Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CMC)
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics:

For proposed deletions and mergers, disputes, and recently created articles, check the WikiProject Comics Notice board.

Changes to lead section[edit]

Kurzon has been making some pretty sizable chops to the lead sections of character articles, so I just wanted to bring this here for discussion. Examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the lead sections to articles on superheroes contain trivia and very current information. I decided to rewrite them into something more succinct and broad. Explain the character concept in 4 or 5 lines, focusing on essential and consistent details, and an overview of their media presence in 3 or 4 lines. Leave the trivia, character analysis, and current developments to the main body of the article. You must assume that the reader is somebody who isn't a comic book geek. Write something your grandpa would understand.Kurzon (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
A lot of your changes have been removing real-world information/perspective and substituting it for in-universe stuff, which is what matters. || Tako (bother me) || 22:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The previous versions had even more in-universe details. If anything, I trimmed down the fictional description.Kurzon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You should consider leading with the real word info (first appearance, creators, etc.) then moving to the in-universe descriptions/characteristics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
While the lead section should be concise and to the point compared to the rest of the article, the point is not to be as brief as possible; per WP:LEAD#Length, longer articles may need three or even four paragraphs to tell the whole story of an article. The lead should briefly cover all the key elements of the topic. See the lead section of Spider-Man or Batman as examples of how the lead is handled on high-quality character articles, and what we should aspire to be doing on other notable characters. So in most cases for a character, you would want to mention the origin story in a sentence or two, same with the powers and abilities, another sentence or two for their most significant character developments (or more as necessary), a mention of some of their most important supporting characters and/or significant memberships in teams and groups, and that should be good enough for the story elements mentioned in most cases. We should be covering things in the body of the article such as who created the character, when did they first appear, what inspired the character's creators in developing that character, analysis by independent commentators and other creators who further developed the character, commentary on how that character has been used in other media appearances, and any impact that character has made on popular culture and the medium, AND also summarize these things in the lead. We should not fail to mention things that a non-comics reader would not understand, but we should instead endeavor to explain things to help them understand important aspects of the character. If we see something mentioned in the lead but not in the body, we should not remove it from the lead but we should make sure it is also discussed in the body; if it is too trivial for the lead, then move it out of the lead and into the body. (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of these articles are just lengthy bits of trivia that cover many reboots and series. I think the general rule that the lead should be proportional to the article should be ignored here.Kurzon (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:IAR is a fine rule, but of course it needs to be justified when challenged. I wasn't suggesting to cover trivia; see again what I was saying above, that we need to cover the more important pieces of real world information. (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of them look like good edits to me. Especially Mystique. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't write about the characters as living people in the lead. In the real world, they are not people - e.g., Magneto is not a mutant. Magneto is a work of fiction. In the lead, say "that" instead of "who" and endeavor to avoid pronouns. "He" and "she" violate the guidelines on how to write about fictional characters in the leads, but "it" just looks silly.
From the Manual of Style: "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."[8] Because we violate that left and right in the character biographies, the norm evolved to adhere to MOS in the opening and get each article off to a correct start. The aforementioned quote is not the only relevant Wikipedia guideline on this. Notice the glaring dearth of superhero articles among the comics articles listed as examples of articles that doing exemplary jobs of adhering to real-world perspective.[9] (Of course, some of those articles may have gotten screwed up since their original inclusion on that list.) Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, that's what I was trying to get at. (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

[10] I just don't understand this desire by User:Kurzon to keep readers less informed. 2601:D:B480:ED2:A80E:1C3A:E6BB:7205 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Kurzon's edits are quite drastic, but, seriously, the leads of these articles need something to be done about them. The previous lead to Wolverine was just awful—the entire last paragraph was nothing but recentist peacocky fluff, and the rest of it is verbose and full of trivialities. Kurzon's version is inadequate, yet still an improvement. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
What should I add, User:Curly Turkey?Kurzon (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a difficult question to answer—you should get familiar with MOS:LEAD for one.

A rule of thumb is that it should give a brief summary from each major section. The problem is that the article itself is a mess—it needs to be balanced and tightened up considerably. For such a major character the lead is definitely way too short, but "a bit from each section" in this case would likely be summing up a lot of trivial detail. The best approach would be to fix up the body and then figure out what would be most appropriate for the lead, but that would be quite a bit of work.

Looking at the contribution history, it looks like there hasn't been a primary editor or group of editors. Articles like this tend to be an agglomeration of numbers, lists, and trivia. There's also an issue that's been brought up by more than one editor—that the focus of the article is on the character in the world of comics, rather than a general overview of the character as a character, as one would expect (if one weren't a comics nerd).
As it is, the lead only sums up the character's in-universe aspects—it needs more out-of-universe stuff, and I suspect more in-universe stuff as well. Without a decent body to work from, though, it's hard to give more concrete advice than that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I find a lot of the writing in superhero articles is just plain awful; sperg-fests written by geeks who have trouble relating to the layman. I'm tempted to burn everything to ashes and start anew. I am no ashamed if my edits ruffle feathers. Maybe this will give the community the kick it needs.Kurzon (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So do it. I'm looking forward to seeing what yo can do with it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to rewrite an article from scratch, it's a good idea to start with a sandbox page---say User:Kurzon/Wolverine, so that the average reader still has a workable page to read until you've got your version built up to a certain degree. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Curly Turkey, I've started a draft at User:Kurzon/Magneto. Do you think I'm on the right track?Kurzon (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
One thing I noticed is that your rewrite has very few citations. I added some of the sourced commentary that you previously removed from the lead; I feel this sort of thing should be retained in some form. (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, a lot of my references are specific comic book issues, and I prefer to mention these in the main text so as to provide context for the information. The details of Magneto's life vary so much from book to book, cartoon to cartoon, etc., so I ought to explicitly mention where this or that little fact comes from.Kurzon (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The references should be from thrid-party sources rather than the comics. Read up about it at WP:PRIMARY. Sometimes you'll find that something you consider important isn't covered in third-party sources. This means, unfortunately, that you'd have to drop that info in those cases. Sometimes it's best to find sources first, and then work up the information in the article from what you can find in the sources (less heartbreak that way). Of course, you have to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing. I realize the current Magneto (comics) article is chock full of refs to the comic books—that is not a model to follow and is a big issue with a lot of comics articles. Sometimes Google Books is a good place to find sources. If you find it difficult to find good sources for Magneto, it may be better to find a character that you have good sources for first.
Another thing—style-wise you'll want to avoid sentences made up of only a short single sentence like what you've got at the end there. It's okay in a draft if you intend to build on it later, but you'll want to avoid that when you move it to mainspace. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources are fine if you want to list straight facts. I admit I have few secondary sources for the analysis. Still, I think my work is an improvement over the previous version of the article.Kurzon (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Limited use of primary sources for strictly factual purposes or for plot summaries can be fine, but an article must be based primarily on tertiary sources to establish notability, amongst other things. Primary sources should be used with extreme caution—it is far too easy to veer into WP:OR territory with them. As a rule of thumb, you should start with tertiary sources, and fall back on primary only if you absolutely must (again, for strictly factual information or straight plot summaries), and even then think twice about using them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the other comic characters, such as Spider-man, Batman, and Superman? They have fictional character biographies as well. Since the Magneto page has this removed, what about the other superhero pages? I don't care one way or the other if the fictional biography is there or not, but out of respect for both sides of the argument, why not just place the fictional character biography as a separate article, in the same way we have "In other Media" or "Alternative versions of"? That way, the main article will be cleaned up and there will be another version of the article for people who want to know about the characters' history. As it stands, however, I do agree that the fictional character biography sections of these articles are excessive, and will continue to get even more excessive as more and more comics come out (making the article unnecessarily long).Kinfoll77 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I would consider the fictional character bio a key part of the article, and would be beyond surprised to see it missing or in another article. It needs to be balanced and sourced, but it needs to be there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Which version of Magneto should I base the biography on? The comic book version, which goes through endless reboots, retcons, and alternate universes? The movies? The cartoons? It does not really make sense to me to pick one version of Magneto as the "official" version and dismiss the others as "alternates". Far better to list the character points that are consistent across all stories.Kurzon (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The main article should be an overview of the character; you definitely shouldn't be choosing a particular version, but you also shouldn't be picking and choosing which elements you consider to be consistent—that's the kind of thing edit wars are based on, when someone disagrees with your interpretation. That's one reason we rely on summing up what third-party sources have said on the subject. If Magneto is particularly complicated and hard to source, maybe it's best to start with a more straightforward character. You can always keep your own version of the Magneto article in your sandbox and work on it bit by bit until you've worked it up into something acceptable. Some articles take longer to write than others, so it's good to have more than one on the go for when you hit a wall with one. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on the mainspace from here on, not my sandbox. This way I'll get feedback from other people than you.Kurzon (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the great rush is, but whatever. Just remember that your mainspace edits raised concerns in the first place, thus this discussion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Fictional character biography should be based solely on the character's continuity in their most prominent medium (in Magneto's case, comic books), and that continuity from other media should be restricted to the "In other media" section or left out of the article entirely. That's not just the way it's done on comic book articles out of bad habit, either. Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and Master Chief (Halo) (a Featured Article), for example, all follow this same format. Plus, incorporating elements from multiple media in a single plot summary would be very confusing for what I had thought were obvious reasons.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No, we give weight to whatever medium the sources give weight to. Sherlock Holmes focuses on the prose works because nothing in other media have ever approached the impact of the original stories. On the other hand, we have the Popeye article, which gives considerable focus to the animation and does not shunt it into the "Other media" section (which does exist). This is what a reader would suspect, and what sources do. That's the key—don't just make stuff up based on your gut feelings or primary sources, start with a wide array of tertiary sources and figure out what the balance should be from there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with NukeofEarl, the focus of the article should be on the character's most prominent medium. Also the problem with the bio sections is not that they do not include information from other continuities but that the lack of summation and over details. These bios should be written in broad strokes. We do not need to cover every encounter with a supervillian, just the most prominent ones or have lasting effects on the character. Even then the details should be kept to bear minimum, just enough to give the reader a basic understanding of the events. Another problem is recentism, where editors give more attention to current events then past ones. And ideally these events should contain thoughts/analysis from third-party sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order: The topic of this discussion has changed considerably from when it was started. The section name no longer applies and is misleading. Also before the proposed changes spread beyond Magneto (comics) a larger consensus should be reached due to the divergence from the established manual of style. A Wikiproject with around 600 participants, should not be relegated by a couple of editors. Perhaps a m:MassMessage should be sent to every participant, informing them of this discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Biography change[edit]

Following a discussion on the WikiProject_Comics talk page, I came to agree with other editors that there are major problems with how superhero articles are written. Honestly, they're a bloody mess, a massive sperg-fest by comic geeks who do not coordinate their efforts or work hard to relate to the layman. There are other wikis on the Web that are more appropriate for this.

Most glaring are the biographies. They are excessively bloated. They are centered around the mainstream 616 Universe, giving no regard to the other books, movies, and television shows. This is not appropriate, given that the movies and TV shows have a wider audience than the comic books, and that the "mainstream" 616 universe goes through endless retcons and reboots. Additionally, this section was not written appropriately for an encyclopedia, which should always be written from the perspective of the real world. The Manual of Style says: "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded."

I have rewritten the biography section of the Magneto (comics) article completely. Instead of a biography, it attempts to list the plot points and character traits about Magneto that have been consistent across all the stories he has appeared in. It gives equal weight to all the comic books, the movies, and TV shows. I think this should be a template for all superhero articles.Kurzon (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems like it might work, but it's a significant departure from the standard and I'd like to think about it before giving my final opinion. Three things stand out immediately - One, this will take a long time to implement. Two, you're going to have a long, uphill battle on your hands against people who want to re-add the biography. Three, it will seem awkward when applied to characters who haven't been through lots of variations, like Savage Dragon, or characters whose other appearances are very minor, like Adam Warlock. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As stated above I agree that a lot of these articles have significant issues but I don't think this right approach. "Fictional character biography" sections are not inherently bad and most just require trimming. Also not every variation of a character has equal WP:WEIGHT. As NukeofEarl, pointed out special consideration (focus) should be given to the medium in which the character was created, which is the norm throughout Wikipedia not just WP:Comic. In fact different variations may have there own levels of notability like BatmanCscr-featured.svg and Batman in filmGood article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say we should give more weight to the comics just because they were created there? Besides, the comic books go through endless retcons and reboots. The biographies give little distinction to the changes and patterns that the character in question has gone through over its years of publication. My approach helps the reader appreciate how the character has evolved over time in response to cultural and editorial pressures. And it also frames it in the real world perspective.Kurzon (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The "rules" say no such thing, of course—you follow the sources. If the sources put all the weight on the comics, then it's likely you should too. What you're doing is an interesting approach, but you have to make sure that nothing's given undue weight, and that your interpretation doesn't fall under WP:OR. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that they were rules just the norm. And just because the biography didn't do something, it doesn't mean that it can't.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The appearance of (if not actual) OR is my biggest hangup. Like the line "The character of Magneto has appeared in a wide variety of media for over 50 years under the creative control of uncounted editors and writers." What variety of media was he appearing in 50 years ago? To my knowledge, the first incarnation of Magneto outside of print was a toy in the 80s. He didn't make TV until the 90s and Film until 2000. Why are the editors and creators uncounted? Are you sure they're uncounted? Do you have a source saying they're uncounted, or do you just not know the number?
I won't argue that most of your writing is true, but a lot of it isn't, and can't be, sourced. "In all portrayals, Magneto is aggressive, domineering, and vindictive." Do you have a citation for this? If not, it's OR to say "all," because you mean "all that I'm aware of." The rest of it has similar problems. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree even the most obvious generalities need to be sourced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see an intrinsic problem with the Fictional character biographies either. Yes, most of them need extensive cutting down to size (something I've already been working on for quite a while,, but they're no different than the plot summaries which appear in articles on movies and books. The Wikipedia policy of using the real world as the primary frame of reference means just that: you use the real world as the primary frame of reference, hence why Fictional character biographies are just one section of an article and they're labeled "Fictional".
Mind you, I think the style of character summation Kurzon has used for Magneto can be useful too, especially for prominent characters like Magneto, since their vast history and numerous retcons are hard to summarize into a concise and coherent Fictional character biography. Unfortunately, I think this approach won't work for 99% of comic book character articles. As Argento Surfer and TriipleThreat have noted, broad generalities need sourcing, and unlike the normal Fictional character biographies, they can't be sourced from the comics themselves because that's WP:SYNTH. With Magneto we can probably dig up some appropriate sources with time, but characters like Schizoid Man (comics), Black Bolt, Huntress (Helena Bertinelli), and even Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) just don't have that kind of in-depth character analysis out there, at least not in notable sources.
As to the character's prevalence in each medium, while it is tempting to think that (in Kurzon's words) "the movies and TV shows have a wider audience than the comic books", I don't know if that's actually true. Undoubtedly ticket sales on the X-Men movies are higher than the sales of any individual comic book in which Magneto appeared, but the character has been appearing in comic books for five decades, and the people who read Avengers vs. X-Men #12 are not the same people who read Uncanny X-Men #304, who in turn are not the same people who read X-Men #1. Even among contemporaneous publications, the same set of people were not reading Magneto's escapades in X-Men and his appearances in Defenders. And even if we assume that more people watched the handful of X-Men films than read any of a dozen comic publications over five decades, that by itself does not mean that Magneto isn't perceived by the general public as a comic book character. Far more people watched Elementary than have read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but no one would contend that Holmes is predominantly a television character and not a prose fiction character.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how many people saw films or read comics over the decades when I open article named Magneto_(comics) I expect the focus to be on his comics version. Wide majority of his publications are set in "main continuity" of Marvel comics (also known as 616 universe) so it makes sense that biography section focuses on those stories and other stories are mentioned "alternate versions" section. Furthermore Magneto had major role, if I'm not mistaken, in 5 X-Men films. I'm sure that if someone wanted he could find enough sources to create separate article for Magneto_(X-Men_films) to make clear distinction between comics and big screen version of Magneto. Similar approach has been taken with Superman and his Smallvile TV show version and I think it works out perfectly instead of trying to create some Frankenstein's version of all appearances in all possible media. BlisterD (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Panther (comics)[edit]

I have proposed a considerable change to this article at Talk:Black Panther (comics). Any input is welcome.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access[edit]

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional character vandal[edit]

Special:Contributions/ has been going around editing articles about fictional characters, and removing all references to them being fictional, rewriting them to make it look like they are real people. See Scarlet Witch for example. I'm going to try to undo as much as I can, but please help me to make sure it is all cleaned up. 2601:D:B480:ED2:5C07:A115:562A:C0F0 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

While's edits are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, they are clearly not vandalism. He's quite apparently under the common misconception that because it is obvious these are fictional characters, that fact should not be stated.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You might be right - it probably is intended in good faith, but the user is also clearly misguided. (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If it's only one person editing from that address, then it is a vandal. See page blanking at Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Howard the Duck in GotG[edit]

Howard appears in a brief cameo in the film, and in an end-credits scene. Is a cameo role lead-worthy? [11] (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. It gives the impression to readers that the significance of his appearance in the film is much larger than it is.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not lead-worthy. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; will remove it. (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolverine article moved[edit]

Wolverine (comics) was moved to Wolverine (character) after another requested move. Wait... again? I thought this was resolved already? (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It was. The current title goes against WP:NCC. and this discussion. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Fortdj33: MOS:COMIC has been reworded to conform to sitewide guidelines, as per the outcome of an RFC that you participated in. WP:NCC is in violation of that, and it has already been proposed that the obscure, little-watched, and redundant WP:NCC be merged into MOS:COMIC. Local consensus can't override community guidelines without broad community consensus, much as that irks certain members of WP:COMICS. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, for what it's worth the proposal you linked to, actually appears to suggest that MOS:COMIC be merged into WP:NCC, not the other way around. It should be noted that MOS:COMIC was changed by you, after you revised an RFC discussion, which was closed with no consensus. Just because the members of the comics project didn't feel like arguing with you a second time, doesn't mean that there is any "broad community consensus" for WP:NCC to be overridden. Personally, I still believe that "(comics)" is sufficient disambiguation for characters that originated in comics, but it will be interesting to see if any other editors are willing to weigh in again... Fortdj33 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Quit spinning, Fortdj33—the RfC did not close "no consensus" (as you are fully aware), it closed with a consensus that MOS:COMIC be changed, but no consensus on which of the two choices to change it to, and I quote: "but there is no consensus for which version of the change is preferred". The second version was identical to the first except for the addition of "—to signify the medium—", which was not added as there was no clear consensus for it (but there was a consensus for the rest of it). Why are you misrepresenting what happened? This is beyond exasperating. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57: I'm concerned with how Fortdj33 has represented your close of the RfC. Could you please clarify? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jenks24: As you closed the Wolverine (character) move that's being questioned here, and [Fortdj33 is accusing you of making th emove without consensus, would you care to weigh in? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: did you actually propose that "MOS:COMIC be merged into WP:NCC" as Fortdj33 says you did? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I misremember; it's been a while since I was discussing this stuff. Will be happy to revisit, as these pages and debates about them have progressed far enough that whatever I was saying back when might no longer be a valid position (or might be even more important). A common problem is that various topical NC pages have material in them that has nothing to do with article names in particular, and that material has to come out and put in an MOS sub-page (or just be removed if there's no consensus for it at MOS, which is often the case - wikiprojects insert all kinds of daft crap into topical NC pages, figuring no one will notice what WP:SSF stuff they are pushing). Similarly, topical MOS subpages often have material in them that is really specifically about article naming, and needs to be moved to a topical NC page (or just delete it if regulars at WT:AT are going to object to it because it conflicts with extant policy, another common problem in these wikiprojectual "rules" pages. So, it is likely that I recommended merging some stuff from one of these pages into the other, and likely that I would do so again where such scope problems and/or policy conflicts appear.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that there was consensus to change, but no consensus for what to change to. This means you should not have changed the MOS, as the RFC did not result in that decision. Number 57 10:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57: Could you please double-check that? The only change made was the one that was in both proposed changes, and the edit was made at your own suggestion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, good point... Apologies. Number 57 12:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I was asked about this on my talk page. I don't have much more to add. Suffice it to say that consensus can change and my reading of the discussion was that there was a rough consensus to move to "(character)". No one even made the argument for "(comics)" as an ideal title and I can only assess the arguments put in front of me. RM closures can be contested at WP:MRV. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • How do I put something on the article page information people of the move discussion? I notice in the history that wasn't done for the previous discussion. This is necessary to bring in more people to it to form proper consensus. Dream Focus 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Click the "Talk" tab of the Project page, as you would at WP:COMICS. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I mean at the Wolverine article. Dream Focus 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Power Ring (DC Comics)[edit]

A similar discusssion has been had over Power Ring (DC Comics) and Power ring (DC Comics), to change them to character and object respectively. To my understanding, it's been defeated several times. If that scenario doesn't warrant a (character) disambiguation, I don't think Wolverine does, either. It's also slightly misleading, because the article is primarily about the comic character, not all the Wolverines from all other media. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is that discussion? The talk page in both articles only seems to contain discussions about mergers. Diego (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Diego. Where was that? I believe that that discussion is one that needs to be had. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Power Ring (character) is a solution there but Power ring (object) is still ambiguous. Though given the quality of that article... merge Emotional spectrum and Power ring (DC Comics) to Lantern (DC Comics). --erachima talk 19:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was on the article's talk page, but it's actually on mine, and it's not linked. Maybe User:jc37 can help us out, since he's the one who told me about it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That's not a consensus-forming discussion, and in any case Power ring (DC Comics) is not supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). That's the form for distinguishing between publishers, and in this case both articles refer to concepts from the same publisher. WP:PRECISION requires that the articles be moved to titles that are not ambiguous for their respective topics; there should be a proper move discussion at their talk pages (I suggest Power Ring (supervillain) for the character, and maybe something like Power ring (Green Lantern object) or Power ring (DC Comics object) for the other one). It needs to be related to the DC franchise, since Power ring (object) also applies to The Lord of the Rings (and the Nibelung, of course) and is thus still ambiguous. Diego (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no I didn't mean that was the discussion. That was where I was told there had been a discussion. It's been a while so I don't remember specifics, but for some reason I didn't push the issue. I'm still all for clearer names, whatever people may agree on. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sin City characters[edit]

Nancy Callahan,Kevin (Sin City),Ava Lord need alot of work as they have little or no sources.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion purge[edit]

I think some articles below that should be deleted, if you want to save or delete please give me your opinions.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Zera (comics)


Impact (Image Comics)

Ballistic (Image Comics)

Jason Wynn

I would say keep Wynn and Overt Kill, not too familiar with the others. I'm surprised you think Wynn is a minor character, then again I've seen some of your other work so maybe not.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jewish superheroes[edit]

Do we require a valid reliable source to state that a superhero is Jewish? Mistery Spectre has added these categories to a few different character articles. He has added them to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch,[12][13] but with no source to confirm this, and their being Jewish is not mentioned at any point in the article. With Iceman, he does provide a source,[14] but I raised a concern that this source ([15]) is not at all authoritative and probably not reliable either, and suggested it would be better to find out what issue he was supposedly identified as Jewish. (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say we need a reference to an issue identifying them as Jewish at the least. Also, in Iceman's particularly case: Though I know it's in common usage, I've never bought into the rule that "If one or more of your ancestors is Jewish, you are Jewish." I don't have any Jewish ancestors that I know of, but I can say with confidence that I certainly wouldn't accept people identifying me as Jewish just because I had a great-grandfather who was Jewish.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I hope you will only confuse the Jewish roots of Jewish religious beliefs, otherwise it shaped reductio ad absurdum, and we need to remove all national categories of articles about people of mixed origin. Should we open the debate as "if the father\mother is Chinese people, is it possible to call it Chinese"? Reductio ad absurdum in its purest form. Not to mention the fact that the category is clearly indicated "Fictional characters who are Jews or of Jewish descent." Mistery Spectre (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect - the category is "Jewish superheroes". The more important question is do they identify as Jews? If they do not, we should not be making the decision for them. 2601:D:B480:ED2:5411:31DC:6F6E:7CA7 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait. Here I am half Russian. That is, if I'm out in the open in plain text is not declared "I am a Russian," no one will be able to write about it, even in the presence of sources that one of my parents' Russian? this is nonsense. I do not know, as in English, or in Western culture, but I always thought that ethnicity can not be changed, or so it is possible to agree to the demand sources to race or gender. That is the source, where Kitty Pryde itself identifies himself as a woman, for example? Otherwise, we can not write about it?. Mistery Spectre (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Judaism is not an ethnicity or gender.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That is, you still do not understand what I am talking about nationality? I mean, I do you so stupid, I think that religious beliefs are passed from parents? :) Besides, I had already warned about the possible confusion of religious beliefs and nationality, every English is one word, with the category is intended for both cases. Mistery Spectre (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
People can be ethnically Jewish... Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that the category is intended to conflate the religion of Judaism with being ethnically Jewish. Indeed, we don't seem to categorize characters by ethnicity at all; note that there is no Category: Black superheroes, Category: Asian superheroes, Category: Hispanic superheroes, Category: Slav superheroes, etc.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do any stories mention the character specifically being Jewish? After all, these are fictional characters. They only exist in stories. They won't get Tay-Sachs disease unless a story says they do. Logic of the sort - if their parents are X they must also be X - doesn't apply to fictional characters, unless the story wants it to. Did you know Storm (Marvel Comics) has blue eyes, like all of her African tribe? --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the challenge I am having with this. If the characters identify as Jewish in the comics - ever, at any point, in any story in the comics - I am perfectly fine with identifying them that way here. Until such a story is printed, this is original research as far as I am concerned. If there has been such a story, then we need to find out which issue addresses this. (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Frequently disputed move request at Wolverine (character) with potentially wide repercussions[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again concerning whether the page in question should be named Wolverine (character) or Wolverine (comics). This has long been a contentious issue—the page has been moved back and forth several times, and has had several discussions at both Talk:Wolverine (character) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). The outcome will likely have repercussions throughout WikiProject Comics, especially in light of the result of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation.

There are also concerns regarding WP:CANVASSing for the discussion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)