9535:887D:52C ( talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
User:TriiipleThreat has been removing the info from lots of character pages (like this one). I think this kind of information belongs on the character pages, and I think it belongs in the media section based on the broader fine arts definition. However, I can see an arguement for removing it based on the narrower communication definition. I guess it comes down to how you view comics and comic properties, and I wanted to get a general consensus before I reverted any of his edits. Argento Surfer ( talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Can a compromise be reached where we have articles about the toylines, which include lists of which characters had figures? 2601:240:C703:5340:8DE2:1EDF:95B5:86C8 ( talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a consensus here that while toys are not necessarily a communications medium, they may or may not be a fine arts medium; however, given that various forms of children's dolls and similar figurines have been found almost throughout recorded history, there is also a broader historical/cultural context. Plus, these things are about as close to mass-produced sculpture as many characters are likely to get, but no less culturally significant for that fact. And I think requiring something to be "fine art" relies a little too much on opinion. I would support third-party sourced inclusion, especially for characters for which representation in the medium of action figures and/or the medium of other similar toys is surprising (for instance, there is a real licensed action figure for the Flaming Carrot!). There are surprisingly encyclopedic collectors' guides available online and in print, especially for comic book superhero characters. Certainly one could reference those among other sources. I also agree with TriiipleThreat that for the most part, prose is preferable to a laundry list. Boomshadow talk contribs 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
AggressiveNavel has come up with one possible solution to this dilemna at the Psylocke article. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
In the List of highest-grossing films and Batman (1989 film series) we have the film Catwoman as part of the Burtonverse film series. This is all due to a picture of Michelle as Catwoman in the film. Is this really enough for it to be official part of the franchise or could it maybe be just some random Easter egg? Jhenderson 777 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
What it appears like to me:
Is anyone else seeing this? Is this a mistake? Ranze ( talk) 02:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello chaps. I've noticed that for a lot of female comic characters we specify where they rank in some "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list. However we don't seem to do this for the chaps. This strikes me as unfair and not a little ungentlemanly. We shouldn't be behaving like boors by alluding to some kind of attractiveness ranking for anyone in my opinion, but if we are going to do so we should at least make it an equal opportunity thing. Otherwise I would recommend we drop this rather tawdry bit of trivial fluff from female characters articles. Quintessential British Gentleman ( talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think TriiipleThreat nailed it with the reasonings why that shouldn't happen. Although I do feel that OP's comment was quite amusing even if it wasn't intended to be. Jhenderson 777 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I brought this here because I think it should be discussed. I undid this split, first of all. Should we split the main character who used this name from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?
This field doesn't seem to be clearly defined only featuring the description "Partners include any current or previous partners. Please stick to notable partnerships. Also, please avoid "employee/employer" relationships." As seen on articles like Batman and Superman it's ripe for abuse in listing pretty much anyone the character has ever worked with and since the guideline is so loose, there's no real way to determine if it is being misused or not. It also seems redundant in some cases to the Team Affiliations field, since for instance Batman has "Batman Family" under team, but then all the individual members thereof. Ideally I think this field is not essential to the infobox and should be removed, but if need be the guideline needs to be rewritten to clarify what it is for and what it is not for, and perhaps put a limit on quantity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite the RfC we had in May this year that determined we are not required to use "that" to refer to fictional characters (e.g. "Nelvana is a fictional superhero who ..."), Cebr1979 is edit warring at Wonder Woman to force "that" where "who" was being used. He has been informed of the RfC on both his user page and mine, as well as in an edit summary. Can we do something about this contentious editing? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not particularly satisfied with the current She-Hulk image, and would rather change it to a version that i.m.h.o. better embodies what the character is about.
I have posted a suggestion in the She-Hulk talk page, and would appreciate community input. Thank you. David A ( talk) 09:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I've run into a question while trying to clear out Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. The comics categories listed there, e.g. Category:1949 comic debuts redirect to Category:1949 comics debuts. I modified a few templates (now reverted) to match this scheme. However, it seems not all categories follow this convention. E.g. Category:1990 comic debuts is the main category - there is no redirect to Category:1990 comics debuts. So, which is the correct naming scheme? Avic ennasis @ 17:27, 18 Elul 5775 / 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never written an article about a comic before so I find myself looking at a lot of unfamiliar sources, but I've been working on Millennium (2015 comic book) and would like to know if Comic Book Round Up, and/or any of the "critic reviews" it lists can be considered reliable in terms of the critical reception of a work. Thanks for any advice. GRAPPLE X 08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate caption for that image, or is it original research? 2001:558:6033:DB:4CB2:272E:895F:9F1A ( talk) 11:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Cyberforce has been debated whether it should be merged to Image Comics anyone interested in participating can join at Talk:Image Comics
These are usually deleted when they are recreated: Category:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone point me towards a good example of an In Other Media article? I'm struggling with how to layout one for the Joker. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Is a separation like this necessary? I am concerned because the other character articles do not do this. Are these sections in the Doctor Strange article too long and need to be split in the first place? 2001:558:6033:DB:4CB2:272E:895F:9F1A ( talk) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:DC Television Universe. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Because the current version of Template:Infobox comic book title here creates comics debuts categories, I've listed Category:1982 comic debuts for merger into Category:1982 comics debuts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 25. If there are views in the alternative, please comment there. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Because of both Loki's nature as a deity, and his changing role as a character over the years, I am concerned that labeling him as supervillain is a bit simplistic. Therefore, I contend that "fictional character" is a better description. 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 12:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add sources to Civil_War_(comics)#Reception because the first paragraph makes general statements about reception while citing nothing. I know plenty of sources worth citing. However, I then saw that the second paragraph quotes me, so I should not touch it. I bring this up here because the link citing me is dead. I took the paper off the Internet once it became a journal article (which has now been reprinted in a book). So leave it alone, remove it altogether, or fix the citation. I obviously have COI, but the dead link bugs me. I'll add the correct source information below. Do with it (or don't) as you will.
Langley, T. (2015). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. In K. M. Scott (Ed.), Marvel Comics’ Civil War and the age of terror: Critical essays on the comic saga (pp. 69-76). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Langley, T. (2009). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. International Journal of Comic Art, 11(1), 426-435.
Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a problem with the categories for debut year. The template for infobox automatically puts them in categories with comics ex:
Category:1996 comics debuts. The problem is that they don't exist. They instead exist as
Category:1996 comic debuts. This needs to be made consistent one way or the other.
JDDJS (
talk) 00:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I've similarly fixed Template:Infobox comics object and title. Someone should check any other templates that are used here. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have created the article Comics collection and it is linked to on a few pages. It has been marked as needing to be developed from a definition to a full article. If anyone wants to help, much appreciated. Or offer input on whether it should just be a dictionary definition (that's okay too)! Bod ( talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Tank Girl (film), which is under the scope of this project, is at FAC. All comments on the nomination are welcome – see here. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 04:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A two-man vandalatron today; would some of you go through the last months changes? Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone has been creating articles for each entry on List of Marvel RPG supplements. I question whether these supplements are notable enough to warrant a separate article for each of them. Please join the discussion at Talk:Concrete Jungle (supplement)#Marvel RPG supplements. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Created a navbox with {{ Comics}}. JJ98 ( Talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If anyone here has a DeviantArt account, would you please consider posting this link at the main forum there? I would be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor using various IP addresses starting with 68.184.79 have been removing this information. Can someone check on this? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Win Wiacek's "Now Read This!"? I didn't see it in the "reliable online column archives", but I see that it is used [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22now+read+this%22+wiacek&fulltext=Search]. I started looking into this while checking/improving references for Draft:Kenneth Mahood. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is everyone on the project satisfied with one of the main articles on the subject: Comics? The owner of that page, since about February 2013, has a very specific idea of what that page should be like. It is not at all the article I expected to read. It feels archaic and erudite and even obscure. I would hope there would be support from the project to allow changes to that page. Otherwise, it will just stay the same. Bod ( talk) 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion regarding the histories of the characters at Venus (Marvel Comics), where one character was retconned to be the other. Please see the discussion at Talk:Venus (Marvel Comics)#Aphrodite.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is to notify fellow comics editors that I posted the following at Talk:Justice Society of America#Comics Manual of Style. Feedback there would be appreciated.
Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#In-line use of dates and issue numbers "The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance" Please note the term "cover date" rather than "made up date". The Grand Comics Database gives the cover date of All Star Comics #3 as "Winter 1940-1941" and an on-sale date of "1940-11-22". The ComicBookdb gives it as "Winter 1940". Mike's Amazing World of Comics also gives a cover date of "Winter 1940" and an on-sale date of November 22, 1940 and has a snippet view of the Library of Congress copyright record as verification!
So why in the name of Gardner Fox did someone change the cover date of All-Star Comics #3 to "December 1940"? The cover clearly shows the word "Winter" NOT "December" or "Dec."
In addition, I posted this at
Talk:Superman (comic book)#Comics Manual of Style. Feedback there would be appreciated as well.
Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#In-line use of dates and issue numbers "The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance" Please note the term "cover date" rather than "made up date". The Grand Comics Database gives the cover date of Superman #1 as "Summer 1939" and an on-sale date of "1939-05-18". The ComicBookdb gives it as "Summer 1939". Mike's Amazing World of Comics also gives a cover date of "Summer 1939" and an on-sale date of May 18, 1939 and has a snippet view of the Library of Congress copyright record as verification!
So why in the names of Siegel and Shuster did someone change the cover date of Superman #1 to "June 1939"? The cover does not have the word "June" anywhere on it.
Mtminchi08 ( talk) 00:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Mtminchi08 ( talk) 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
IJVin added Category:Fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder to Iron Man, claiming that In "Iron Man 3", Tony displays PTSD resulting from the Battle of New York in "The Avengers". I reverted, challenging that there was no specific diagnosis in the film and that this is an original research assumption (not to mention, we don't generally add attributes of "In other media" versions to the articles on comics characters unless they also apply to the comics version of the character). Calidum added the PTSD category back, claiming " Its obvious." Is this an appropriate category for this article? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 00:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
An SPA redlink editor at Superman has been making wholesale edits, many of which have pushed a particular book, by Brad Ricca, that was never cited in the article and now has been cited there several times. I suspect a COI issue. In any event, this editor, with very few edits outside this article, has been combative when I've pointed out Wikipedia guidelines, MOS and even a policy ( WP:NONFREE) that he was breaking. For example, this passage on the talk page:
I've tried to accentuate the positive — thanking him on the talk page for his often very good copy edits [4], and for this initially collegial response [5] — but he was edit-warring until I pointed our WP:BRD and overall has been behaving WP:OWN-ishly. As I pointed out to him, some three-quarters of his edits have gone through without issue. But he clearly wants what he wants, apparently primarily to push this Ricca book, and I'd simply like to ask other editors to look at the talk page, particularly at Talk:Superman#Superman, the immigrant story, before anything continues to escalate. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, things are working out very well so far, and I certainly invite other editors to take a look and contribute if you can at User:BaronBifford/sandbox. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject#Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images (of/in ...)" Thank you for your time. JJ98 ( Talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted most of the changes by new user Mothmz on Moon Knight, because as I explained in my edit summary, a lot of wikilinks were removed for no apparent reason, and some of the additions appear to be unsourced original research and opinions. I may or may not have cut back too much? I did try to retain most of the updated material on the newer comic series that the user added though. The user reverted my changes, and went on a number of talk pages trying to explain themselves. What is the best way to resolve this situation? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at Green Lantern, and trying to work on it. But its a little difficult. I barely get the gist of it through youtube videos. But there has to be a better way of organizing character information. Especially if there are retcons and such. I was thinking. The first thing i thought would be beneficial is having a physical list of publications regarding these characters. The only thing is to actually make the list. At least that way Comic book articles can feel a little more tangible to edit by just following the order of their release. Of course the retcons is one of the most difficult things to look into. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors, please weigh in on which actors should or should not be listed as portraying Batman on screen. You can do so here. Basically, the chid actor who plays Bruce Wayne on the TV show Gotham is being listed as playing Batman. It's argued by an editor in the edit history that Bruce and Batman are one and the same, so he should be listed in the lead paragraphs as playing him. However, I do not believe it's the same thing, since Batman is the costumed superhero who the article is about. This child actor does not appear as Batman in costume on this TV show. If we're to list child actors who play Bruce and not Batman, then we should list all the child actors who played Bruce Wayne on film. I don't think we should be listing these child actors who have appeared only as young Bruce Waynes and never as Batman the costumed superhero. DrRNC ( talk) 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted an IP address who added this to an article, and then searched and found it used in 40 other places. [6] Their FAQ on their website says they are not connected to Marvel and do not have any access to any access to information other than what they read on news sites. Its used as a reference in many articles right now. Any bot that could remove these all at once? Dream Focus 03:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with wiki's guidelines for notable podcasts. Would someone who is mind to review Uncanny X-Cast? It's a rather long article filled with inappropriate content, and I'm not sure if it should be trimmed and salvaged or just nominated for deletion... Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The usage and topic of The X-Files (season 10) is under discussion, see talk:The X-Files (miniseries)
As The X-Files Season 10 is a comic book title, I thought I'd let you know.
-- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 05:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The usage and topic of The Super Girl is under discussion, see talk:Supergirl (Japanese TV series) -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A couple years back, i recommended re-organizing the templates by splitting up media-related articles from in-universe related into their navboxes. I didn't get a lot of traction on it, but this time i took the liberty to re-organizing template:Green Lantern navbox by separating media and in=universe into two sections without splitting the navbox. I believe we should take this format as an example for all the other navboxes.
The navbox is designed to help readers (and editors) navigate through articles. If they get too convoluted, it wont be easy to navigate to, and prioritize. What do you all think about this new format? Is it better?04:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Lucia Black ( talk)
The X-Files Season 10 has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:The X-Files Season 10 -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 05:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading Genesis, and got confused -- is it a "short" graphic novel? Who decides what length is a "graphic novella"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I was going to add some information from the Stan Lee interview in Alter Ego to the "publication history" section of Green Goblin, but I immediately hit a snag. The info concerns the unveiling of the Green Goblin's identity, and the existing info on that subject uses WP: Weasel words: "According to one theory, Lee always wanted him to be someone Peter Parker knew, while Ditko wanted him to be a stranger, feeling this was closer to real life." The use of weasel words is perplexing, since the statement is sourced. Unfortunately, without knowing who this "one theory" comes from (it might be the reference's author, but it might not), I can't properly integrate my new info with the existing info. The same statement also appears in Norman Osborn, with the same reference and the same weasel words. Is there anyone here who has access to the cited source and can tell me who this "one theory" originates from?-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Folks, I could use a little help. At this point, both the pages Peanuts and The Complete Peanuts talk about the book series The Complete Peanuts as being 25 volumes. That was the original plan, but the series has been extended to a 26th volume. I cannot edit that information myself because I have a strong COI here, as I've got an editing position on volume 26. I've left requests on both talk pages that this be updated, including links to a Fantagraphics catalog announcement of the 26th volume - both that link and an Amazon search for a new volume should confirm to you this is true. It's drivin' me up the wall seeing that misinformation there and not wanting to sully it with my COI fingers, so if anyone else could tackle the changes, I'd appreciate it! -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Iron max 3 has been adding many navbox templates to character pages with seemingly little justification in many cases. Just figured that might be good to discuss it here. 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 01:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we finally get rid of Trade paperback (comics)? The ridiculous "graphic novel vs trade paperback vs graphic album" thing belongs to a dead era. The article is almost entirely unsourced and will almost certainly remain unsourceable; regardless, the term "graphic novel" has long since completely absorbed the US comics-specific definition of "trade paperback". The article should be merged into graphic novel, or obliterated entirely (honestly, I question whether it even deserves a footnote). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, I have been heavily active in the field of webcomics lately. However, I have very little interest in comics generally. Therefore, I'm wondering if there are people interested in reviving the Webcomics Taskforce. Regardless of whether you guys have much interest in working on webcomics, I will be posting questions and discussions on its talk page in weeks to come, so feel free to watch the page and respond if you want. ~ Mable ( chat) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this on the Black Panther article an appropriate use of Marvel's website as a source? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a comic expert so don't know how to advise this guy on finding valid Reliable Sources, but since this comic is talked-about enough that even I as a non-reader have heard it mentioned, I figure this is something y'all might want to help him get published. Enjoy! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite anyone here to participate in the discussion at Talk:Tarantula (Marvel Comics). This debate concerns not only the article in question, but a general content inclusion policy on articles about comic book characters.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149 and I appear to be having a disagreement on the talk page over whether the character was created for the TV show having been loosely inspired by a different character with a different name in a single earlier comic, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show. The sources don't agree, but most of the sources can be reasonably interpreted as supporting either one of these options, as any detailed history of the character will mention both. After the TV show either created or popularized the character, he was apparently introduced back into the comics, and the earlier appearance was retconned as being the same character going by a different pseudonym (or something like that). This makes it very difficult to analyze most of the less-detailed sources, as they just say the character's first appearance was in 1959. More input, preferably with more sources that explicitly address the issue, would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this has come up before, but do comics produced (not just reprinted) by Marvel UK technically count as "American comic books"? I don't know how big a problem it is, if at all, but I'm pretty sure some of their books are (were?) in continuity with the mainstream Marvel universe and featured cameos by major characters originating in more "purely American" fare. I was just looking our Peggy Carter article and noticed this in the lead, and thought it might be an issue that wasn't addressed whenever it was decided to specify "American". Obviously one solution would be to say, for example, "first appearimg in American comic books", as that is something we can actually quantify quite easily, but implying they have only appeared in American comic books when we don't necessarily know that seems problematic.
(FTR, I don't know if this problem even applies to the Peggy Carter article, or even if the character in the original comics was British, although my gut tells me that if the latter is true the former is more likely to be true than otherwise. It's peripheral to my main concern either way.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Flashpoint (Elseworlds) I am thinking of writing of a new article is this sources credible. [7] Dwanyewest ( talk) 17:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm contemplating a major restructuring of the article List of Spider-Man enemies. I invite anyone with any interest in the article to weigh in at Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies#Classification system.-- NukeofEarl ( talk) 19:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently tried to deleted the "In other media" section from the Superman article and merge its contents with the "Publication" section near the top. Tenebrae took issue with this and reverted, so now I want to present my case.
Firstly, the "In other media" section was under "Cultural Impact", which makes no sense because the franchising of Superman is not a cultural effect. Secondly, it makes no sense to me to discuss the comic books and the movies and TV shows apart. The TV shows and movies have a much bigger audience than the comic books. For most people, Superman is someone they see in cartoons or in the cinemas. Development-wise, there is a lot of cross-pollination between the comic books and the TV shows and movies. The radio serial gave us kryptonite. The Fleischer cartoons made Superman fly. The 1978 movie gave us the messianic overtones. Lois & Clark married Superman and Lois.
I feel that most superhero articles were written by comic book geeks for other comic book geeks rather than the general audience, and they have the bizarre notion that the TV shows and movies are a minor aspect of the Superman mythos, and that the current "mainstream" comic continuity is the "definitive" version of Superman. Superman is not strictly a comic book character. He is a fictional character who merely got his start in comics, but then quickly expanded to a wide variety of media. Just a few years after Action Comics #1, Superman was on the radio drawing over four million listeners, which is a bigger audience than the comic books have EVER had.
So I want, in the Publication history section of the Superman article, to discuss the radio serials, TV shows, and movies alongside the comic books. It just makes sense. BaronBifford ( talk) 06:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to rewrite the Fictional character biography section of the Superman article, but another editor keeps reverting me. BaronBifford ( talk) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Argento Surfer and Tenebrae: "The IOM material should not be mixed with publication history. That's partly because radio/TV/Film isn't really "published"
This is just a matter of semantics. "Publication", according to Wikipedia's own article on the matter, is making content available to to public. Broadcasting a radio show or selling a DVD is technically publication, particularly under US and international copyright law. And if it isn't, I can solve this by changing the title. This a weak argument.
"and partly because I don't believe the material can be presented together in a coherent fashion"
You don't believe. I think you've never tried. I have, so I think I can speak with authority on this matter. Take a look at my Sandbox where I have drafted a new Publication and Fictional character biography section. In the latter, I discuss the common, enduring elements of the Superman mythos, like when he got his name or when kryptonite was introduced. A lot of this stuff comes from media other than comic books. Kryptonite appeared in the radio show. Superman's first team-up with Batman was in the radio show. Superman gained the ability to fly in the animated serial because flying looked better on film than leaping. The 1978 movie decided that Smallville was in Kansas, and also gave Superman the messianic overtones that still show up in stories today. It's rather absurd to think that the radio show, cartoons and movies have had little impact on the books. Their audience are much larger. Many current and past writers at DC Comics fell in love with Superman through watching the cartoons.
"I'm not suggesting we downplay the other media. I'm pointing out the article is about the comic book character. Until you're ready to revamp the FCB to cover comics and other media equally,"
I'm absolutely ready and willing to rewrite the whole article.
Now let me discuss the FCB section in its current state. Firstly it refers stories that have left no permanent mark on the character, such as Superman being killed by Doomsday and the New Krypton storyline and the Kents passing away. These have been retconned out. There's also a lot of recentism, like mentioning Superman's T-shirt and jeans combo which is a change that certainly won't endure. There are also some useless lines, like "His origin is again revisited in 2004." Superman's origin has been revisited so many times that fans get annoyed by it.
The Fictional character biography section was built piecemeal over years by multiple editors each with partial knowledge, rather than one researcher who has fully studied the whole matter. Someone needs to take a flamethrower to the whole thing and rewrite it.
Another issue is that this article is not just comics-centric, but "mainstream"-centric. That is, somehow this community decided that what DC Comics calls the "mainstream" DC Universe is the definitive version of Superman, which is strange to me and something only comic geeks do. And I think it's bad practice because it prevents the article from presenting a broad picture - and a broad picture is what the main Superman article should be about. You begin with the general and link to articles focusing on the specific. The article on Physics gives a broad description of all the branches of physics across history and the influences they have had on each other, and it provides links to more focused articles like quantum physics or fluid dynamics. Why don't superhero articles follow this sensible logic? BaronBifford ( talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
For lack of a better comic was created on the 11th, and was then nominated for deletion on the 12th. Based on a google search, I think there could be notability here, but I'm not familiar with this comic or what's usually expected for a webcomic article. Is there anyone out there who could help improve it, or confirm non-notability? Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Are these edits acceptible? No source was added, and the grammar and formatting seems a bit off, so I am skeptical. 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh nothing is wrong with the edits i already gave sources and as for grammar and etc i have to rush things but you don't have to keep undoing all my edits because of small errors and as for David A now he also doesn't have perfect grammar if i can show you his own errors you will see that perfect grammar doesn't exist anywhere and that its just a tool for people who think they are above others now if you want to chat then don't undo all my edits just fixed the problems. Beyonder ( talk) 13:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
I have now cited my sources thank you very much. Beyonder ( talk) 13:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
Those are OLD the one i posted is basically of THIS era aka 2006 its not hard to see the differences between the old and the new. Beyonder ( talk) 13:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
I gave the issues already and i fixed the errors i made to the article page so your revert has been Rollback. Beyonder ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
There's some broken code showing at the top of Aquaman. I'm not sure how to fix it. Could someone sort this out? — DangerousJXD ( talk) 21:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some aid in dealing with an IP sock vandal. This person loves removing the word "fictional" from articles about fictional characters. Even though the editor is not inserting meaningless profanity into articles, this behavior is still vandalism. I am often the only one around to ever revert this person on the spot and it's tiring. Attempts to talk to the vandal are pointless as they have never actually said anything at all (no edit summaries, no talk page posts etc.). Aquaman has been protected twice because of these edits; since Aquaman is currently protected, the IP has branched out to other comic book character articles and is more actively making the edits. The person has used around ten different IPs total. By "aid" I mean help in reverting these edits so I'm not the only editor doing so. I suppose this section's true purpose is to raise awareness: If you see these edits, revert them. If you see that an article about a fictional character is missing the word "fictional" from the opening sentence, add it. — DangerousJXD ( talk) 07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we should the info boxes as is and add the alliance if they joined them. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Then if they join the avengers let's say. Just put avengers there, not secret avengers or avengers academy or west coast avengers. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I just think if they joined the team it goes in the infobox. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 09:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Tenebrae, Zythe, and Argento Surfer: How big should an infobox be allowed to be? I don't think an infobox should jut beyond the table of contents and into the main body of the article, as is currently the case in the Superman article. It's causing me formatting headaches, all to include some minor trivia. BaronBifford ( talk) 11:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
But shouldn't we give them a lot of information to have? 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 18:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
They're superhero partners. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 21:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Although there are a lot of articles that has one and more infobox which each character of a legacy. When one infobox would do. I would say having Wayne Enterprises be added to Batmans alliance in the infobox, because it's part of the story. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that dick Grayson joined the justice league and it should be there. It was during his time as Batman that he again joined the justice league. With Donna Troy, star fire, cyborg, and others. 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 17:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Which points? The only thing I would agree with is getting rid of various avengers teams. That I agree with. Like Hank Pym. Do we need avengers ai there? 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Is there consensus? 100.40.54.158 ( talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on two versions of a "Fictional character biography" at Talk:Superman#Request for comment. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? 65.126.152.254 ( talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Is previewsworld.com considered a reliable source particularly for future series/events?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Injustice Guild has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dark
Knight
2149 13:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have articles: Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy) and Spider-Gwen as separate articles? Both articles cover the same character as the Gwen Stacy article covers Gwen in the Marvel Universe in general. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought that was my suggestion? Even though I am still against it. The article doesn't prove it but she has had enough coverage to stand out on her own from the Gwen Stacy article if you do your own web research IMO. You can do a consensus on it of course since you do seem desperate for it to merge. Henderson 777 11:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this level of separation necessary? Do we need a separate section for one (albeit large) paragraph? 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 4#Batman and Superman would be appreciated. I believe an article on Batman/Superman crossovers would be viable. -- BDD ( talk) 16:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I’m a blogger: and have managed to come up with a well received post about Batman’s first appearance, which I’d initially thought was in March, 1939. After all, it WAS mentioned in the relevant day of the year entry. (For 30th March) My of my regular readers, however, found THIS link: on DC’s own site, that stated the original release date was 17th May!
Can we do something to this?
Or add an try to 17th May?
Thanks!
Cuddy2977 ( talk) 07:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)