Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: Difference between revisions
StarTrekker (talk | contribs) →Subject knowledge needed at RfD: Date fix |
→Possibility to remove photo: new section |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
{{noredirect|Void (Cosmic Entity)}}, presently a redirect to [[Amatsu-Mikaboshi (comics)]] has been nominated at RfD, [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 9#Void (Cosmic Entity)|the discussion]] would benefit from input from those familiar with the relevant universe. Thanks, [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
{{noredirect|Void (Cosmic Entity)}}, presently a redirect to [[Amatsu-Mikaboshi (comics)]] has been nominated at RfD, [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 9#Void (Cosmic Entity)|the discussion]] would benefit from input from those familiar with the relevant universe. Thanks, [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Possibility to remove photo == |
|||
On the [[Sarah's Scribbles]] article there's a photo of the cartoonist, even when the same article states that she has ''deliberately chosen not to publish photos of her face''. Isn't this something against her statements? |
Revision as of 05:53, 13 January 2017
![]() | This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 27 June 2011 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
WikiProject Comics |
---|
![]() |
Information |
Comics Portal |
I removed a MASSIVE plot dump on the Uncanny X-Men article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT. Individual storylines were given more detail than the entire 15-year run by Chris Claremont on the series. This is an example of WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Recentism to give greater prominence to stories published since 2015 than to the entire 52-years of previous history. Nor are these mere "summaries" but page-by-page descriptions of character's actions ("Cyclops has another idea", "The team travel to Chicago", "Scott is shocked by this and racked with guilt", "Goldballs eventually becomes an Internet sensation."). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fanpage or a blog.
In addition, before I removed the over-detailed plot descriptions, the article was at 119,975 bytes. Now it is at 102,884 bytes. Per Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Splitting, the Uncanny X-Men article should have some of its sections split off into separate articles.
Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I will be adding additional comments here in the next few days. Today's post is to keep this section from being archived by the Lowercase sigmabot III. Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Amazon as reference?
For minor/new characters there are typically few examples of "In other media" adaptations, so it is worthwhile to list things such as action figures. These items can typically be found on Amazon, but is that a reliable reference to use? What would be a good source for action figures, HeroClix, and other toys? Spidey104 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Marvel Toy News for one. Previews World may have some info, but you'll have to be careful with it because some items get solicited and never released. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- The existence of an action figure is not particularly notable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- But the existence of one/some can be used (in part) to demonstrate notability for comic characters. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- The existence of an action figure is not particularly notable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The Defenders (comic book)
I had split the Defenders (comics) article into an article about the comic book, but it was reverted. I think that the Defenders comic title has some legs to stand on its own separate from the titular characters, much like The Amazing Spider-Man or The Incredible Hulk (comic book) and other such long-running titles. The sources are there for both. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- While I am not opposed to the idea of having separate articles, we should not have separate articles simply because other stuff exists. Also I am concerned that the team article will be reduced to a WP:PLOTONLY description of works leaving most of the relevant WP:Real-world information to the comic book article. I think that the topics at this time, can easily be managed in a single article. Perhaps after some careful expansion, I might reconsider.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I did my best to avoid moving all of the non-plot details from the team article, but I moved some of the stuff that is strictly related to publication details to the book article. I understand the concern that the team article would be reduced to a plot-only description, so I left details such as who wrote the book and when. I moved comments by the creators to the book article, though. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- And I'm not arguing that we should have an article on the Defenders comic title because "other stuff exists", I am arguing that we do it because the sources and content are sufficient for a split, and I mentioned the other articles as examples of what we can do. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose the split at this time. The examples you gave are for long-running titles and very prominent characters who have appeared in a very large number of other books, either as a star or guest star. Looking over the Defenders, I'm not convinced there's sufficient reason to make a distinction between the two. I'd like to see the article distinguish between fact and fiction better before anything else. Right now, the publication history looks to be at least 50% in-universe plot. The Fictional team history needs to be split out. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the split for now. The team does not yet have enough prominence. Maybe reconsider when the Netflix series run. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose split, but if the article is cleaned up and became too long, I would be for splitting off the comic book. I think the article's unwieldiness is due to it needing copyediting, not a split.
- What is the policy on having an article for the team and an article for the comic book? I feel like it should only be WP:SPLIT, because while the team is notable and the comic book is notable, the two are in ways inseparable. Any source which deals with the comic book is inevitably dealing with the team. The decision then would be which article should exist. The team is a better subject because it can cover all comic book series incarnations without being confusing. So then the decision to split is based on WP:SPLIT. I think. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Besides the title of the page, the page itself is also subject to recent RM discussion. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Marvel Cinematic Universe
On the character pages for Marvel characters, information about their inclusion in the MCU is currently relegated to the 'in other media' sections, with the same continuity spread over several sections (eg television and film for characters such as Maria Hill). Given the popularity of the MCU and its spanning multiple formats, would it not seem appropriate to give the MCU its own section? Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I see the need for this and think it would improve some articles, but I don't think it needs to be applied across the board. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Argento. This would be okay for characters that have appeared in multiple MCU media (ie Maria Hill, Hydra), but should not be applied to all MCU characters, as most can still be housed under the "Film" or "Television" headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Argento Surfer and Favre1fan93 on this one. I would see this as being necessary with a handful of characters, and the rest there is simply not enough material to justify forcing this overarching new format. Most are satisfied by limiting the headers to the media - film, television, video game - and sometimes, when even such sections would be too small, no headers at all under the "in other media" section. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There´s a "writer of comic books" (Michael Eury) asking for help at [1], if anyone feels like helping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Spider-Man comic book issue chronology
I have started a deletion discussion for the recently created Spider-Man comic book issue chronology article. Please post opinions (for OR against) this proposal there. Thank you. Spidey104 15:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Opinions requested for merge
Please review this discussion about merging content to the List of Marvel Comics characters. I can't tell if I'm being hardnosed or not. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about cartoon and comics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Joker (character) nominated for deletion
Joker (character) has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Subject knowledge needed at RfD
Void (Cosmic Entity), presently a redirect to Amatsu-Mikaboshi (comics) has been nominated at RfD, the discussion would benefit from input from those familiar with the relevant universe. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Possibility to remove photo
On the Sarah's Scribbles article there's a photo of the cartoonist, even when the same article states that she has deliberately chosen not to publish photos of her face. Isn't this something against her statements?