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.

Resolved once and for all[edit]

Cyberforce has been debated whether it should be merged to Image Comics anyone interested in participating can join at Talk:Image Comics

Templates[edit]

Rymax23 has been adding quite a few templates to character articles. Someone may want to review these edits to see if this level of coverage is appropriate. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think his Rogues Gallery additions need to be dealt with; he's adding redirects, one or two time enemies/enemies the template's characters has no significant history with (Master Mold on She-Hulk? Sinister Six on Daredevil?) and links that don't lead to the articles he seems to think they do (Nuclear Man on the Ghost Rider, Scavenger (comics) on Man-Thing, etc.) -- Lord Crayak (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody who's brand new to Wikipedia, as that person claims to be, starts out by working on templates from their very first edit. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Avengers navboxes[edit]

FYI: User Haleth has decided that some templates, such as {{Uncanny Avengers}} and {{Peggy Carter}} are "Not notable enough to warrant a template". However, instead of simply removing these template from articles, he has been moving them to {{West Coast Avengers}}, effectively deleting the templates altogether [1] [2]. I've tried to restore what I can, but the histories for those templates are now reversed. So far, all attempts to communicate on his talk page have been removed, with a response on my talk page to mind my own business. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing this and am a bit confused. Was there ever a West Coast Avengers template before all of this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Also @Fortdj33:, next time you should be able to just move the template back. Restoring the "current" view of the template does not restore the histories. I've added necessary requests to the templates to hopefully fix this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I created a problem with the histories, by restoring the contents of the templates, but I couldn't simply move them back, because Haleth had already changed the contents to {{West Coast Avengers}}. To my knowledge, that template did not exist before he started moving things around. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Widespread lead deletions[edit]

The user Cebr1979 is deleting the word "American" from the phrase "American comic books" in the lead sentences of comic book articles. The user claims using the word is "trivial". However, the American comic book genre is very different from comic books from Japan and elsewhere; hence, American comic book has its own article. Another editor brought this to my attention, and I'm bringing this to light for other editors. JosephSpiral (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

First, quit being childish. I wasn't "widespread deleting," I was removing trivial (and sometimes incorrect) info from the lead that was only put there by a random IP address who had never edited before until today. Most of those characters have been published by Marvel UK as well (and, a lot of them, also in Brazil) so it's a little misleading. Sorry to have hurt your precious feelings on the matter, I didn't realise you owned the lead of these articles and would take such offense. Goodness gracious, whatever have I caused here? Oh, I just feel terrible. Joseph, I do so ever hope you can recover.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You don't endear yourself when you talk like an asslicking bitch, Cebr1979. The issue is deeper, anyways: they are characters of American origin, and that they appear in comic books (or the comics medium) is a secondary, non-defining characteristic. That they are American needs to be put back in, but not with such poor, misleading wording as "appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics" in the definitional, opening sentence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"when you talk like a" WHAT?! I'm stunned. Vicious insults serve no constructive purpose. Please see WP:CIVIL. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the "vicious insults" only draw this kind of attention when they incorparate certain words, eh? The comment I was replying to was far more uncivil, and my comment was designed to bring that vicious disruptiveness to an immediate end. Why did Cebr1979's comment not "stun" you? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the lead to not have "American" in there. However, they are American comic books and that is correct. For example, it is not incorrect to call the comics Wonder Woman appears in "American". I don't see how it's trivial. "American" hasn't just been added by a "random IP", "American" has been in the lead of certain articles for ages. It doesn't matter really. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to include it, too. Most cultural products, particularly widely exported ones like comic book characters and TV shows and films, are identified by their country of origin.Zythe (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Cebr1979, you're claiming that all you did was remove information from the lead put by a random IP. That's simply not true, as the issue being brought forth is your strategic deletion of one word: "American". Second, no one "owns" the lead, obviously, and the general consistency of the leads through consensus makes for quality articles. Third, it's not a matter of whether or not the comic books appear in other countries. Of course they do. However, the American comic book is in itself a particular genre, very different from Japanese manga, for example. The burden of proof is on you to delineate why using the word "American" is trivial, since it most clearly is not. JosephSpiral (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"King of Hell"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of "King of Hell" is under discussion, see talk:King of Hell (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Split from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?[edit]

I brought this here because I think it should be discussed. I undid this split, first of all. Should we split the main character who used this name from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?

I personally don't see why that needs to be split. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't either. Janet hasn't had a lot of different codenames like Carol Danvers, and the Wasp identity hasn't been passed around like Captain Marvel. This seems fine as is. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems like it may be that users are trying to make the argument for a split based on the MCU's interpretation of the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexiest Women in Comics? Not cricket chaps.[edit]

Hello chaps. I've noticed that for a lot of female comic characters we specify where they rank in some "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list. However we don't seem to do this for the chaps. This strikes me as unfair and not a little ungentlemanly. We shouldn't be behaving like boors by alluding to some kind of attractiveness ranking for anyone in my opinion, but if we are going to do so we should at least make it an equal opportunity thing. Otherwise I would recommend we drop this rather tawdry bit of trivial fluff from female characters articles. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an equally notable list for chaps? If so, we should include it. If not, there's no reason to remove sourced content from reliable publications like Comics Buyer's Guide. Characters are designed for a certain appeal, the list reflects the reception of said design. It should also be noted that WP:BLP includes comparable lists under their scope articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If the listing exists, then they should be added. If they don't exist, it's no reason to remove them from character pages where such reliable sources already exist. The lists, while a manifestation of the generally one-sided sexual objectification of women in general, are still reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the character. And that happens to be, for better or worse, due to how notable the character is for their "sexiness". A more balanced approach would be to, where possible, even out the character's appearance on such lists with other sources and content demonstrating the character's notability for many other reasons. And, by all means, if male characters appear on similarly RS lists, feel free to add it (this is a good start: http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters/).Luminum (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No. No, no, no, no, no. And no some more. List articles are spacefillers at best, entirely subjective,and of no objective worth. And that was before the advent of the listicle debased the currency even further. Even the Rolling Stone lists are of questionable value, this one is pure sophomoric worthlessness from beginning to end. The fact that the listing exists is not a justification for including it, per WP:IINFO, and it is absolutely not a justification for giving it any prominence whatsoever in the article. $RANDOMSOURCE put this character at $RANDOMNUMBER in $RANDOMLIST should never be in the lede. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ofcourse they are subjective. That is their nature as are all Top lists, reviews and awards. As Luminum pointed out a character's reception helps establish its WP:Real world notability. Now you can argue if it merits inclusion in the lead per WP:WEIGHT but a ranking by a notable publication should be included in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Every single publication in the universe has hundreds of list articles. This is one of the most sophomoric and meretricious, IMO, but that's an aside. This falls squarely in the realm of indiscriminate information. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me but this sounds like WP:POV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The ranking is not a summary-only description of works, lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics, or an exhaustive log of software updates as described by WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd say this falls just below the IGN listing of 100 greatest heroes or villains. It's subjective, and the list is large enough to include pretty much all the significant characters. It's not the kind of thing I include when I create or improve articles, but I'm not inclined to remove it if others add it. I do think it's innappropriate for a lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion in lead, to me, depends on the structure of the lead and the article as a whole. If the lead contains other similar superlatives and no reception section, then the would probably be the best fit. If there is a reception or design section then I think it should be included there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
My feeling is this. If the list is simply just a list, then it is not very helpful. However, if the list includes some commentary (which they often do), such as why the person writing the list thinks certain qualities mean one character should be rated over another, then that can be valid reception info. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You mean the explanation for the rank should be used in the article instead of just the rank? I'll agree with that. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Just to make up an example: "Magazine X rated Captain America the number one superhero, because they stated that he represents timeless values." 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think TriiipleThreat nailed it with the reasonings why that shouldn't happen. Although I do feel that OP's comment was quite amusing even if it wasn't intended to be. Jhenderson 777 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Partners" field from the Template talk:Infobox comics character infobox[edit]

This field doesn't seem to be clearly defined only featuring the description "Partners include any current or previous partners. Please stick to notable partnerships. Also, please avoid "employee/employer" relationships." As seen on articles like Batman and Superman it's ripe for abuse in listing pretty much anyone the character has ever worked with and since the guideline is so loose, there's no real way to determine if it is being misused or not. It also seems redundant in some cases to the Team Affiliations field, since for instance Batman has "Batman Family" under team, but then all the individual members thereof. Ideally I think this field is not essential to the infobox and should be removed, but if need be the guideline needs to be rewritten to clarify what it is for and what it is not for, and perhaps put a limit on quantity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Do toys and games qualify as 'other media'?[edit]

User:TriiipleThreat has been removing the info from lots of character pages (like this one). I think this kind of information belongs on the character pages, and I think it belongs in the media section based on the broader fine arts definition. However, I can see an arguement for removing it based on the narrower communication definition. I guess it comes down to how you view comics and comic properties, and I wanted to get a general consensus before I reverted any of his edits. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think most readers use the media (communication) definition, and it would be a stretch to define toys and games as a fine art. Also most of the items listed in these sections are either unsourced or poorly sourced to unreliable sources or primary sources. Furthermore, the lists are hopelessly incomplete because out of the thousands of character-related merchandising, only a few are listed without any indication given as to why one is more notable than other. It all reeks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think its better to describe this information in the general sense, backed by third-party reliable sources, as suggested by @Jhenderson777: on my talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that these don't belong in the "In other media" section by the strict media/communication definition, but I think it is information that is important to include. For a character like Spider-Man there are tons of toys and it will be hard to list all of them. For characters like Cardiac and Demogoblin removing that information removes all (or almost all) of their adaptations outside of the comic books, so it is important to be included. Unfortunately that brings us to a tough argument of when the list is short enough to include everything and when it is too long to include everything and becomes indiscriminate. Also, it is possible to find reliable sources for the toys, but I don't think any user has put in the effort to do so. Spidey104 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If we change the "In other media" heading to something like "Adaptations outside of comic books" it would include toys and games. Spidey104 19:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of the edits I saw removed sections that were essentially lists of toys and other merchandise. Do we really need sources confirming each toy exists? And how can any source be unreliable when it's being used to say "this exists"? Isn't that entering WP:BLUE territory? If you think some of the listed items are false or questionable, it seems like a [cn] tag or selected removal would be the best option, not wholesale deletion.
Generalizing bulkier lists into prose and including souces to toy reviews would be a good idea, but it may be easier to do if the list is already present to work from. Why not add a Template:Prose tag to the article? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The mere fact that a toy exists doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. What makes it encycolpedic is it's coverage by third-party reliable sources. If nobody except those directly associated with the product cares, then why should we? WP:INDISCRIMINATE speaks directly against these kinds of excessive listing of data.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Some toys (or other merchandise) can be worth noting. Some don't. The best way to know if is (as TriiipleThreat said) third party reliable sources. Another way to know is that they already have their own article like this. Also I believe information regarding the company that is allowed to sell the character is worth noting as long as they are sourced. Regarding it being called "other media". I do think toylines can qualify. Definitely with franchises like Transformers and G.I. Joe. Jhenderson 777 22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can a compromise be reached where we have articles about the toylines, which include lists of which characters had figures? 2601:240:C703:5340:8DE2:1EDF:95B5:86C8 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Lg16spears[edit]

User:Lg16spears regularly posts information to character articles about other media appearances. The problem is that he seems to often post rumors, uses non-reliable sources, and sometimes even adds information that is very clearly not supported by the information in the sources that he does use. He does not seem to respond when his edits are reverted, or when warnings are placed on his talk page. What can be done in this situation? 2601:240:C703:5340:D477:9535:887D:52C (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel action is warranted against this user, you can create a report at WP:ANI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether action is warranted, but is there a way we can reach out to him that hasn't been done before? 2601:240:C703:5340:102D:B603:C45E:5C30 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Joker has been nominated for Featured Article[edit]

The above Featured Article discussion has begun and may be of interest to this project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)