Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:COMICS)
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.

Request for comments[edit]

The previous sections were inappropriate, and I apologise. Again, as per Wikipedia praxis, I would like to request help with outside conflict resolution from the related Wikiproject on the following Talk page, as discussion did not reach a solution. My apologies for being a bother, but help to find a consensus would be very appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beyonder David A (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the single issue editor in question keeps making badly spelled and misleading edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonder&curid=31514&diff=639781784&oldid=638648338 David A (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about the editor's latest change. Outisde input to reach a consensus would be very appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hal Jordan[edit]

Talk of commenting on whether or not it should be Hal Jordan or Green Lantern in the infobox24.38.188.96 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Silent Hill comics[edit]

Silent Hill (comics) has a reception section where Atop The Fourth Wall is cited as a reference. I haven't spent a lot of time with the comics section of Wikipedia, but I'm guessing he wouldn't be considered a valid review source. It also says that it's been "widely panned", but provides no evidence except for two reviews, and it's also written in a way that mentions the reviews but looks like POV. I would have gotten rid of it, but I thought I'd check here first. I'm mainly curious about the Atop the Fourth Wall as a source thing. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to view ATFW from work (yay for filters!), but a couple quick Google searches for 'Silent Hill Scott Cieincin reivews' returned ATFW coverage as the top results. Absent anything else, it should be usable as a source in a reception section. Those books are too old to be on comicbookroundup.com (a review aggrigator), but that site seems to suggest the ones by Tom Waltz were well received but not "acclaimed". The section (whole page really) could certainly use a rewrite. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Mainly was curious because Linkara (the person behind Atop the Fourth Wall) is in the same boat as people like The Nostalgia Critic, Spoony and Angry Video Game Nerd, and I've seen people say not to use them as sources (which I agree with, since, with rare "so bad its good" exceptions, they focus on "snark" and negative reviews for the sake of laughs). Also, in the music section there's a rule that says, "A section should be dedicated to an overview of the critical reception of the album, as documented by reliable secondary sources such as reviews, books, or reputable articles that discuss the album" and "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Linkara writes, produces and edits his own videos with no editorial oversight.
Linkara is pretty much the most popular internet personality who focuses on comics (mostly thanks to his association with The Nostalgia Critic and Spoony), and he seems to be especially popular with people who don't regularly read comics, so most of his reviews will get top hits on Google, unless it's about something that's really well known, but I don't think he'll ever meet the standards to be considered as a professional reviewer. I'd also like to add that it's pretty much the only instance of a link to Linkara's site on Wikipedia, and that it was added pretty recently by an anonymous editor with no other edits.SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that! With that in mind, it does seem like the article would be better off without a reception section until better sources can be found. I'll remove it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, The Nostalgia Critic, Angry Video Game Nerd, and Atop the Fourth Wall are no more review programs than Tool Time is a home improvement program. In many cases, they even have a statement to the extent of "This is a comedy show, not a review program" right on their website, not that that stops the occasional editor from trying to add them to articles as a professional review source.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Lady Liberators[edit]

Initially, the Lady Liberators were a single-issue joke in The Avengers. Basically, the Enchantress pretends to be a female liberator, and creates a team of female superheroes with mind-manipulation stuff (all so that Roy Thomas could voice his rejection of feminism, saying through Goliath that "You birds finally learned your lesson about that women's lib bull!"). If it had been just that, probably it wouldn't deserve an article; but the team was recreated some years ago at the Hulk comic book (this time, as an actual superhero team, even if without their own comic book).

However, I have noticed that the members of that initial team (Medusa, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, and Wasp) all mention the Lady Liberators in their "Team affiliations" entry of the superhero infobox. I have no problem with listing it for the members of the current team since its recreation, but should we list it for the characters who have only been part of it during that joke issue? Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If it had actually been a joke issue, like a chapter of "What the-?" or a Spider-Ham title, I'd agree with you. But no, I don't think your personal view of the issue in question is a valid reason not to include those characters on the team roster. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Face (Columbia Comics)[edit]

The article for the Columbia Comics character The Face is extremely short and underdeveloped and there is so much information missing from the article, the character's publication history and fictional character biography are severely underdeveloped and more information should be added to them. Also it does not have enough citations that show the article's notability, if anyone is able to work on these issues (I have contributed to some portions of the article) we can bring this article up top its full potential.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A bigger issue is that a good portion of the article was subjective commentary blatantly plagiarized from The Face's article on Comic Vine. I went ahead and fixed that. For the moment I've left in the Alex Ross quote sourced to the Comic Vine article, but since Comic Vine is a wiki, isn't it an unreliable source? I ran a selection of the quote through GoodSearch, and the only results are the Wikipedia and Comic Vine articles, so that is more than a bit suspect.
As far as getting more sources, the obvious place to do research is Alter Ego. That said, I tried a search of the Twomorrows site and came up with no useful results, so apparently the mag has yet to do an article specifically dedicated to The Face. That doesn't rule out there being a useful reference somewhere in their back issues, though.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible missing section in character articles[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone ever notice that the personality of most comics characters is at best weakly discussed in most articles? Granted, with some of the older characters, who have been through multiple writers and variations, there might not be that much by way of consistent character to discuss, but it also seems to at least me anyway that just describing what characters in various stories do without providing the sometimes personality-based rationales for their actions makes it harder to follow and understand the character history in at least some cases. Maybe the standard "powers and abilities" section could be expanded a little to cover any particularly notable and unique personality characteristics of the characters? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that would open a door to a lot of subjectivem, controversial, and excessive info. If you come across an action in a FCB that would be more clear with the addition of a personality-based rationale, I suggest just adding it to that part of the FCB. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, personality-based statements would fit in the FCB or equivalent section much better than anywhere else. Even there it should rarely be needed, since character's personalities are pretty much defined by their actions and motives. As an example, here's a selection from Roderick Kingsley: "A thug named George Hill reports to Kingsley that he has stumbled upon the secret lair of Norman Osborn, the Green Goblin, in hopes of earning a reward. Instead Kingsley kills him to make sure that no one else gets wind of the discovery." It would be redundant to add "Kingsley does this because he is ruthless and extremely careful", because those traits should be obvious from his already stated actions and motive.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Cat question[edit]

Correctingsection0062 appears to be replacing a reliable source with a questionable one, and claims that "Sources are not accessible and they are antiquated." diff. Thoughts? 2601:D:B482:DD00:C03E:CA5:CC3:7768 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:OFFLINE would be helpful to you in the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you - I have reverted and offered the user to discuss the changes here. 2601:D:B482:DD00:BCE9:BFE1:F01C:F402 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Now the user is reverting instead of discussing.[1] Can anyone assist please? 2601:D:B480:ED2:118A:AEB7:2F1C:4D06 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, since there's nowhere to discuss this but in here I would like to address some of my points that was given. First of all, I would like to state why I deleted the previous link. The link was an offline source which is fine, but it had absolutely nothing to the point given. Secondly, I would now address the whole situation. If you go to Black Cat's talk page there was this user named "Mike Castle" who saw this mistake and discussed it. Me being a long time comic fan I looked at the erroneous mistake which stated that Black Cat was a thief, cat burglar, and had an on-off relationshipship with Batman prior to Catwoman doing the same. This is wrong and that's why I came to fix this. I know that Frank Miller changed the character a bit, but Catwoman was still a thief, cat burgular, and had an on-off relationshipship with Batman prior to Black Cat's existence and Miller's alterations. But the wikipedia article states the opposite which I want to correct. I added two valuable sources that really contributed to the reality. All the aspects that Black Cat has in the comics, Catwoman had first except for the black cat suit which I pointed out on my reverted page. I don't wanna commence an altercation but I honestly thought people knew about this. In the end the fact here is that Catwoman was a thief, a cat burgular, and had an on-off relationship with Batman before Black Cat had these aspects and that's why Marv Wolfman was asked about it. In that case the last line of that paragraph contradicts the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctingsection0062 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way you should take a look at these old comic images within this article. [1] Those images not only show that she was a thief but that she also had that on-off relationship with Batman. Also, those comic images were way before Black Cat made her first apperance. That link is another valuable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctingsection0062 (talkcontribs) 18:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we know who originally added the Back Issue! reference? I haven't checked, but weren't NukeofEarl and/or Mtminchi08 doing that? Would anyone else be able to check a copy? BOZ (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I added the Back Issue! reference, but it doesn't say anything about the Catwoman similarity. A good place to check would be Back Issue!'s cat people issue (#40), as according to the summary, that one has features on both Catwoman and the Black Cat.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind - I was looking at the wrong paragraph when I thought that Back Issue! was somehow involved in this edit war. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The changes made were simply not correct and your sources clearly show the original Catwoman was a pickpocket in a dress. Unlike Black Cat and Spider-man, who actually were involved romantically, Catwoman was rebuffed romantically. The modern version of Selina Kyle in skintight black, climbing from buildings with cables, a gymnast of olympic degree, and romantically involved with Batman, did not remotely come to comics until the 80s, almost 10 years after the Black Cat appeared. THIS IS A FACT. Please show any images predating the Black Cat's appearance that show Catwoman wearing a skintight, low cut BLACK outfit, scaling buildings and ACTUALLY dating Batman please before you add erroneous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.244.53 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Need Wayback Machine to fix a dead Newsarama link[edit]

Can someone help me out with a dead Newsarama link? This citation in the Jupiter's Legacy article is dead, and I can't find a replacement to support the material in question, which is important. I tried using the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine, and although I think I used it correctly, I couldn't find an archived link. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not find the link on Wayback Machine either. It looks like although the author is still a contributor on Newsrama, several of his other articles are no longer active on Newsrama either. You may wish to contact the author and see if there is an archive of his contributions to the site's content. Luminum (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pitt first appearance[edit]

Seems there's some confusion about what this character's first appearance is. One part of the article Pitt (comics) says it's Youngblood #4; another says Pitt #1; still another, Spawn #1. And before I edited it, the article also cited an issue of Gen 13 as Pitt's first appearance. I don't know enough about Pitt to say which of these is his true first appearance (except that the issue of Gen 13 is clearly wrong, since it was published years after Pitt got his own series), so can someone edit this article to make it consistent on the matter?--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ComicVine actually lists the character's first appearance as Wizard Magazine #16! [2] However, they also confirm his appearances in Pitt #1 (January 1993) and Youngblood #4 (February 1993). Since it appears that Pitt #1 came first, I would say that's his first appearance. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on intro edits[edit]

Just a heads up that a user is going through several Marvel comics pages and removing third party sources from the intros. They usually involve removing appearances of the subjects in third party lists of "Best" characters, etc. (such as IGN, Wizard (magazine), and Comic Book Resources) with the argument being that a "geek journalist's opinion" is either "not relevant" or "not insightful". I've reached out on the talk page for one of the recent changes (Cyclops (comics)) to see if the issue of WP:Notability and WP:INUNIVERSE can be reached with this editor, but I've also been informed that this is a reoccurring issue on other pages such as Galactus, Charles Xavier, and Magneto (comics). Keep your eyes peeled if you see similar edits and try to reach out to the editor. If it continues to be a problem, or edit warring begins again, we may need to escalate it appropriately.Luminum (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

He has also tried to simplify the introduction text on the Galactus article, while removing a reference. David A (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
He's at it again? It's also been Iron Man, Captain America, Emma Frost, Wolverine (character), and possibly others. 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I would also note that he has been blocked twice before for edit warring, so it may take him a lot to learn. 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
When challenged on how short his lead sections are, this is his response. 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, based on his comments about notability [3], the editor clearly does not understand what constitutes WP:Notability and likely has not taken the time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia editing policies. If this continues, I would recommend escalating it to the 3RR Notice Board.Luminum (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I also just restored the lead to Emma Frost, along with its relevant sources. I left an edit summary note for editors to review WP:Notability and WP:Lead. Let's hope they do. Luminum (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Luminum. For the sake of reference, this was previously discussed in July of last year and then again in September, with no apparent resolution but lots of complaining. The cuts include these (some have been undone, but he has returned to most of them to make the big chops multiple times): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] 2601:D:B480:ED2:498B:DCCA:A58F:298C (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you could check out this page for tips on how to deal with it. David A (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
At this point, we have two reverts on the Emma Frost lead with no response on the points in question, despite outreach to the editor. If it passes a third, I recommend taking it to the 3RR noticeboard.Luminum (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)