Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Regarding Danny Ketch being in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Hi (BOZ) (talk), as I have posted numerous times but had my edits reverted, which I am really curious to why it's been unsourced and unreliable for the references given. In the Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance article, the character is named Danny Ketch and clicking on that leads to Ketch's page. Like the film depicts a child who is different to the comics version, but it seemingly is Ketch himself. While you may disagree, I would like to know much more further on this matter. (137.111.165.22) (talk)

Doctor Octopus would have been...

Just wondering largely because it's late here, but are any of the three additions here sourced appropriately for inclusion? BOZ (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, on this at Sandman? BOZ (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ugh, this guy again? No, the material should still be limited to Spider-Man in film. If we start listing all the films a character didn't appear in, what's the point? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Argento Surfer, yep, definitely that guy again: [1] and they added content to several other articles which may need review: [2] BOZ (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a clown and a troll with no life for trying to suggest that the IP user discuss this here. :) BOZ (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Did this come as a shock to you? We all thought you knew... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping there were still some people who didn't know me that well, but alas... BOZ (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the user, I don't see a problem with the Dr. Octopus entry. We are not listing "all the films a character didn't appear in", but just those where the character was considered to be included, things advanced a bit, and then they changed their minds, and there are references to confirm it: those aren't that much. Sandman, however, is another case: for what I read, the idea was to include a villain with sand-related powers but who would have another identity. Meaning, not sandman, someone else. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Long standing consensus has been to list characters only when they appear. Otherwise, you open the door to lists that include all the Easter egg references, name drops, and "his tentacles appeared but he didn't" occasions. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Doc Ock's can stay, as there isn't a particular issue with it, just that he was considered. Agreed with Cambalachero on Sandman. – SirDot (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't have an issue with Doctor Octopus' mechanical tentacles appears as one of the many different villain weaponry underneath Oscorp's Special Projects in The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Because that goes against long-standing consensus (see one, two three, and four). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Enough is enough with this person - after all the edit-warring and personal attacks in the edit summaries, I reported them today and they were rangeblocked for 31 hours:[3] and will report them again if they resume those same activities. BOZ (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For posterity, here's another example of a character considered for a film, but not included. I don't see how including this kind of information informs a reader about a character. There's no development, no event, no analysis. Just "this almost happened, but didn't." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it and it doesn't impose undue weight on the article? If this is correct, then I can see the Darkhawk example as valid, as James Gunn — being the director of the film— can be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Dr. Octopus example at least had some substance to it. Draft plot, actors considered, reason for ultimate removal... The Darkhawk example is just a passing by Twitter comment, which doesn't even make sense if read in isolation from the thread it belongs to. We know that Darkhawk "Was almost in Vol 2." and literally nothing else. Remember, just because something does not go against the rules does not mean we have to include it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(Forgot to mention: regardless of my personal opinion of the Dr. Octopus example, I didn't know that the issue had been discussed and that there was a consensus; I can see the logic behind it and I accept it) Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear friends: here on Wikipedia there are many articles of characters that do not appear but were planned, or mentioned either directly or indirectly. The Ghost is right; if that has its sources and references then it is worth it. BOZ stop the bullsh¡t and let the articles on those Marvel characters include the ones that were planned but didn't appear.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it You are mistaken. While Wikipedia should only contain content that first appeared in a reliable source, that does not mean a Wikipedia article should contain everything reliable sources have ever said about a subject. Our job as editors is to evaluate the available information and include only what is best for a given article. If a reader comes here to learn about Doctor Octopus, how does knowing he didn't appear in the first Spider-Man film helpful? Keep in mind the disputed information is available at Spider-Man in film, where discarded concepts are more relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the point. If you don't understand it's up to you.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for replying. I concur with you that Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on a subject, nor should it contain everything concerning certain aspects (for instance, I find that many comic-based articles frequently forget WP:NOTPLOT). I personally view verifiable non-appearances in a similar light as never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and directions that unfinished works would've gone — if the information can be verified, then it adds value to the behind-the-scenes information. I am curious, what are your feelings on information like the others I listed? For instance, I've recently been working on Dhampire: Stillborn to expand it beyond being a stub and I added a section on the never-produced sequels. Do you think this is not correct? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that kind of material is absolutely worth including in an article about a work. If you had written an article about Nicholas Gaunt, I would not feel the same. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, but I am confused. Why would it make a difference if the article was about a character? If the character is notable enough to have an article, then I believe it should encompass the same material (i.e., verifiable non-appearances, never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and planned directions that unfinished works). Assuming, of course, such material doesn't place undue weight on the article.

Returning to the Darkhawk example, I personally believe that the inclusion of a reliably-sourced non-appearance is one of the article's lesser problems. §Fictional character biography seems eggregiously long, to the point of defying WP:NOTPLOT. §Powers and abilities is similarly problematic in length, to the point that it is confusing to read. §Enemies is an unnecessary section that potentially defies WP:NOTDIRECTORY — though this could probably be incorporated into a §See also §§Notable foes or the sort. And there are a notable amount of uncited statements throughout the article.

I apologize for turning my reply into a "poor man's peer review", but my point is that — to me— there are bigger problems facing the article than a reliably-sourced non-appearance. Personally, I find that reliably-sourced non-appearance more worthy of inclusion than the minutiae of Darkhawk's fictional biography or powers. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

First - no argument from me about other issues with Darkhawk or other character articles. I completely agree there's a lot of room for improvement.

As to the difference between an article about a comic book and an article about a comic character, it comes back to the question I posed above. The point of a character article is to tell a reader about the character. What does a reader learn about the character from knowing he was considered for, but not used in, a film? That he's less important than the villain(s) who did appear? That's he's possibly more important than other villains who weren't confirmed to have been considered? Unless it appears on screen, it isn't canon, and therefore doesn't impact the character in any way.

To expand on that last part, most of the consensus built around excluding non-appearances from character articles came from editors adding extremely minor things, like the appearance of mechanical tentacles in Amazing Spider-Man 2, Gambit's name appearing in a list on a computer screen in X2, even Easter egg-type allusions to characters that are "obvious" to fans. Allowing that kind of trivia in character articles leads to the same kind of overloaded, unsourced minutia in the film section that you bring up as a current problem in the fictional biography sections.

An article about a comic book, on the other hand, should include sourced material on canceled plans, since that can give a reader more context about the work. Information about an unmade sequel give insight into a creator's plans and a nice segue into why it wasn't made. Sales failure? Creator illness? Publisher disinterest? Or perhaps it's still a potential future project? Whatever the answer, I don't feel those are questions that can be asked about a character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your reply. I now believe that I understand your reasoning, though I respectfully disagree with some of it. You say that the "point of a character article is to tell a reader about the character", but — while a small difference— I think that the "point of a character article is to tell a reader about the history of a character". As per WP:NOTPLOT, the emphasis of articles should be on "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the article's topic. And while a "concise" summary of a character's fictional biography and powers is also essential, limiting an article to canonical information isn't ideal — there is a lot of non-canonical information that deserves to be included.

I agree that this can be overdone, such as the "Easter egg-type allusions" you mention, but I do not think this is a simple black-and-white, binary matter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Darkhawk, for instance, knowing he was considered for inclusion in Guardians 2 adds to the character's significance. Or, at least, it does in my mind.

I apologize for hijacking this discussion and re-opening a can of worms, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respectfully discuss the merits (or lack thereof) on this topic. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest an article on a character should only tell a reader about the canonical, fictional information - your description of what it should cover is correct. I still don't see how being considered for a film fits with "development, design, reception, significance, [or] influence." Not appearing in a film means there is no development, there are no designs or reception, nor any influence. I'd even go so far as to say that being considered for inclusion but not selected is a strike against a character's significance.

I wouldn't oppose opening this up as an RfC. It would get more eyes on it from outside the regulars on this board. It will need to be boiled down to a very specific, simple question though. Which example of a non-appearance do you feel has the strongest sources supporting it? We'll use that for the test case. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, it is very much appreciated. You mention how a character being considered but "not selected [for a film] is a strike against a character's significance", which it certainly can be, but that does mean it affects significance. A negative impact is still an impact.

I appreciate your offer to open an RfC on the matter, but I do not feel qualified to select a specific example to bring to wider discussion. If you wished to bring the Darkhawk example to RfC, I believe that would be fair. It seems like a solid "middle ground" example of mentioning reliably-sourced "didn't happen" instances in an article. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I for one think an RFC on the topic of, say, "Should articles about fictional characters include non-appearances in other media?" would be a great idea. Make sure to include links to as many previous discussions about the topic as can be found. It would also be useful to figure out when exceptions can be made. This may also be worth expanding beyond comics characters, as this can also be a phenomenon occurring in characters adapted from other forms of media (i.e., was Tom Bombadil considered for including in Jackson's LoTR films?) so I support an RFC to give us a more solid consensus. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ and The Ghost of Art Toys Past: I have opened the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which seemed like the best spot. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for taking the time to elicit this discussion. I have added my thoughts to it. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@SirDot and Cambalachero: you might be interested in the RfC too. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have again reported the IP editor:[4] BOZ (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And they are blocked for a week this time:[5] BOZ (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported them once again: [6] and this time they are blocked for a month. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly that same IP user socking: [7] BOZ (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

And another IP: [8] BOZ (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like they may be back, so filed another AIV report: [9] BOZ (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And that IP range blocked: [10] BOZ (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding new categories for webcomics

We have categories for when webcomics debut and we have one for when they end, but many if not most webcomics exist in a state of limbo where the creators haven't made an official announcement on them ending the comic, or have even voiced an intent on continuing the comic, but then nothing happens for years. On a few occasions while cleaning up the main Webcomics category the official website wasn't even online anymore. I'd like to add Category:Webcomics on hiatus for these comics that never had an official end. It provides a source of closure for me as an editor, and having a category for these comics also makes it easier to find these comics and check on if there's been any recent activity. By that same token I'd like to add Category:Ongoing webcomics for comics that are still regularly being updated for much the same reason. ReneeWrites (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Thank you for contributing. I see no reason that webcomics shouldn't have their own equivalent to Category:Unfinished comics, but it should be consistent with that established naming… so, perhaps, Category:Unfinished webcomics. As for having a category to denote ongoing status, there is no current convention for doing such. Comic books in general, for instance, have no such category to denote that they are ongoing; their ongoing status is simply denoted in the infobox. I believe any ongoing series category would require a proper discussion, though I personally feel it is an unnecessary categorization. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've made the Unfinished webcomics category and added a few titles to it, I'll work on it more later. I'll put the information about a webcomic's ongoing status in the infobox like you said. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Thank you for taking the initiative. I know very little about webcomics, but in looking at the three you have categorized thusly I do have a remark/question. Both Demon-cratic Singapore and Thinking Ape Blues, upon my cursory examination, appear to be more single-panel/page gag strips than ongoing stories. Is this accurate? If so, they aren't really unfinished so much as they are simply ended or presumed ended (perhaps, in either case, without announcement). Platinum Grit, on the other hand, appears to be truly unfinished, the final installment not resolving an ongoing story.

Also, I would advise adding a little text to the Publication History (or whatever) section/s that identifies the webcomic's unfinished nature. Something akin to As of 25 May 2022, new Blah Blah Blah work has not been published since Whatever-month 2XXX, leaving the ongoing storyline unfinished. (and please remember to use the {{As of}} template at that sentence's start). Thank you again. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'll remove the unfinished category from the gag comics. I'll also keep that template in mind when making those kinds of statements, as well. Thanks again for the feedback, and for letting me know about these things. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a kind-of dangerous category, because there's no clear line for when a webcomic should be moved between "ongoing" and "unfinished." Should a webcomic instantly be moved to the other category when a hiatus is announced (as it's no longer currently "ongoing")? Should a webcomic be moved to the other category after a year of inactivity? Two years? Suggesting that a webcomic has been abandoned when there's no clear evidence for this would be pretty bad, I believe. These grey areas are why I didn't create such a category back in the day. If we only include webcomics that have been announced to be abandoned (like Cucumber Quest), then I suppose that's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Marvel and Fu Manchu entries

I created the entries: Five Weapons Society, Mandarin's rings, Ten Rings (organization), Fah Lo Suee, Zheng Bao Yu, Denis Nayland Smith, Bast (Marvel Comics), Some have already been well expanded, but others still need to be. Hyju (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Do we require reliable sources for voice actors?

Newer user User:Sundropie has been added large amounts of voice actor information to character articles, always without adding any sources. I approached them on their talk page, as did User:Nightscream, however they continue to add unsourced voice actor information to article. What is worse, and I hope they have stopped doing this, is that they were actually removing existing citations for voice actors as seen here, here, here, here, and here. I had been removing the unsourced information as they add it, as the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding the information, but they just keep adding it back. What is the best way to approach this situation? BOZ (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If cast and crew info appears in the credits, then the show can function as its own primary source, per WP:TVPLOT. But animated shows typically do not contain this specificity of information, which is why they require citations, per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:PSTS, et al. If an editor persistently violates this or any other policy, and ignores warnings, then an administrator should block them. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will remove the unsourced additions in a little while then, and let's keep an eye on this situation. BOZ (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream, just noting that they have already reverted the ones you reverted. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I should note, however, that in this case, the editor added a citation that supports the claim. The others should be checked too. Nightscream (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know because I edit a good number of articles of animated series, and if I have time, I always try and add sources in for voice actors, because some pages have nothing, sadly. Historyday01 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ:, then you should contact an admin. Nightscream (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I will reach out to the edit-warring noticeboard if they continue to revert after this point without discussing. Also, if someone with a bit more time than me would not mind checking for me, the user did include citations in the following edits: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] I would want to make sure that these citations are legitimate, because if they are fake, then we have an even bigger problem on our hands. If the sources are legit on the other hand, then that is great to see that they are learning. BOZ (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for what I did. I swear I didn't know. Please forgive me. Sundropie (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, the best part about mistakes is learning from them! BOZ (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And yet, here they are again blanking cite-supported material and replacing it with uncited material earlier today. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Reliability of Comic Book Resources

@BOZ: In the BTG Wikiproject, we are discussing on the reliability of CBR, could you please comment if you are familiar with the ref? Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Scarlet Witch in the X-Men films

I had the idea that we had consensus previously on not including this information in the Scarlet Witch article, but an IP user has been edit warring with me to include it. I also removed this from the Quicksilver article and they did not restore it. It looks like they have been edit warring on other articles as well, so there may need to be some admin intervention unless I am off base. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

All of these seem trivial, so probably report the IP at WP:ANEW. — SirDot (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I did so. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And the range is blocked: [33] BOZ (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Split of Captain Britain into Draft:Captain Britain and Draft:Brian Braddock

I am reviewing drafts of Draft:Captain Britain and Draft:Brian Braddock, which will split the current Captain Britain article into two articles. Are there comments on the split? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I initiated this split request. For superhero monikers that have been used in publication for multiple characters (such as Robin, Batgirl, Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel), there are generally separate articles for the moniker itself and each individual character. Considering that, in modern publication, the title no longer refers to the character of Brian Braddock, it does not make sense for the Captain Britain page to primarily be about that character. Does anybody disagree with this? Pibbs (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree.★Trekker (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How long have other characters been associated with the name Captain Britain, and how unlikely is it that Brian Braddock will resume use of the name? BOZ (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

User:BOZ The official Marvel line is that this will be a permanent change (as with Captain Marvel). I would understand skepticism if this split were proposed sooner after the change happened, however, at this point it's been three years and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to doubt that this is permanent. My inclination is to believe Marvel's official statements, and while I have my reasons (Much as Mar-Vell was never nearly as popular as Carol Danvers, Brian has never been nearly as popular as Betsy; Betsy's books as Captain Britain have been a cornerstone of the franchise since the DoX relaunch; additionally, Kwannon as the new Pyslocke has been a breakout hit in her own right given the success of Hellions, so Betsy seems unlikely to take that name back), I'd hesitate to base decisions on speculation one way or the other. Pibbs (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of unsourced content added to Carl Barks and related comics articles

72.220.73.191 (talk · contribs) may be knowledgeable on the subjects, and hasn't bothered sourcing copious additions of content across the Barks bio, Disney comics and Donald Duck articles. A lot of it looks like WP:OR. Would someone here like to review and begin the task of deletion, or is there a preference to open a thread at ANI? Today they were reverted here [34], and I reverted this inappropriate section [35]. Tip of the iceberg, I'm afraid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

...Con event-list details

I no longer remember why MegaCon is on my watchlist, and I am not familiar with either this specific con or WP standards for con articles, so I'm asking here if there is a standard for what details to include in the list of events, such as MegaCon#Dates and guests. Dates, guests, and random special notes seem reasonable. But "Building" seems an excessive level of detail for an encyclopedia unless there is something citeably special to say about it every time. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stoshmaster:, who works in this area a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Character list formatting

I brought it up I think a couple of years ago, but I wanted to try to figure out a better formatting structure for the larger Marvel and DC character lists. I tried out what I had saved on List of Marvel Comics characters: M for a couple characters, looking for any ideas. For characters with differing names or identities, I was thinking it could just be a blank section that lists the lesser used name and points it to either the character article or the list entry using their most common/current name. TTN (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Revising the list to a table will break a lot of redirects... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed a concern, but won't bots be able to help somewhat with that?★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This type of restructuring will affect the redirects and the sections for those who have media appearances. @Indagate: had to add a visible anchor to M-11's part of the page in question as part of the concerns mentioned by @Argento Surfer and @StarTrekker. Rtkat3 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry got distracted but yeah a template like Template:visible anchor means the redirects won't be effected, can also use Template:Anchor for another anchor. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool, glad to know. I suck at tables.

Since that's not a concern, I would suggest merging the "Introduction date" and "series" columns into one formatted similar to "Title #1 (mon YY)." We also need a column (or solution) to retain the other media appearances. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As in links to other media appearances like the following? Or something else?

Codename	Real name	Introduction	Creator(s)	Description	Other appearances
Codename	Real name	Menace #11 (May 1954)	Creator	Description	Show 1 Show 2 Movie Alternate version

For sorting, should it be done by strictly real name, strictly code name, or strictly common name? If real name, should it be "first, last" or "last, first"? These pages are a roundabout mess of links, so this is certain to be a very long process just getting what's there into shape. The ability to put multiple anchors in place can help for redirecting. TTN (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)