Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics:

For proposed deletions and mergers, disputes, and recently created articles, check the WikiProject Comics Notice board.

Move discussion at the joker[edit]

This is a discussion that is of relevance to this project. here

Oh, my God![edit]

I have noticed that we have the page Gods (Marvel Comics), and List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. The first one is just a lot of unreferenced an in-universe stuff. Should we move it to something like "List of deities in Marvel Comics"? Should we list the "gods" in the second list? Is there some actual difference between a "god" and a "cosmic entity"? Should we list all deities that were used in Marvel at some point, or just those that have an article?

Or should we simply create a new article, "Mythology in Marvel Comics", and merge in it all the gods based on real deities, gods completely original by Marvel, angels, demons, cosmic entities, cosmic objects, celestials, and whatever?

I'm asking here and not the article talk page because it is hardly ever edited, and I suspect that the question would go unnoticed there. Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd oppose a merge - there's a huge difference between Hercules and Eternity. I would support renaming it as a list. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd support moving Gods (Marvel Comics) to List of deities in Marvel Comics but as Argento Surfer pointed out I'd keep gods and cosmic entities separated.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder what the definitions of "god" and "deity" are. Are characters based on real-world figures of worship (real-world gods) what is being referred to, regardless of whether anyone in the comics treats them as literal gods? Or characters who are figures of worship for some fictional culture within Marvel Comics? In the movies at least, the Asgardians are frequently referred to as "gods" because they are the people ancient Norsemen worshipped within the universe, despite them not apparently being figures of worship in the "present", while Ego is referred to as a god simply because he has tremendous power and is immortal despite not apparently having ever been a figure of worship. (I'm making the perhaps-flawed assumption that the comics are similarly messy here -- never read all that many Marvel comics myself.) I'd be in favour of whichever option uses the least poorly-defined in-universe terminology that resembles real-world terminology but apparently carries different a meaning (read: titles that refer to "gods" and "deities" are all problematic.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
A deity is a divine figure from a polytheistic pantheon, and a god is the single one from a monotheistic religion. All those ancient figures of worship used as templates by Marvel to create their "god" characters (Thor, Hercules, etc.) are deities. Original characters with godlike powers are the cosmic entities of my original question, which will be kept in a different list as suggested. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting, but do you have a source? The distinction you make between "deity" and "god" definitely isn't true for the real-world, so if Wikipedia is going to use it in discussion of Marvel Comics characters, it needs to be cited to a source specifically giving that definition in relation to the comics. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
That simply isn't right. If you're talking "God", capital G, no article, then yes, you're talking monotheism or what passes for it. But if you're trying to use that for any usage of the term "god", no. You'd have to tell that to Shakespeare, who wrote "The gods themselves throw incense". Or to the Oxford English Dictionary, who define the term deity by saying it's a god. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that is just not right. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"In the movies at least, the Asgardians are frequently referred to as "gods" because they are the people ancient Norsemen worshipped within the universe, despite them not apparently being figures of worship in the "present", while Ego is referred to as a god simply because he has tremendous power and is immortal despite not apparently having ever been a figure of worship. (I'm making the perhaps-flawed assumption that the comics are similarly messy here -- never read all that many Marvel comics myself.)"

I have seen very few of the Marvel-related films, but I have been a Marvel Comics reader on-and-off for more than two decades. (I don't care much for DC Comics characters, though I love the Green Lanterns and associated characters). The depiction of Marvel gods and their status as having worshipers is often inconsistent. An old story established that various pantheons of gods used to interact regularly with humanity, but a conflict c. 1000 AD forced them to withdraw to extradimensional realms and stop seeking worshipers. Humans just forgot about them.

  • A few stories have depicted Thor and other Asgardians attracting modern-day worshipers, some of which hoped to gain favors from the gods. One storyline had super-villain Absorbing Man (who gained his powers due to Loki) starting worshiping the Asgardians in the apparent hope that they will heal his terminally ill wife Titania. (Absorbing Man and Titania are typically depicted as one of the most loving couples in this universe, and her seemingly approaching death drove him to religion).
  • Few Olympian gods have worshipers but Poseidon/Neptune is depicted as still actively worshiped by Namor and various other characters from Atlantis. In addition Magma was raised in a society worshiping the Olympians, and was depicted as in awe when actually meeting some of them in person.
  • The Summerian and Babylonian gods rarely appear, but some of them seem to have degenerated into demons. Marduk has turned up as a fallen deity committing demonic acts in order to regain power. A separate major demon in the Marvel Universe is called Marduk Kurios, though whether he is related to the god is unclear. Inanna turned up as a demon in a 1990s storyline and was killed. Two separate goddesses claiming the name Ereshkigal have appeared, and both of them are demonic. (Since the two goddesses happen to be look-alikes and using the same name, I often wonder what was the point of having two of them.)
  • The Egyptian gods have appeared on-and-off for several decades. Several cultists worshiping them have been depicted, but most of them are minor characters. The most frequently appearing of them is probably Khonsu, the patron deity of Moon Knight. Khonsu keeps resurrecting his Knight, after every violent death, to keep him in service. In addition he once resurrected a deceased Hawkeye (then leader of the Avengers), because he wanted the Avengers to serve him for a while. (Interestingly, Moon Knight is of Jewish descent, but seems to worship Khonsu instead of Jahwe. Too bad the main stories do not use it as a source of conflict.) In addition the "Panther God" worshiped by Black Panther and other characters from Wakanda turned out to be Bastet in disguise, and his/her rival the "Lion God" turned out to be Sekhmet. (Both characters originally appeared as males but were retconned to be goddessees in disguise).
  • Native American gods are depicted on occasion, along with various worshipers. An entire line of heroes called Red Wolf are depicted as instruments of the will of a god called Owayodata.
  • The Inuit gods rarely appear, but play a large role behind the scenes. Snowbird is an Inuit demigodess and involved Alpha Flight in battles against immortal enemies of her devine ancestors. A few early storylines had her forced to obey her mother (a goddess) and grandfather (a god), even when she disagreed with their decisions. One story had her tortured by them because she refused to kill one of her closest friends. Sedna has tuned up as a Thor enemy in a couple of storylines.
  • Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Mayan, Aztek, African, Celtic, and Slavik pantheons have all turned up in various stories, though they are mostly minor players. Marvel actually once got in trouble with real-life Hinduists who thought the depiction of their deities was sacrilegious.
  • Various stories have depicted alien gods who are worshiped by alien civilizations, such as the Shi'ar and the Skrull.
  • A monotheistic god based on Yahweh and ruling a Heaven of his own has turned up in a few stories, though he is mostly a minor character who faces a lot of opposition by demons and rebellious angels. A storyline about a decade ago retconned that this god is the actual patron deity of various incarnations of the Ghost Rider. (The same storyline retconned that there were not just a hand full of Ghost Riders as previously depicted, but hundreds of them).
  • In addition to various pantheons, a group called the Elder Gods are patron deities to various heroes and villains, direct ancestors to most of the gods and demons, and dwarf almost all of them in age and power. The Elder Gods themselves are the children of a senior deity called the Demiurge, but he is decisively inactive throughout the course of Earth's history.

Most of the gods are limited to the confines of a single planet, while Marvel's cosmic characters typically have power and influence over the wider universe or multiverse. Most of them do not have or need worshipers. There are also various immortal characters, with or without other divine powers. Characters like Merlin and Morgan Le Fay are depicted as thousands-of-years old and able to return after every violent death, but they are usually depicted as sorcerers and not as deities. (Despite often displaying powers that excede what the gods can do). Selene is much older than most of the gods, displays vast powers, and is even worshiped by some characters, but she is usually assumed to be a mutant and not a goddess. And so on and so on. Dimadick (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:HÊÚL. edit-warring over character infoboxes[edit]

User:HÊÚL. appears to be edit-warring over several items in the infobox for character articles, namely including names from the Ghost Rider film but not in the comics on Mephisto (comics)[1] and Blackout (Lilin)[2], and also adding the "real names" from the Ultimate universe which have not been used in mainstream Marvel Universe on Forge (comics)[3] and Longshot[4]. I figure this could use some more eyes. 2602:304:CE74:9630:C153:3FD8:367B:856F (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Cartoon pornography to Erotic animation[edit]

The article Cartoon pornography, which is tagged as part of this project, has been proposed for merger with Erotic animation. See Talk:Erotic animation#Merger for discussion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes[edit]

Is there a comics guideline or a general guideline on the use of navboxes? Xtremeroller just added a bunch to the Joker article whose only relevance is that the Joker is mentioned in them, his presence justified by him being a "sometimes" enemy of Robin, the Justice League and ...Catwoman? I don't think they belong but user has a history of edit warring so it's easier if I get information here first. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL suggests that if an article includes a navbox, that article should be linked from the navbox. Based on the name, I think it's assumed it will work the other way as well? I'll keep looking. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the functional impact of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Now, it might be the case that the article in question shouldn't have all those navboxes because it shouldn't be included in those navboxes, but that's a navbox-specific discussion. --Izno (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I managed to find this Wikipedia:Avoid template creep which talks about the specific problem. Izno, you're right in that it's a specific discussion since while the Joker is an enemy of those people, he isn't their villain, he's just someone who has interacted with or otherwise harmed them. I went over to the Batman article to see how that works and there's like 18 navboxes there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Template Creep is about the number of templates that exist and their size, not the number in a specific article.
Specific to this situation, the Catwoman template should be removed (and Joker removed from it) because the Joker article does not mention her at all. The Batgirl and Robin templates seem redundant to Batman characters, but it's hard to dispute that Joker shouldn't be included on them. Overall, I don't think five (collapsed) templates is too many for one article. Perhaps the new ones could be combined in a related topic shell like on Captain America? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article nom - opinions appreciated[edit]

I've nominated Lazarus (comics) as a featured article. Comments are appreciated from anyone willing to take a look. Information about reviewing can be found here and here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost[edit]

  1.  – Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  2.  – Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  3.  –
  4.  –

Going forward, each participant receives the interview questions about the project's work, problems and achievements.

I'd be interested in answering questions related to the basically dead field of webcomics. This is only tangentially related to WikiProject Comics, so I just bring it up as a kind of 'FYI'. ~Mable (chat) 10:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexiest Women In Comics[edit]

Does every female character in comics need to have their rank in Comics Buyer's Guide's "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list so prominently featured in their article's first paragraph? It's something I see so often and displayed in such an up-front manner, and it makes me question its usefulness every time. If that information is so important that it needs to be on the article, could it at least be moved to a Reception section further down the page, instead of being one of the first things you see about the character?

You can find this on most articles for female comics characters- for fun, search Wikipedia for "Sexiest Women in Comics" and find just how many articles show up- but my favorite example is on Mantis' article, where her status as the 99th Sexiest Woman in Comics is displayed before the fact that she was in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

It's an accurate representation of how a lot of the media treats these characters, I'm sure, but to me it reeks of unprofessionalism, and I don't know if it belongs on Wikipedia. Is anyone else with me on this? Ummagine (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Some male characters have it too. I think it's trashy as hell and says nothing about the actual reception of the character.★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. The general consensus is that while discussion of sex appeal may make some uncomfortable, it does speak to how the character design has been received. However per the same consensus, the content should be placed with other information about the character's reception.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't really make me uncomfortable but it seems completely pointless and arbitary, characters are drawn completely differently by different artists besides basic color schemes and lines to denote their costumes.★Trekker (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I was speaking in general, not you specifically. Most characters have a particular design that doesn't change much from artist to artist. But you bring up a good point, I haven't read the actual list, does it include information about the author's reasoning or reference a particular run or artist? Perhaps some context would be more useful than a bare listing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen any reasoning or artists mentioned. Any time I've seen a Sexiest Character list be referenced in an article, it mentions the character's ranking and that's it. It's context-free. Ummagine (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with making people "uncomfortable"; that argument wasn't even raised in the discussion. The problem is that it's silly. The source for this "information" is not an authority on "sexiness". And this is isn't like movie reviews, where there's a whole population of dozens of critics who form a consensus about whether a movie is good or bad that we can refer to. The source here is just some fan/collector giving his non-expert subjective opinion, which makes it fancruft of no general encyclopedic value. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Silly" is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. While I'm not familiar with this particular list, I am familiar with Comics Buyer's Guide and at one point it was considered the authority on comic books, and as such the opinions there in do carry weight. Like it or not, it does reflect a particular aspect of the character's reception. It isn't much different from similar lists in WP:BLP articles like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Scarlett Johansson, and Angelina Jolie.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that saying something "Silly" is inherently WP:IDONTLIKEIT, silly can be fun and enjoyable. Either way unless there is some motivation for the inclusion it's just a bulletpoint and doens't really belong in the lead section of so many articles but would fit more in a reception section. As a matter of fact way too many character articles lack reception sections.★Trekker (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the content should be moved to more appropriate locations and too many character articles lack reception sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have the issue in question, and if so, does it provide a methodology of how the rankings were obtained? If it were a survey across fans and/or creators, I think it'd carry more weight than arbitrary ranking. Either way, yes, take it out the lead. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
As it happens, I was browsing an old CBG recently and saw an ad for this. It was published as a standalone book, not as a special issue or single article. It previewed a few pages, and there were at least 3 paragraphs per character in the samples. I do not think this content belongs in the lead, but material from the description would be useful in adding real-world material to reception sections. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I would question whether a specific mention of what-is-essentially-a listicle should ever be present in the lead of an article, which looks to summarize an article. (WP:WEIGHT might be good reading too.) --Izno (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Most characters have a particular design that doesn't change much from artist to artist."

In some cases the design can differ a lot, for various reasons. The character could undergo a radical transformation, such as Green Hulk becoming the weaker but more intelligent, Grey Hulk, or the Beast gaining fur. The character could have aged within the context of the stories, such as Julie Power of Power Pack. In this case, a kid character may be redesigned to a teenager or adult. In some cases, the artist either consciously chose to redesign a character to a completely different form, or did not bother to research previous depictions of a character.

There are cases such as the super-villain Locus. In her original depiction, the character had light skin and blond hair. A later depiction featured her with dark skin, and the change became permanent. She was redesigned as an African American, with black hair. It is possible that the artist who made the change confused Locus with her teammate Tempo, who was depicted as an African-American woman since her first appearance.

At least this is better than Puff Adder of the Serpent Society. He is a lesser known member of a fairly prominent group of super-villains, where he is usually the strongman of the group. Nobody seems to be to be consistent with what is his appearance when not in uniform. He has variously been depicted as a White American with blond or light brown hair, and as an African American with black or dark brown hair. He has been depicted in both ways since his first appearance in the 1980s. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories on Norman Osborn[edit]

Is this overkill?[5] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:2C88:414F:CD93:3C56 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds seems like a joke, and has to be removed. Category:Ultimate Marvel characters is a higher problem, as it should have only characters created for that universe, not any marvel character used in it. I have noticed that Osbourne is in Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities, Category:Fictional characters with bipolar disorder and Category:Fictional characters with psychiatric disorders. Are all those for the Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin thing, or is there something else about him that I'm missing? --Cambalachero (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You will have to ask User:Xtremeroller about that, Cambalachero. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lists of Comics Characters[edit]

I'm growing concerned about the tendency to have characters listed in Lists of characters where there is no notability. I fail to see where the notability is established by putting the character in a list when the references are still to primary sources. Should these pages be removed and we become more stringent about which characters appear on WP, (those which actually pass WP:GNG)) or is there a better way to do these lists that shows some notability to the characters? --Killer Moff (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is acceptable per [[Per WP:NOTESAL. Because the set - Marvel characters, I assume - is notable, the individual entries do not need to be. It also allows multiple articles to link to information on a character instead of WP:CONTENTFORKING and covering the same character in more than one place. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Surely there has to be some limit to this, or are we going to allow every character who ever appeared in a Marvel or DC book to be listed on these pages? --Killer Moff (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
No, not every character who has ever appeared needs to be listed. If you find specific entries that are questionable, they can be discussed here or on the talk page. It may be an uphill battle for most of them, though. The current format was a compromise between editors who wanted to get rid of the unsourced stubs and editors who think being important in a storyline of a C-Level Marvel book warrants an article. We may be able to establish some standard for inclusion - like, 4 articles have to link to the redirect for a character before s/he can be listed. It'll miscount links directly to the list though... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of WP:NOTESAL, and am just growing frustrated with the desire to see everything kept, and the lack of awareness of WP:GNG. How many times have we all seen the argument "of course he's notable. He's in the cartoon!", or similar. I do like the idea of a minimum standard for inclusion. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Rtkat3: and @Voicebox64: - they contribute a lot to these. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)