Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.134.164.2 (talk) at 20:01, 16 September 2012 (→‎Reprising a role: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Nomination of ComicsAlliance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ComicsAlliance 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/ComicsAlliance 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 template from the top of the article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP keeps vandalising The Beano article

An IP keeps adding a vandalous section to the article on The Beano. The edit has been reverted numerous times but the IP keeps reverting the reversions. Is there a way to prevent this IP from editing the page eg by blocking them. I dont know how to do that. Eopsid (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it again, and left a friendly warning on the talk page. If it happens again, you should continue to leave warnings on their talk page each time it is reverted, until it escalates to the point of them violating the 3RR rule, or it reaches the final vandalism warning: {{uw-vandalism4}}. At that point, you can report the IP address for violating Wikipedia policy, or request to have the article protected. But you have to give them a chance to stop the vandalism first, and document it every time they choose not to stop, for them to possibly be blocked. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created Marvel NOW! articles

It seems an IP has recently created articles for Uncanny Avengers and Indestructible Hulk and has nominated All-New X-Men and Thor: God of Thunder for creation. All of the articles just copy information from Marvel NOW! and in my opinion do not yet meet general notability guidelines. Should they be kept, deleted or redirected elsewhere?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave them. No harm in them duplicating info for now, and no sense in redirecting them for just two months. The "See also" sections should probably be redone into a template or trimmed down. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see enough sources being published on the subjects until well after their debuts to make them independently notable. For now I'd say the information should merged into team or characters articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "well after", do you mean "the day after"? Because I'm betting titles this high profile will be reviewed (and probably in advance) by every notable comic newsite, and the writers interviewed repeatedly. I think it can be taken for granted these titles will be notable, and I think leaving them up now would allow for better coverage of their beginnings later. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If The Incredible Hulk, which has been around since 1962, can be housed at Hulk (comics) then I do not see why Indestructible Hulk cannot be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I propose Uncanny Avengers and All-New X-Men be kept since they are both new teams / titles and Indestructible Hulk and Thor: God of Thunder be merged into their respective parent character articles since they will become the primary titles for each character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I redirected Indestructible Hulk. The Thor page is a video game with a For the Comic link to Thor (Marvel Comics) already. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men In Black listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Люди в чёрном 3 and Қара киімділер 3. Since you had some involvement with the Men In Black redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Primary series" in character articles

Are additions like these appropriate? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not per WP:CMOS#LSECTION.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not... - J Greb (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like the editor went this route after getting "Bibliographies" nixed... - J Greb (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos

I think someone should check the edit history of Thanos for a familiar pattern. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FACs

Hey, just letting everyone know at the project that Louis Riel (comics) has just passed FAC. Also, I've just put Maus up for FAC, if anyone would like to take a look at it (or take part in the review). CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avengers Assemble 09 Marvel NOW!.jpg

File:Avengers Assemble 09 Marvel NOW!.jpg has been nominated for deletion, because it is missing a fair use rationale, and the sourcing is improperly formatted -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using No-Importance in article tagging

Please see the discussion here regarding the usefulness of No-importance in article assessment. 84.92.54.229 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Wagner

I've given John Wagner's article a thorough rewrite - perhaps someone from the project could have a look, check if there's any outstanding deficiences, and reassess it? Thanks. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reprising a role

Should we generally be noting if a voice actor is "reprising" a role from either one form of media to another, or from one example in the same media to another? [14] [15] [16] 64.134.164.2 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]