Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Resolved once and for all

Cyberforce has been debated whether it should be merged to Image Comics anyone interested in participating can join at Talk:Image Comics

Split from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?

I brought this here because I think it should be discussed. I undid this split, first of all. Should we split the main character who used this name from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?

I personally don't see why that needs to be split. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't either. Janet hasn't had a lot of different codenames like Carol Danvers, and the Wasp identity hasn't been passed around like Captain Marvel. This seems fine as is. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it may be that users are trying to make the argument for a split based on the MCU's interpretation of the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be split either.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexiest Women in Comics? Not cricket chaps.

Hello chaps. I've noticed that for a lot of female comic characters we specify where they rank in some "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list. However we don't seem to do this for the chaps. This strikes me as unfair and not a little ungentlemanly. We shouldn't be behaving like boors by alluding to some kind of attractiveness ranking for anyone in my opinion, but if we are going to do so we should at least make it an equal opportunity thing. Otherwise I would recommend we drop this rather tawdry bit of trivial fluff from female characters articles. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an equally notable list for chaps? If so, we should include it. If not, there's no reason to remove sourced content from reliable publications like Comics Buyer's Guide. Characters are designed for a certain appeal, the list reflects the reception of said design. It should also be noted that WP:BLP includes comparable lists under their scope articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If the listing exists, then they should be added. If they don't exist, it's no reason to remove them from character pages where such reliable sources already exist. The lists, while a manifestation of the generally one-sided sexual objectification of women in general, are still reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the character. And that happens to be, for better or worse, due to how notable the character is for their "sexiness". A more balanced approach would be to, where possible, even out the character's appearance on such lists with other sources and content demonstrating the character's notability for many other reasons. And, by all means, if male characters appear on similarly RS lists, feel free to add it (this is a good start: http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters/).Luminum (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TriiipleThreat and Luminum.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. No, no, no, no, no. And no some more. List articles are spacefillers at best, entirely subjective,and of no objective worth. And that was before the advent of the listicle debased the currency even further. Even the Rolling Stone lists are of questionable value, this one is pure sophomoric worthlessness from beginning to end. The fact that the listing exists is not a justification for including it, per WP:IINFO, and it is absolutely not a justification for giving it any prominence whatsoever in the article. $RANDOMSOURCE put this character at $RANDOMNUMBER in $RANDOMLIST should never be in the lede. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse they are subjective. That is their nature as are all Top lists, reviews and awards. As Luminum pointed out a character's reception helps establish its WP:Real world notability. Now you can argue if it merits inclusion in the lead per WP:WEIGHT but a ranking by a notable publication should be included in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Every single publication in the universe has hundreds of list articles. This is one of the most sophomoric and meretricious, IMO, but that's an aside. This falls squarely in the realm of indiscriminate information. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me but this sounds like WP:POV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The ranking is not a summary-only description of works, lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics, or an exhaustive log of software updates as described by WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this falls just below the IGN listing of 100 greatest heroes or villains. It's subjective, and the list is large enough to include pretty much all the significant characters. It's not the kind of thing I include when I create or improve articles, but I'm not inclined to remove it if others add it. I do think it's innappropriate for a lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion in lead, to me, depends on the structure of the lead and the article as a whole. If the lead contains other similar superlatives and no reception section, then the would probably be the best fit. If there is a reception or design section then I think it should be included there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is this. If the list is simply just a list, then it is not very helpful. However, if the list includes some commentary (which they often do), such as why the person writing the list thinks certain qualities mean one character should be rated over another, then that can be valid reception info. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean the explanation for the rank should be used in the article instead of just the rank? I'll agree with that. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Just to make up an example: "Magazine X rated Captain America the number one superhero, because they stated that he represents timeless values." 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think TriiipleThreat nailed it with the reasonings why that shouldn't happen. Although I do feel that OP's comment was quite amusing even if it wasn't intended to be. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Partners" field from the Template talk:Infobox comics character infobox

This field doesn't seem to be clearly defined only featuring the description "Partners include any current or previous partners. Please stick to notable partnerships. Also, please avoid "employee/employer" relationships." As seen on articles like Batman and Superman it's ripe for abuse in listing pretty much anyone the character has ever worked with and since the guideline is so loose, there's no real way to determine if it is being misused or not. It also seems redundant in some cases to the Team Affiliations field, since for instance Batman has "Batman Family" under team, but then all the individual members thereof. Ideally I think this field is not essential to the infobox and should be removed, but if need be the guideline needs to be rewritten to clarify what it is for and what it is not for, and perhaps put a limit on quantity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If this "Partners" parameter remains, I would suggest it being limited to sidekicks (Batman and Robin), duos (Cloak and Dagger), and long-lasting, consistent partnerships like Spider-Man and Black Cat or Iron Fist and Luke Cage. General team-ups (even if being repeated multiple times over the years) like Batman and Superman shouldn't be listed.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Do toys and games qualify as 'other media'?

User:TriiipleThreat has been removing the info from lots of character pages (like this one). I think this kind of information belongs on the character pages, and I think it belongs in the media section based on the broader fine arts definition. However, I can see an arguement for removing it based on the narrower communication definition. I guess it comes down to how you view comics and comic properties, and I wanted to get a general consensus before I reverted any of his edits. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think most readers use the media (communication) definition, and it would be a stretch to define toys and games as a fine art. Also most of the items listed in these sections are either unsourced or poorly sourced to unreliable sources or primary sources. Furthermore, the lists are hopelessly incomplete because out of the thousands of character-related merchandising, only a few are listed without any indication given as to why one is more notable than other. It all reeks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think its better to describe this information in the general sense, backed by third-party reliable sources, as suggested by @Jhenderson777: on my talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these don't belong in the "In other media" section by the strict media/communication definition, but I think it is information that is important to include. For a character like Spider-Man there are tons of toys and it will be hard to list all of them. For characters like Cardiac and Demogoblin removing that information removes all (or almost all) of their adaptations outside of the comic books, so it is important to be included. Unfortunately that brings us to a tough argument of when the list is short enough to include everything and when it is too long to include everything and becomes indiscriminate. Also, it is possible to find reliable sources for the toys, but I don't think any user has put in the effort to do so. Spidey104 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If we change the "In other media" heading to something like "Adaptations outside of comic books" it would include toys and games. Spidey104 19:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the edits I saw removed sections that were essentially lists of toys and other merchandise. Do we really need sources confirming each toy exists? And how can any source be unreliable when it's being used to say "this exists"? Isn't that entering WP:BLUE territory? If you think some of the listed items are false or questionable, it seems like a [cn] tag or selected removal would be the best option, not wholesale deletion.

Generalizing bulkier lists into prose and including souces to toy reviews would be a good idea, but it may be easier to do if the list is already present to work from. Why not add a Template:Prose tag to the article? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The mere fact that a toy exists doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. What makes it encycolpedic is it's coverage by third-party reliable sources. If nobody except those directly associated with the product cares, then why should we? WP:INDISCRIMINATE speaks directly against these kinds of excessive listing of data.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think INDISCRIMINATE would support adding the toys to most (minor) character articles. The first example of what not to do is summary-only articles on fiction and says "Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." As pointed out above, there are a significant number of characters who have only appeared outside comic books through toys, and these sections are frequently the only real-world information provided in the articles. In the context of their notability, perhaps it's not always clear from an individiual article. However, collectively, there are loads of comic characters who do not have a toy/statue/gamepiece made after them. The mere existance of one, in my opinion, adds some amount of notability to the character because someone (usually not the publisher) has deemed that character popular enough that mechandising them would be profitable. For what it's worth, the inclusion in a toyline is actually one of the criteria I use when trying to decide if a character is independantly notable or should be merged to the list of Marvel Comics characters. I also don't think you can use INDISCRIMINATE to explain this edit, where you removed the words "action figures" and "trading cards" from a list of merchandised Galactus has appeared in. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It would only count towards the notability of the character if the information were sourced to a reliable entity that is not associated with the product whether its licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling or trading. Someone else must take note of it for it to be considered notable. The other edit falls under WP:LEAD and WP:V, as uncited information that is not cited anywhere in the body.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Some toys (or other merchandise) can be worth noting. Some don't. The best way to know if is (as TriiipleThreat said) third party reliable sources. Another way to know is that they already have their own article like this. Also I believe information regarding the company that is allowed to sell the character is worth noting as long as they are sourced. Regarding it being called "other media". I do think toylines can qualify. Definitely with franchises like Transformers and G.I. Joe. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can a compromise be reached where we have articles about the toylines, which include lists of which characters had figures? 2601:240:C703:5340:8DE2:1EDF:95B5:86C8 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There are articles for most of the current toylines, and links to them were typically provided in the list. If TriiipleThreat's edits are left in place, then there will be no indication to a reader to look at those articles because there is no indication in the character articles that toys have ever been produced. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that toys and games should be included "In other media", as long as it is properly cited. It might be overwhelming for a character such as Spider-Man, but popular characters usually have a separate article like Spider-Man in other media for that. For other characters, an appearance in a toyline or video game can help to establish mainstream notability. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I partially agree with TriiipleThreat that these lists can become indiscriminate, but I think the best solution to this problem is to tag those sentences with {{citation needed}} so reliable third party sources can be found. (And obviously his recent deletions of that information would have to be reverted first.) If third party sources are not added within a year (I think that's the typical waiting period for 'citation needed' tags) we can start this discussion again and possibly delete the information again if no one has found reliable sources. Does that sound good to everyone? Spidey104 13:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things: #1. I would be fine with that for characters with limited presence in toys and games. For characters like Spider-Man, and Batman, I think a more general prose section is better. #2. The information should go under a separate heading like "Merchandising" that is separate and removed from "In other media" sections and articles. I still don't think toys and games are considered media under the most generally accepted definition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

1: Agreed, but how do we define the difference between characters? For characters like Batman and Spider-Man it's obvious, but the medium exposure characters that could be argued both ways are going to be tough and potentially contentious.

2: Do we want to go with a separate heading like "Merchandising" or change "In other media" to something like "Adaptations outside of comic books" that could include the toys/games and everything else that is under the "In other media" heading? Spidey104 14:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the amount of coverage. If it starts looking like a laundry list, I would say it should be turned into a general prose section about merchandising rather than focusing on specific products. Either way, but I think a separate heading would be less intrusive than renaming articles and sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus here that while toys are not necessarily a communications medium, they may or may not be a fine arts medium; however, given that various forms of children's dolls and similar figurines have been found almost throughout recorded history, there is also a broader historical/cultural context. Plus, these things are about as close to mass-produced sculpture as many characters are likely to get, but no less culturally significant for that fact. And I think requiring something to be "fine art" relies a little too much on opinion. I would support third-party sourced inclusion, especially for characters for which representation in the medium of action figures and/or the medium of other similar toys is surprising (for instance, there is a real licensed action figure for the Flaming Carrot!). There are surprisingly encyclopedic collectors' guides available online and in print, especially for comic book superhero characters. Certainly one could reference those among other sources. I also agree with TriiipleThreat that for the most part, prose is preferable to a laundry list.Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Boomshadow. I think we'll have to start with reintroducing the information back into the articles and then from there slowly improve them with prose and reliable sources. Spidey104 15:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

One significant risk we run is that people will just remove the tags without adding sources. The usual argument given for removing citation needed tags in "Other media" sections is that it is obvious, if you observe the media, that a tag is not needed. 2601:240:C703:5340:802A:A67:28FB:EF19 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AggressiveNavel has come up with one possible solution to this dilemna at the Psylocke article. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Lg16spears

User:Lg16spears regularly posts information to character articles about other media appearances. The problem is that he seems to often post rumors, uses non-reliable sources, and sometimes even adds information that is very clearly not supported by the information in the sources that he does use. He does not seem to respond when his edits are reverted, or when warnings are placed on his talk page. What can be done in this situation? 2601:240:C703:5340:D477:9535:887D:52C (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel action is warranted against this user, you can create a report at WP:ANI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether action is warranted, but is there a way we can reach out to him that hasn't been done before? 2601:240:C703:5340:102D:B603:C45E:5C30 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Go with a WP:ANI. He's had one for him before when he had similar behavior, and he had that because nothing else seemed to reach him. He makes good faith edits, but sometimes he gets out of line of what is allowed on Wikipedia and he needs to be nudged back into better behavior. Spidey104 13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Joker has been nominated for Featured Article

The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Catwoman (2004)

In the List of highest-grossing films and Batman (1989 film series) we have the film Catwoman as part of the Burtonverse film series. This is all due to a picture of Michelle as Catwoman in the film. Is this really enough for it to be official part of the franchise or could it maybe be just some random Easter egg? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What is said picture? Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In the film Catwoman there is a picture of Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. Supposedly that makes it connected to the four Batman feature films. I am uncertain that makes it official. If not than I feel that is an issue of these two articles. Especially the highest-grossing film article. An featured list article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've checked on the list and it separates it into "Main Series" and "Catwoman". That appears sufficient to me. I think we'll need to get some consensus before a change. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture mixup

What it appears like to me:

• Cosmic King is featuring File:LightningLord.jpg
• Lightning Lord is featuring File:CosmicKing.jpg

Is anyone else seeing this? Is this a mistake? Ranze (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the articles have the right files but, the files were given the wrong names.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Wonder Woman over "who" vs "that" for fictional characters

Despite the RfC we had in May this year that determined we are not required to use "that" to refer to fictional characters (e.g. "Nelvana is a fictional superhero who ..."), Cebr1979‎ is edit warring at Wonder Woman to force "that" where "who" was being used. He has been informed of the RfC on both his user page and mine, as well as in an edit summary. Can we do something about this contentious editing? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As is I've already stated on your talk page, "That conversation you linked to is mostly about "he/she" and they have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The few times "who vs. that" comes up, you're the only one who thinks you're right. Please just go with the consensus. It is correct."Cebr1979 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You've provided no evidence of its correctness. What do style guides say? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You've seen the consensus (you're the one who brought it up). It seems more like you still just don't like it. It's time to accept it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you've seen the consensus as well. The onus is on you to provide evidence of widespread real-world usage and styleguide recommendations. Of course, no such thing exists, because the premise is absurd. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

<annoying edit conflicts> The onus is on you to follow consensus instead of repeatedly trying to make your way the right one.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So follow the consensus that personal pronouns are perfectly okay, as the RfC determined. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness... it talks about gender pronouns being okay (he/she). It doesn't say what you're claiming it does about who/that, though. In fact (aside from what you say), it says the opposite of what you claim... and I'm really not interested in having the same consensus talk all over again just so you can try and be right this time.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you can't be bothered to provide even the slightest evidence that your absurd proposal has anything resembling validity. Fine, we can safely ignore you and your imaginary "consensus". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here is evidence (3,760,000 hits) that "a character who" is extremely widespread in printed books. And no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is recommended to be avoided outside Wikipedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a rare case of someone actually addressing the issue: "... it is not at all unwarranted that a personal pronoun such as 'he' be (nonconnivingly) used to refer to such a character." And of course, the style guides are entirely silent, but the proposition itself is entirely absurd. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus of the RFC boiled down to it being a question of context. This particular edit ("other characters who adopted this name" vs "other characters that have adopted this name") talks about the character in a fictional context, and who is the proper fit. Since this is all going in an about note at the top, why not sidestep the question by shortening it to "other characters given this name"? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's not true at all. The fact that it is talking about the "character" in a fictional context is exactly what makes the character a thing where "that" is a proper fit. Had we been talking about her in a real-word/in-universe context, "who" would then be proper. However, I can see this is going to confuse many so I'll just change it to the "given this name" compromise you mentioned.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea for people who...errr, people that....um, people stuck on this problem. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The kicker seems to be is that the sentence describes the characters performing an action (like people) rather than having an action performed upon them, like objects. "Characters who have taken up the cowl" or "characters who were arrested by Amanda Waller" makes sense, and so does "characters that have been marketed to children." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "No, in fact they're standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions still welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)