Talk:Spider-Man's costumes

Comics: Marvel / Spider-Man Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This redirect is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
	This redirect is supported by Spider-Man work group.

Spider-man's costumes found on others

Concerning this: [1] Lets discuss it shall we? His costumes have been found on others in different variations. That is worth noting. Everyone look at the differences, and give your opinions please. Dream Focus 06:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled "Spider-Man's costumes", not "costume of Spider-Man-related people". It's that simple. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ben Reilly was also Spider-Man, so he shouldn't be removed. (2) The others are meant to be copies of Spider-Man, so they are definitely related. (3) Shouldn't we wait to discuss this until after the merge discussion is completed? Most likely the article will be merged and this section trimmed down, so that trimming will probably bring it down to an acceptable size. Spidey104 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Spider costumes aren't Spider-Man costumes, while Ben Reilly's Spider-Man costume would logically belong. It's all moot anyway if there are no reliable secondary sources to establish that they are notable anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only need a reliable sources to establish notability for the article itself, not the content within. Dream Focus 04:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. Articles need to be crafted from reliably-sourced material. If there's no documentation, there's no reason to keep that information. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the links to the various other articles and find pictures. Spider-Man_2211 for instance. Does any of the information presented have references? You need to know what issue things happened in, is that it? Unless you sincerely doubt the information, then you don't need a reference for every single sentence in every single article. Dream Focus 06:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do doubt the references, mainly because there are none to be found. Notice that the article is tagged as lacking references. References must be provided in this article, not in ones it links to. The burden of proof is on you to provide the references if you want to retain the information. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around since the 21st of July 2007. Thousands of people have viewed it, and most of them don't seem to have a problem with it. I doubt anyone sincerely doubts any of the information in the article is valid. Although if you have a problem with it, you can go to the main articles of these characters, look for first appearance of, and copy that information back here. Dream Focus 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other people haven't raised a problem with the sources before doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That's a very tenuous argument you are making. Once again, the burden of proof is upon you to add the citations. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (Wikipedia:Verifiability policy). Dreamfocus, it doesn't matter if a million people think the entire content of this article is 100% accurate. We are not after truth. We are after verifiability in reliable sources. That's policy. No amount of assertion by you or anyone else that this article is "true" will change that, unless verifiability is attained with with reliable sources. This article has been tagged as missing those sources for five months. Fictional history of Spider-Man was similarly tagged for a long time, and no one bothered to take action about it. Result; the article was deleted. This needs to be fixed. If it's not fixed, it will be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after a constant effort by some to do so, and only during its 4th AFD, and only because the random group of people that noticed and decided to show up to participate in the discussion were those who wanted it deleted. There are thousands of articles that have been tagged for references for years, no one paying attention towards it. It all comes down to whether you personally want to destroy something or not, for whatever reason you got in your head. Otherwise, you could just leave it be, and it'd be fine. And I'm sure with today's level of coverage of comic books, there is ample coverage of the costumes, at least the ones from more recent years. But even with that, some would still find a way to try to delete this anyway. Fictional History of Spider-man DID have references throughout it, the most notable aspects of the character's life given coverage. References don't save an article from dedicated hatred. Dream Focus 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion isn't supported by policy, I'm afraid. Also, the Fictional Histopry of Spider-man article did have lots of PRIMARY references, and was almost devoid of SECONDARY sources. It's crucial to understand the difference. It's not a question of people out to get certain articles, as you seem to suggest. It is a question that we are developing a reliable encyclopedia. You can't do that with essentially only primary sources. Truth isn't what we're after. If you want to base articles on truth and not verifiability, then I suggest you participate in the Spider-Man Wikia. Your contributions I am sure will be most welcome there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]