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.

"Comic Debut" vs "Comics Debut" for categories[edit]

There is a problem with the categories for debut year. The template for infobox automatically puts them in categories with comics ex: Category:1996 comics debuts. The problem is that they don't exist. They instead exist as Category:1996 comic debuts. This needs to be made consistent one way or the other. JDDJS (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the template so that the articles use the cats that exist. JDDJS (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay this whole category listing is screwed up. For the older years, it's listed as "COMICS". Apparently somebody started shifting everything to "COMICS", but then stopped at the 80s, leading to a big mess. I'm not even sure if that's right. All I know this is screwed up, and needs to be fixed, but fixed right. Templates can't just be changed without moving the actual cats. JDDJS (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Category pages have a move option. If Comics is the preferred format, just move the old Comic category. If not, the recent moves need to be undone. Either way, some consistency should be in place. Avicennasis @ 03:44, 1 Tishrei 5776 / 03:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's still a mess. There's still Category:1982 comic debuts versus Category:1982 comics debuts. Which is the current one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Only "comics debut" is correct. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I proposed the singular at CFD for merger into the plural. If that's it, then it'll resolve itself fairly soon. There should be a comic debuts by year main category though so I'll create that which should help either way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope you meant "comics debuts by year". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've similarly fixed Template:Infobox comics object and title. Someone should check any other templates that are used here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Civil War Reception[edit]

I was going to add sources to Civil_War_(comics)#Reception because the first paragraph makes general statements about reception while citing nothing. I know plenty of sources worth citing. However, I then saw that the second paragraph quotes me, so I should not touch it. I bring this up here because the link citing me is dead. I took the paper off the Internet once it became a journal article (which has now been reprinted in a book). So leave it alone, remove it altogether, or fix the citation. I obviously have COI, but the dead link bugs me. I'll add the correct source information below. Do with it (or don't) as you will.

Langley, T. (2015). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. In K. M. Scott (Ed.), Marvel Comics’ Civil War and the age of terror: Critical essays on the comic saga (pp. 69-76). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Langley, T. (2009). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. International Journal of Comic Art, 11(1), 426-435.

Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

New article Comics collection[edit]

I have created the article Comics collection and it is linked to on a few pages. It has been marked as needing to be developed from a definition to a full article. If anyone wants to help, much appreciated. Or offer input on whether it should just be a dictionary definition (that's okay too)! Bod (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl at FAC[edit]

Tank Girl (film), which is under the scope of this project, is at FAC. All comments on the nomination are welcome – see here. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Eyes on Features of the Marvel Universe[edit]

A two-man vandalatron today; would some of you go through the last months changes? Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Marvel RPG supplements[edit]

Someone has been creating articles for each entry on List of Marvel RPG supplements. I question whether these supplements are notable enough to warrant a separate article for each of them. Please join the discussion at Talk:Concrete Jungle (supplement)#Marvel RPG supplements. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Created a navbox with {{Comics}}. JJ98 (Talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Iceman gay?[edit]

An editor using various IP addresses starting with 68.184.79 have been removing this information. Can someone check on this? (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the pre-Secret Wars, younger version of Ice Man brought forward from the past is gay while normal Iceman (not a slur) isn't. For whatever reason. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so, but should all of that information be removed from the article? (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I think so, it's a relatively offhand comment about an alternate version of the character, so to claim in the lead that he is outed as gay is inaccurate and misleading. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Those edits weren't from the lead, they were from the PH, FCB, and "Friends and Relationships" section. It didn't belong in the PH, but it does seem appropriate for the FCB and F&R sections. As they were, it did seem like undue weight for a recent development though. It also seems early to add the categories. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
616 Iceman is gay, that was the whole point. The creators have been quite clear that younger Iceman's coming out has implications for older, closeted Iceman, as they relate to being a teenager in the present vs. when older Bobby grew up. Should be in lead and categories. Zythe (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be cynical, but creators are always hyping the most recent developments. How long will these "implications" play out? Will they survive a new writer taking over? Will they be undone by some universe shattering event? I think putting a six month old development in the lead for a 60ish year old character is treading into WP:BALASPS issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It turns out they just had the issue where older 616 Iceman came out, and admitted to being closeted. Plenty of sources. It's always the same when nerdy stuff meets gay stuff on Wikipedia, an urge to explain it away, but it's really just a category and a category that links depictions of gay men in comics, which you cannot deny Iceman is.Zythe (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It turns out I never denied anything. I merely voiced skepticism iceman would remain that way, the same skepticism I voice when, say, editors want to rename the Ms. Marvel page Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) one month after her new book came out. (note: I'm aware I didn't participate in that conversation. It's an example.) I think adding something as recent as this to a lead is sloppy, and I think it's (so far) too minor to rate a category tag - what percentage of the page, or even the FCB, mentions anything related to iceman's homosexuality? I don't use categories much, but I suspect anyone wanting to look through one wouldn't want it crowded with articles that are barely relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Do editors believe that information regarding his sexuality should or should not be in the body of the article, independent of whether or not it's in the lead? As of now there is an edit war, and this information keeps being deleted. I believe it should be in the body on the article. (Formerly Joseph Spiral) DrRNC (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It should be in the body, specifically the FCB and the relationship section. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Given our focus is the real world, and real world notability, it should at least be covered - if not substantially analysed with sourced reactions. This is X-Men after all; it's the core theme of one of the most successful comics of all time, being explored in a major character after what some would say were years of hints from different writers. That's real-world notable.Zythe (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


If anyone here has a DeviantArt account, would you please consider posting this link at the main forum there? I would be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What would you need me to do with this link, exactly? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Win Wiacek's "Now Read This!" blog of reviews considered reliable?[edit]

Win Wiacek's "Now Read This!"? I didn't see it in the "reliable online column archives", but I see that it is used []. I started looking into this while checking/improving references for Draft:Kenneth Mahood. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems reliable enough for what it's being used to source - critical reaction and existence of things. Mongo (fictional planet) is the only article where it's being used for a substantial claim, but I'm not familiar enough with Mongo or Wiacek to know if it's acceptable. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Current Owner of the Comics Page[edit]

Is everyone on the project satisfied with one of the main articles on the subject: Comics? The owner of that page, since about February 2013, has a very specific idea of what that page should be like. It is not at all the article I expected to read. It feels archaic and erudite and even obscure. I would hope there would be support from the project to allow changes to that page. Otherwise, it will just stay the same. Bod (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)