Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Nomination of Spider-Man (set index) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spider-Man (set index) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man (set index) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GAR notification[edit]

Calvin and Hobbes, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Pencil reproduction[edit]

I have an issue of Comics Interview which includes reproductions of the pencils from Wolverine volume 2, #1 alongside the finished inked-and-lettered panels. It's occurred to me that scans of these reproductions might be useful to illustrate points in the articles Inker and Al Williamson (who inked that issue). However, Comics Interview uses ink-on-paper production on cheap newsprint, so the reproduction of the pencils is not very good quality. Will these illustrations still suffice until someone finds something better, or should I not bother?--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Surprised that there have been no opinions on this. I think I'll give it one more week, and if no one chimes in by then I'll just put the images up and see what happens.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
They will probably fail our fair use policies, which will mean that they can not be used on Wikipedia (and if so, get deleted again after you have uploaded them. If they are in the public domain, then the situation is of course different, but that seems doubtful. Fram (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why it would "probably fail" NFCC, as this is really the kind of thing that a reader needs to see to effectively understand and so it's not replaceable by a mere text description. It depends on whether there is commentary in Comics Interview specifically about how the inking added to or changed the pencil drawings rather than just "here are the before and after pictures; enjoy." For the inker article, it might be better to find such examples from more general reference works about comics art that are used to illustrate the technique rather than just to highlight one artist (though be careful of examples that were created for those reference books). In both cases, see if you can use just one representative panel to minimize the portion of the original works copied. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It would fail fair use for Inker because there are conceivably free images that can be used to produce the same information. Non-replaceability is a core factor in determining fair use. As for Williamson, there are already six non-free images in the article, so adding even more doesn't seem to be a good option (although perhaps these can be added and a few others deleted instead). Fram (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What free images are you conceiving? All the early comic books that might be public domain (due to nonrenewal; the medium isn't old enough for anything to qualify as pre-1923) wouldn't illustrate it because 1) it's astronomically unlikely any pencils survived, and 2) I don't think the technique was very developed beyond retracing outlines until much later. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
First off, my apologies for my delay in responding on my own thread! I must admit that fair use issues didn't even enter my head on the subject. Don't know why, since I'm usually good about taking fair use into account before I upload anything. I have to agree now that it definitely doesn't meet fair use for the inker article, though Al Williamson's article may be a different story. Postdlf, there is no commentary on the pictures; the captions that go with them indeed basically just say "Enjoy these images of Buscema's pencils followed by Williamson's inks". I'm afraid I don't understand how that is important to the fair use issue, though. Could you explain?--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving Newsarama links[edit]

Can I assume that I'm not the only one who has noticed that Newsarama links seem to invariably go dead, and without any replacement urls? Since Newsarama is such a vital source for information, and such a commonly cited one, is there a way to archive a given url before it goes dead? I've tried using the Wayback Machine to find replacement urls for ones that have gone dead, but sometimes don't find any. I know that there are other comics news sources, but there's not a lot of good ones, and sometimes, it hard or impossible to find reliable ones for a particular bit of info. I'm not too clear on how the Wayback works, but can an archive be made of a given webpage ahead of time? I'd like to do so with this story, which Newarama broke exclusively. I'd rather not rely on Bleeding Cool, whose repeat of the story indicates that it is taken from Newsarama, or Peter David's website, since that's a primary and self-published source. Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WebCite, you seek! BOZ (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried to use that, but it didn't work. Nightscream (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Here you are: http://www.webcitation.org/6OOuFwNgC Archive date March 27, 2014. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So if I have to search for that page at a later date, how do we do it? Is there a search field somewhere on that site? Nightscream (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you expand on what you mean by search, and which page you mean, Newsarama or WebCite? The link I posted is a direct archive to that article, so you can add it to the cite web template as such: |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OOuFwNgC |archivedate=March 27, 2014 |deadurl=no - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean add the archive link to the citation in the article before it ever goes dead? Nightscream (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Galactus a supervillain?[edit]

Does this category properly apply? [1] 2601:D:9400:5FF:88CA:4B8C:7A46:656 (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether Galactus can be properly defined as a supervillain is a tricky question that depends on what your definition of supervillain is. But the article Galactus mentions that Marvel, IGN, and Stan Lee have all referred to him as a supervillain. I'd say that's more than enough reason to put the category there.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Featured Article Candidate[edit]

I've put the article for Will Eisner's 1978 graphic novel A Contract with God up as a Featured Article Candidate. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Contract with God/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Arkham Knight for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Arkham Knight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arkham Knight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. buffbills7701 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Marvel section on Battlestar Galactica (comics)[edit]

This reads, to me, like some one has done an essay. All OR, IMHO. 101.177.132.234 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know any good sources for Savage Dragon and Spawn[edit]

Many of the Savage Dragon and Spawn character articles have little or no third person sources I am thinking of deleting or merging some of them any thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Last year when I was going through my old issues of Wizard, I found a good amount of stuff on Spawn, and added it to Spawn (comics). Given that Savage Dragon and Spawn were both hot properties at the time that Wizard was considered the premiere source of best-selling comics, it seems likely that old issues of Wizard have a lot more stuff that you can use. Depends on which character articles you're referring to, though.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hero Magazine covered them in various issues. McFarlane also had some interviews in Write Now! magazine (issue 1, maybe? I'll have to check) where he talked about how the Spawn idea developed over time before he finally published it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have started a conversation to merge many of the Spawn characters see Talk:List of Spawn villains and List of Spawn characters
I regards to Savage Dragon many of the characters are just poor with little or no effort to include sources at all such as Alex Wilde, Freak Force, SuperPatriot, Cyberface. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Contemporary issues of Comics Buyer's Guide, Hero Illustrated, Comics Scene and The Comics Journal might also be helpful. And if it's critical reception you're looking for, doing a Google search for phrases like "reviews for Spawn" would be what I would try. There's also reviews for recent issues of those properties. Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Weekly Comic Book Review, ComicsAlliance, The Comics Reporter, iFanboy, IGN, etc., all provide those. Here is a Comics Alliance review of Spawn: Year One, for example. I also occasionally find reviews in mainstream sources like MTV Geek, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Complex magazine, Publisher's Weekly, Ain't it Cool News, etc. I relied on these when I wrote the Saga article. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The War Rocket Ajax podcast as a source[edit]

Can other editors weigh in on this discussion regarding this source? We could use others' opinions.

In the Identity Crisis (DC Comics) article, I removed the following passage:

Chris Sims and Matt D. Wilson, contributors to Grantland and the AV Club respectively, as well of Comics Alliance and the War Rocket Ajax podcast, ranked it dead last in their "Every Story Ever" rankings (a subjective list ranking comic story arcs).The War Rocket Ajax podcast

I removed it for the following reasons:

  • The War Rocket Ajax podcast appears to be a fan podcast. Fan sites and other sites with content created by uncredentialed or anonymous non-experts are not considered reliable under Wikipedia's policy on source reliability.
  • Second, the meaning of the passage is unclear. What does that list mean? It includes Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, Top Ten: Smax, the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby X-Men, etc. What are the criteria for the list? The webpage in question never says. I made this point explicitly in the edit summary that accompanied my original removal of that material.
  • Lastly, the list in question is not indicated to be ranked in order of quality.

User:173.80.146.108, who is named Rob, responded to my message on his talk page with the following:

Okay, I understand that you don't believe that the "Every Story Ever" list on War Rocket Ajax doesn't meet the guidelines as a secondary source as you believe it is a "fan poscast." Fair enough. I disagree. The War Rocket Ajax podcast is a comic book and pop culture show that is reaching two hundred episodes this upcoming week. It is hosted by two people who, while fans, are also professional writers and comics journalists. Chris Sims is a writer and columnist for the aforementioned Comics Alliance, has written for Grantland - the ESPN/Disney-owned pop culture website, and is a comics creator himself (he is the writer of Sub Atomic Party Girls (a Monkeybrain comic) and has written for the Image comic Skullkickers). Matt Wilson, his co-host, also writes for Comics Alliance, is a regular contributor the The A/V Club, writes comics (Copernicus Jones, on Monkeybrain), and has written two books on comic book culture including The Super-Villains' Handbook. The War Rocket Ajax podcast has an interview every week, usually with a comic creator. Past guests have included Marvel and DC writers Rick Remender, Jonathan Hickman, Jeff Parker, Greg Pak, Jason Aaron, and on multiple occasions Matt Fraction. Based on these factors, the show rises above the level of "fan podcast" and into secondary source, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. As for the list, as noted, it is an arbitrary, subjective ranking of comic book stories and arcs. Listeners submit a story arc and Sims ans Wilson rank it against the previous submissions. This is similar to the WFMU/Best Show/Tom Sharpling "Best Song Ever" ranking, where Mr. Sharpling would rank a given song against a list of other, previously ranked songs, to arrive at a list similar to other "Best song of all time lists," such at the Rolling Stone 500. Including the WRA ranking in this section shows that some critics/journalists consider "Identity Crisis" to be, literally, the worst story of all time.

I believe the reception section, as currently formed, does not fully demonstrate the negative criticism the series has received in the decade since its publication. The specific negative criticism in the section as currently constituted, by Mr. Organ, concerns some of the art - art which he later states he enjoys, tempering his earlier negativity. Including the Comics Alliance quote provides context to the reader. Including the WRA ranking shows that some critics consider the story to be quite poor.

Regarding the War Rocket Ajax, Rob has addressed the issue of that site's reliability, but he hasn't addressed the other two points I raised about that list. Namely, how are those stories ranked? By quality? The issue is not that it's subjective, because all expressions of taste and aesthetics are subjective. The issue is that it isn't clear what exactly that list is a ranking of. Rob says that the WRA ranking indicates that some critics consider IC to be "the worst story of all time", and "quite poor". The problem is, the webpage doesn't say that. How does Rob make this interpretation? The passage claimed that IC was ranked "last" on the list. But while that story does appear last on the list, the list is not indicated to be ranked in any particular order, which is crucial to emphasizing such a thing. Rob, how do you know that that list is one of the worst comics? Again, that list includes Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, Top Ten: Smax, and the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby X-Men. How do we know it's a list of poor-quality stories? Who are the critics or readers who contributed to that list?

I have no problem adding to the critical reception section of the article, but there have got to be more prominent sources to use. Why not check Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Weekly Comic Book Review, iFanboy, The Comics Reporter, IGN, MTV Geek, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Complex, Publisher's Weekly, Ain't it Cool News, etc.? Nightscream (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the source is reliable enough for a critical reception section. The opinions in question come from named individuals with clear ties to legitimate outlets. On a side note, I think when podcasts are used as a source, the reference should include a time marker for the relevant bit so a particular claim can be more easily verified.
Your other two points are spot on. The title “Every Story Ever” sounds like they’re doing lots of reviews. If that’s the case, it’s on the bottom here because it’s the most recently reviewed book, not as an indication of comparative quality.
If the goal is for a reception section more representative of the general opinion, Comic Book Roundup is a good place to start. It’s like metacritic for comics. If we’re looking for negative opinions in particular, I found these from a Google search for “Identity Crisis terrible story”: [2][3] [4] For what it’s worth, it has a decent rating on Good reads Argento Surfer (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Rob did not indicate that anyone during the podcast itself specified anything about the book; he only specified the list on that webpage.
And how is Funnybook Babylon reliable? It looks like someone's blog. And the content on Good Reads user-generated. Nightscream (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
To the first point, sorry. I didn't investigate it too far because my workstation blocks that particular site.
To the second point, in short, it depends on what's being sourced. My personal standard for a reliable source is lower when I'm looking at something subjective compared to something objective. I may not use a particular site as a ref for the history of a character's creation, but (depending on how well it's written) I do think the same site could be an acceptable ref for how well the book was recieved. Ditto for Goodreads. It's user generated, but it's an accumulation of opinions, which seems just as valid as citing 8 "professional" comic reviewers.Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to comment, so my two cents' worth: The podcast hosts sounds like reliable sources, though I guess all the editors here already are OK with that. As to whether their conclusion should be taken as reliable, they clearly are using hyperbole — no one's read "every comic ever" — so unless they're seriously saying they've read every comic ever then the very title of the rankings indicate that the rankings are not to be taken with great seriousness. If the hosts have a quote about the series, that would seem usable, but not the rankings. (And even a quote might not be usable if there are a plethora of higher-profile, more expert critics' quotes to choose from, no different than the movie articles using The NY Times, LA Times, Rolling Stone, Salon, etc. and not the Tampa Bay or Peoria papers.) -Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm wary of "Top" listings. Wikiproject Albums has gone so far as to place a general ban on "Top" listings due to their extreme proliferation, basically saying that any "Top Ten" had better be from a notable source and be significant. (In other words, "Top 50 Rock Albums of All Time" is worthy of inclusion; "Top 10 Euro Pop Albums Featuring Left-Handed Guitarists" is not.) Personally, I feel that there has to be some sort of explanation in addition to the listing; simply saying that this story arc was on the bottom of this list doesn't mean much to me. Plus, if there's no explanation, then as you say, how can we know this is meant negatively?--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for an artist's influence[edit]

When adding material about the writers or artists that influenced a given writer or artist, are we required to restrict ourselves to only those sources in which the creator themselves states who influenced him/her? Or can we include sources in which others present their interpretations to that effect? Up until now, I've restricted myself to the former, but I have an instance here of the latter: In this interview, Gary Groth sees Walter Simonson influence in Todd McFarlane's work. Is it citable?

And if so, are we required to emphasize the claim's attribution in how we word it in the article? In other words, would we have say, "According to Gary Groth, McFarlane shows influence by Walter Simonson."? Or is it okay to simply mention Simonson without saying who made this analysis (which is typically the case in the Infobox, for example). Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we'd have to put that attribution. Groth would be an reasonable analyst for noting that McFarlane's work bears similarities to Simonson's, but it's just an outside guess how that similarity was achieved (McF could have been influenced by someone who was influenced by Simonson, or both could have been influenced by a third party.) Groth's guess should not become our guess. It would be different if Groth was saying that McFarlane had said that he was influenced by Simonson. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Added: You've either linked to the wrong page or misread something; I don't see any mention of Groth on the page you linked to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually think that a notable historian or critic is a better source for a writer or artist's influences than the writer or artist himself. Artistic influence is largely a subconscious thing, and I suspect that when asked about their influences some people just name off the creators they like. This is why, when the writer or artist themselves is the source, I tend to use "He/she has cited ____ as an influence" instead of "He/she was influenced by ___." But Nat brings up a good point in that the tree of influences can be hard to trace for an outsider. For wording, "McFarlane's work has been compared to Walter Simonson" might be an appropriate alternative. That said, reading over the relevant passage of the source, it sounds like the author is basing his statement on something McFarlane rather than his own interpretation. It's certainly not 100% clear, but that's what it sounds like to me.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I mixed up the above-linked ComicsAlliance story with a Groth interview of McFarlane that I recently read. The ComicsAlliance story says of McFarlane's first issue of Spawn: "Though McFarlane drew inspiration from the likes of Walter Simonson, Michael Golden, and George Perez, the Frank Miller node is the strongest influence here, and it’s apparent." All of the creators so-named are already in the McFarlane article, supported by a cite of what McFarlane said himself, but the Simonson bit isn't. Is this citable?
"Artistic influence is largely a subconscious thing..." Not true. It's both conscious and subconscious. Different individuals have different levels of consciousness as to their own influences. Arthur Adams will name Michael Golden and Simonson as his main influences, just as secondary analysts would. You think Joe Madureira doesn't know that he was influenced by Adams? Or that early Bryan Hitch and Carlos Pacheco were influenced by Alan Davis? To say that historians would make good sources is one thing, but to say that they would necessarily make better ones is a bit over-reaching. Remember that analyses of art are largely subjective. I saw a lot of Arthur Adams in J. Scott Campbell's early Gen13 work, but after Wizard described Campbell as drawing like Jim Lee, Campbell himself wrote it to concur with my view, that he was "an Art Adams clone". Nightscream (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say that's citable. It wouldn't hurt to put attribution to who said it, but it seems like a significant comment on McFarlane's influences from a reliable source.
I think you misinterpreted my statement. "Largely" does not mean "wholly".--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Storm's powers in infobox[edit]

Is it the best approach to reword a character's power like this, with the only apparent intention being to reduce the total number of words used? To me, "weather resistant" does not explain it as well as it did with a few more words. There is also a talk page discussion at Talk:Storm (Marvel Comics)#Infobox. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As stated when it was discussed on the talk page, her "Resistant to weather and elemental effects" are talked in the entire page. If you have a source stating that she is indeed "immune" to weather effects, please add them. Otherwise, there is no reason to talk about this or have it mentioned within the infobox. As I recall in the series of X:Men Evolution, she fell out of the sky after a (Storm-empowered) Rogue struck her down with lightning. Skip to 16:52 in this clip for evidence, [5]. So unless she is faking it, I doubt she is "Resistant to weather and elemental effects". Please add a source to your debate and we can discuss otherwise. Marvelct124 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we don't use television shows to source how things work in the comics, because backstories/powers/events/etc are often different - sometimes very different. BOZ (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it was worth mentioning. Also, this was not used in the page, so it is acceptable here. Marvelct124 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So, perhaps, what might be worth discussing here would be, in the case of Storm's powers, what is the best phrasing? The "weather resistant" proposed by Marvelct124, the "Resistance to the effects of the weather and extreme temperatures" which was in place before his edit, or the slightly different "Resistant to weather and extreme temperatures"? Or none of those? I do recall that they explained how her body is resistant to extreme temperatures in X-Men Unlimited #1 where the X-Men fight Siena Blaze in Antarctica, but I don't recall what that explanation consisted of. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I am personally quite fine reverting back to the original wording that was in place a few days ago. I am equally fine with that second proposed compromise wording. I just don't think that "weather resistant" really explains anything. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this character immune to the effects of weather? This is the big question. If it is true, please add a reliable source that states it. Otherwise, we need to remove it from the infobox. Furthermore, if she is immune to weather effects, it should be added to the "Powers" section. Infoboxes are meant to be brief. Marvelct124 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't what I thought I remembered, but it does ring some bells as to what I actually read way back when: "Storm tries to control the weather outside, but she is overwhelmed by the unnatural storm. Because her power tries to compensate for climate extremes, Storm’s skin is burning in response to the super blizzard; Xavier uses his powers to help her, despite the concussion he suffered." [6] BOZ (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is as it is stated in OHoTMU - X-Men (2004) handbook concerning Storm, "Storm's powers over the atmosphere enable her to breath at any speed, protect her from air friction, and grant her limited immunity to extreme heat and cold." All-New OHoTMU Update #1 (2007) replaces this line with, "Storm's body also changes temperature in opposition to her environment so that the colder the environment the warmer her body gets and vice versa." Hopes this offers some help. Thefro552 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, that makes it pretty conclusive then. There may be a better way of explaining it in the infobox, but we certainly should not remove it. BOZ (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That is not conclusive. Do you have a source saying [in exact] that she immune to the effects of weather? Marvelct124 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Who has been saying that she is immune to the effects of weather? I don't recall saying that or seeing anyone else say it. I thought what we were discussing is resistance - something less than immunity. If the above posted by Thefro552 doesn't say that to you, then how exactly are you reading it? And you may have removed it from the infobox, but this matter does not appear to have been settled just yet. BOZ (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, so I made an addition to the powers section based on what was posted here in this thread. Since we clearly have demonstrated that Storm is resistant to temperature extremes, I also added that back to the infobox. The point of contention seems to be whether to include anything about "immunity/resistance to weather", I did not add anything about that. This idea is not clearly defined and somewhat vague, and also unsourced, so I am fine with leaving that off. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As a causal observer, I think the list of powers in the infobox are overly long. They should be trimmed to the character's most commonly recognized powers and further detail should be described in the body of the article. This goes for other character articles as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a point... in that case, it is debatable whether to keep not only the temperature resistance, but also the Energy perception, Ecological empathy, Latent magical abilities, and Telepathic immunity. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely, also the field is called "powers" so the skills should be removed as well. Most superheroes are proficient in fighting and being a pilot doesn't seem that notable in comparison with her actual powers. This isn't a resume.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Skills should only be listed in-lieu of actual powers like Batman or Black Widow, but even some those should be trimmed. I don't think this is meant to be an exhaustive list.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Name-drops in other media[edit]

I'm sure we have been over this before numerous times, but just as a refresher, is a character being mentioned in a video game, movie or TV show such as this case worth including in an article if the character does not actually make an appearance? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been experiencing this issue over at Doctor Strange, due to his *SPOILER* mention in Captain America: The Winter Soldier *END SPOILER*, and it has been decided that due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, without a physical appearance, it should not be mentioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
...or without secondary sources commenting on it. The mention of Doctor Strange has been widely reported across the news, (e.g., here) because of its significance to reports that a film has been in development, and overall the expansion of the MCU has been getting significant attention (see the recent thread on the Kree being mentioned in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.). postdlf (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
But, more specifically, in the case of the case of Proteus, which I linked to, without any secondary source mention, I am assuming there is no point in mentioning this trivial non-apperance in the article. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it, yes. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is that simple. When Proteus was mentioned in X-Men Legends, Moira MacTaggeret was talking about events that happened prior to X-Men Legends. I think he deserves to be mentioned under the 'Video games' section. Otherwise, it should be added into a "new" section (References in pop culture) on the page. Marvelct124 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"When Proteus was mentioned in X-Men Legends, Moira...was talking about events that happened prior to X-Men Legends." Um, so what? So what if a character is mentioned in one video game in the context of expository backstory, as opposed to in another context? If anything, that would seem to be even less grounds for giving weight to that mention, as that means the character is not only unseen but also not even part of the game's present narrative. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, do you have a personal beef? The "so what" comment was highly unnecessary. You should be able to state your opinion without being disrespect. You need have a little more respect for fellow editors. Marvelct124 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No need to be so sensitive, Marvelct. "So what" is just shorthand for "I don't see the relevance of that statement to the matter we are discussing"; there's absolutely nothing personal about it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Triskelion (comics)[edit]

This article was recently re-created without any references. It was previously redirected to Ultimates#Headquarters, but that section is no longer there. Should it be redirected elsewhere, deleted or are there enough sources to establish notability?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say just redirect it to Ultimates. The "In other media" section of the article is already replicated there anyway. It would be convenient if there were an appropriate subsection of Ultimates to redirect it to, but not really necessary.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The great deletion purge begins[edit]

I have decided some articles especially Spawn and Savage Dragon articles should be merged or deleted if you wish to contribute I have started with The Dragon: Blood & Guts, Alex Wilde and Freak Force. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

HYDRA or Hydra?[edit]

Please discuss at Talk:HYDRA#Title and term change. 76.232.28.105 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Griffin in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.[edit]

Here we go again... would a character being mentioned in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. – but not actually appearing in the show as of yet – merit a mention in the article? My contention is that this is a trivial non-appearance, but I'm specifically trying to avoid edit warring on Griffin per this. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the context in which he was mentioned, and the level of importance that the mentioned seemed to confer upon him/her. Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed it, as it was a trivial mention. I have also started a discussion regarding these sections over at the MOS talk, so please head there if you'd like to continue fleshing this out, because I feel it needs to be done. In the mean time, I think we can cite WP:CMOS#POP regarding these additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As discussed above, part of the question is whether secondary sources have commented on the reference. In the case of the Griffin, they've at least acknowledged it, though it's definitely not as substantial as the Kree discussion referenced above. I've also commented on this in the MOS thread you started, but you're misguided in wanting a simplistic rule rather than a case-by-case determination of whether the reference should be included in the character's article. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That does acknowledge the appearance, but this line says it all: "John Garrett mentions Griffin in passing". 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)