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.

Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy)[edit]

I am in need of a well cited Powers and abilities section for this article if any one can help. Also I think it may need some more watchers and copy editors too. I am not sure many are aware of this article. Jhenderson 777 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright vio?[edit]

User:Lilreader has been adding or adjusting links External links to something called the I Love Comix Archive, whose main page requires registration, though Lilreader has been editing that fact out.

From what I can tell, I Love Comix Archive contains runs of copyrighted comic strips. Should this site be allowed as an EL?

I have also posted this at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard--Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, unless those strips are licensed, which it sounds like you don't think is the case. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
There's no licensing information anywhere on it that I can find, and the host is simply a cloud service anyone can use. It appears very much like someone has uploaded their own scans and is essentially pirating them.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bucky article needs protection[edit]

I have no idea how to get a protection on an article but I'm getting seriously tired of all the vandalism that happens on the Bucky article. Can someone help me out?*Treker (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Head on over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and follow the instructions provided there to make a request. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. I hope my request is accepted.*Treker (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mister Sinister[edit]

Would the cited sources in this edit be sufficient to confirm his appearance in the upcoming Wolverine movie? (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there's way too much plot detail for his non-appearance in Apocalypse, and it's casting a very wide net with it's claims about Gambit and "future X-Men films". I'd limit it to the Wolverine sequel only. Other than that, it seems reliable enough to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wally West/ Wally West II merger proposal[edit]

I created a merger proposal on the talk page that Wally West II be merged back into the main Wally West article. DrBat (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Mega-villain" vandal[edit]

A user is currently using multiple IPs to vandalise superhero and supervillain articles by replacing the word "superhero" or "supervillain" with "megahero" or "megavillain". Keep an eye out for this vandalism. I am currently gathering a list of this user's IP addresses for a sock puppet investigation. If you see any of this vandal's IP addresses, please add them to this list or simply notify me. DarkKnight2149 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Oy. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


The sock investigation has been filed. If you spot this vandal, please report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ DarkKnight2149 23:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hulk powers[edit]

Can we get some consensus on what exactly should be listed as Hulk's powers. It's constantly being changed and people just introduce random terms. It was "Absolute" strength for example, I changed it back to Superhuman strength which is at least understandable, now someone has changed it to "Limitless strength, limitless healing, limitless durability", etc. His strength is hard to describe because of its range, but can we get some consensus here so that we have something to refer to going forwards as what should be there? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think characters like Hulk or Superman should get any special treatment in these cases, we should just list "superhuman strength" on all characters that have it.*Treker (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree, these adjectives are WP:POV/WP:OR. More exact descriptions of his powers can be cited and detailed in prose in the appropriate section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I would save the word "limitless" for a fictional portrayal of God, or perhaps some character with godlike powers like Eternity (comics). Superman and Hulk may be characterized as even more powerful than the standard superpowerful guys around them, but they are still very far from having "limitless" strength, even in plot. Cambalachero (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Character biography or character synopsis?[edit]

Most plot related sections of comic characters tend to be called "Fictional character biography" but according to Wikipedia, a biography is "a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." This isn't what these sections tend to be, they can't be that detailed since we avoid in-universe plot retellings as much as possible. Should it be renamed as a standard to something like "Character synopsis"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Support "Character synopsis" seems like a very good idea and appropriate for characters which have relatively lenient continuity like say Spider-man, with characters like Batman who have been rebooted a bunch of times or the Punisher who's continuity is all screwy I think it's better to have a Characterization section or something like that where their personality is explained. Trying to write out Superman or Batman's life stories seem almost imposible.*Treker (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent toward changing it, but I'd prefer Fictional character history to Character synopsis. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the "fictional" part is necessary, it's heavily established by that point it isn't a real person. And history falls into the same issue as biography. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Gambit's first appearance[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what Havenx23 is trying to accomplish since the end result comes out looking pretty sloppy, and has been providing no sources but proclaiming to have the "FACTS AND TRUTH" while removing existing sources. (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Cameo v first appearance v "true first" debates are one of my least favorite things about comics. I'll check an old Wizard tonight and add a cite tomorrow. Hopefully that will be a quick and peaceful resolution. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Shoot. I forgot. I'll do it tonight for sure. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Per the October 1994 Wizard, the annual is a cameo and #266 is the "first full appearance." Hopefully this edit will satisfy everyone. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on that; it looks a lot better, now. (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Thanks for following up on that; it looks a lot better, now. (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is that people are being informed of a lie and buying a false 1st appearance. Gambit appeared in more than 5 panels. Stands off with cable. Has spoken lines and is refered to by name from storm.....hes in 1/3 of the comic. True collectores want the truth (it seems you are not a true collector). Also this has been a debate over almost all characters in the comic book world. 1 side wanting the true first appearance and the other claiming which comic book they think is the first appearance and is a want to collect a 2nd appearance as a 1st appearance by all keans but dont cheat true collectors out of the truth and in this case Uncanny X-Men Annual 14 being his true first appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenx23 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I alsi find it very entertaining that you say I have no sources when the comic books themselves point to the 1st appearance in Annual #14. Issue 266 came out more than a month and a half after and the only thing it has on the Annual is the cover which by no means makes the Annual obsolete. #266 just traveled backwards to explain the past and pretty much went he was in cahoots with storm. If this was the case of being a first appearance then all first appearance would have to be changed to the issue that takes place furthest into the character's past. Read some comics before acting like you know everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenx23 (talkcontribs) 00:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt very much that you're going to impress anyone with this sort of attitude. (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.*Treker (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont intend to impress anybody, nor do I have any attitude. The only thing I am trying to do and many others actually agree is to give truthfull, accurate information instead of leading people to believe a lie. You want to believe a lie thats you're choice but the correct information should still be made available to those who want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenx23 (talkcontribs) 03:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A little tip Havenx23. If you use these things : right (like the rest of us are doing) in front of your replies people can actually tell who you are responding to.*Treker (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"nor do I have any attitude" If you can believe that after saying "it seems you are not a true collector", then I'd hate to see you when you do pop an attitude. Also, my eyes nearly rolled out of my head when you used the word "buy" in your first sentence. These discussions always seem to center around purchasing. A quick Google search returns lots of discussion, and this, which I can't view at my workstation. This seems like something that should be explained in the article. Right now, the lead sounds downright catty. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The DC/Vertigo Split[edit]

Since there are numerous articles stating DC and Vertigo split from each other in continuity (Including Holly Black here:, Mike Carey here:, and Dan Didio here: I think we should discuss correcting the relevant pages to reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryAce (talkcontribs) 00:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Which relative pages are you talking about? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It was originally brought up on 'The Presence" page, and I was told to discuss it here to find out what other characters would be affected. TerryAce (talk 17:57 27 September 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

MCU character category again[edit]

Someone has created the category once more. It is up for speedy deletion and I have removed it from all articles. Is there someting that can be done so that it doens't get remade again? It's kind of tiring.*Treker (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe instead of deleting it or linking it to comic book character articles. We can use it it for the four original MCU characters pages and the cast list/character articles of MCU related media. Technically there is enough content for a category. Jhenderson 777 05:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In that case I believe it would be best of the category was named something like "Marvel Cinematic Universe original characters". Otherwise we run into the same problem where people add the category to every character that has ever appeared in the MCU.*Treker (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @TriiipleThreat and Adamstom.97: so they can join in this. I still don't know if we need the category, even for original/MCU specific characters. Because I think we'd still have this problem, no matter what the cat is called, even if done correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No matter what, there are always going to be problems with this I fear. Perhaps we should just ask whether we need a category for the original characters. If so, we can make it and just remove any other characters that are added. If not, we can just remove any new categories that are created. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm indifferent to Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe original characters but somewhat concerned with scope creep like the rest of you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
We currently only have 4 MCU specific character articles: Coulson, Trevor Slattery, Erik Selvig and Claire Temple. Coulson is sorted into the AoS cat, as that is the most specific for him (and covers the other MCU cats) and the latter three are all just in the MCU proper cat at this time, which I think is still fine at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
We could just modify Category:Marvel Comics characters to also include Marvel characters from outside of the comics. And even if a category for MCU original characters is created, it doesn't guarantee an end to the re-creations of the "MCU characters" category. DarkKnight2149 18:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
And if we must create a new category, it would be more efficient to just create a category for original characters from all Marvel adaptations (or at the very least, all Marvel films), rather than characters from the MCU alone. DarkKnight2149 18:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
To your first response Darkknight, we could create Category:Marvel Comics film characters to mirror Category:Marvel Comics television characters. And to your second point, are there other character articles that exist for Marvel characters that originated in media outside of the comics? Just curious about that, because I'm not aware of other offhand. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There are that fit the television category, such as Firestar and X-23. There was a page for the novel character Gustav Fiers, but it was eventually merged with another article. I'm not sure if there are any for the Marvel video game characters. There might be some that I'm forgetting. DarkKnight2149 19:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was already aware there was just four fictional character articles. But still don't forget the list of character articles and cast lists article would make enough for a category. Jhenderson 777 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the category may be populated with articles focused specifically on the characters as characters within the MCU, such as Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Even leaving the plot section to a minium, there is enough out-of-universe information to use: creation of the character, the way it is used across the franchise, characterization, reception, even the influence over the characterization of the comic book character, etc. It can't be done with all the MCU characters, but it can be done with many. See for example Lois Lane (Smallville) and Lex Luthor (Smallville), which are even good articles. Cambalachero (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that creating Category:Marvel Comics film characters would be a better move, as it would encompass all Marvel film characters, instead of just those from a specific universe. And even if there aren't many film character articles that don't pertain to the MCU, there could always be more created in the future. Sony and Fox are still making Marvel films and I would argue that Wolverine (film character) is just as notable as Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe). I don't have experience with redirecting categories. Would it be possible to use Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters as a redirect for Category:Marvel Comics film characters? Because regardless of the consensus, I doubt certain people will stop trying to re-create it. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox[edit]

My most generous reading is No consensus to add parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox.
In addition Consensus against adding relatives without clear agreement on what those parameters would be and how they should be handled.

This proposal did have significant support, however opposition was over 60%. The opposition raised strong concerns that comic book characters too often raise unique problems in this area, and that this would be a disruptive mess. Even supporters largely shared those concerns, wanting clear definition and limits on what would be included. Alsee (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: This field was previously removed. See the discussion here. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey I want to add relatives to the info boxes of comic book characters and were coming closes to a consensus on adding them and I was told to post the proposal here to also get some more opinions so that we can make it a reality. So what do you guys think? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The prior discussion can be seen here. The idea is to add parameters for parents/spouse (partner)/children to the infoboxes for comic characters, similar to Template:Infobox writer, among others. Concerns include sourcing and limiting non-notable relatives. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I would like to make a Request For Comment on this topic at hand. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
My initial thought would be no, especially for those relatives that are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Infoboxes are bloated enough as they are.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Ok so if your initial thought is no that means you must be open to the idea. I love info boxes and believe that relatives are desired enough to be put into them. Now we only want it to contain the important ones and not include the not notable ones as you stated as common sense states. Does that make sense? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I suppose so, but there comes point when too much information makes the infobox less useful. Would you list each member of the Marvel Family in Captain Marvel's infobox? Would you list most of Olympians in Hercules' infobox?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: No I wouldn't just the important immediate ones as stated previously before and I believe if we set the parameters to that then it will be implemented nicely and not be abused. I believe that it won't over bloat it as for most it won't be that many where there are a few extremes that isn't very common and that it will indeed be helpful and a nice addition to the info boxes. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You say important ones, I'm asking about specific examples. How do you determine which are important?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: The important ones would be immediate like parents, siblings, kids, plus spouse. If something is really close to significant or not we might be able to leave to the talk page but, it should be common sense like not that distant cousin that was in one issue from 4o years ago. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that every parent, sibling, child or spouse is important. Some characters like I mention have large immediate families. I'm becoming more inclined just to keep it like it is by only including notable partnerships.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Ok I agree that not every one of them is significant we can use a combination of common sense and I guess the talk page to determine that. How does that sound?Fluffyroll11 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I know this used to be a parameter in the infobox, but it was removed. Does anyone know when and why? (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd say no, except in very special cases. For the most part, the family relationships aren't key to understanding the character, and may vary across media. Do we need to know the names of Batman's parents to understand the effect their having been shot in front of him had? What about Spider-man and Mary Jane Watson (Parker)? Is she his wife, ex wife, neither? There's too much potential for confusion. Killer Moff (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: :@Killer Moff: I know not every parent, sibling or relative is significant for example with Cyclops his mother is not significant but, his father is and his son cable is significant but, his daughter Ruby is not. Also Batman's parent would be one of the cases where they aren't significant like do they even have a page? I think to best convey different relationships Nightcrawler would be a good example his parent both Azazel and Mystique are significant, his half brother Graydon Creed, and foster sister Rogue would be significant. I do agree that spouses could lead to confusion and that not all of them are significant like if they are divorced does't need to be putout, special cases like Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne should be put or Reed and Sue Richards because those are permanent marriages. Does that make sense? So what do you say? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: The problem is what makes sense to you, may not make sense to all users. For example Hank and Janet have been divorced for years in main continuity. And just because the character is significant, does not mean that they are significant to the understanding of the main character. Azazel is significant, to pick an example, but can the casual reader get a sense of who Nightcrawler is without even knowing who Azazel is? Then Azazel should not go into the infobox. Killer Moff (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to say Oppose, there's too much potential for abuse and bloat.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I support this and believe that it would make a great addition to the info boxes. Theenlightenedone (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear but, I am in support of this. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Can you specify how exactly? I believe there could be a little but, I think there are only a few select examples of potential bloat but, most characters aren't like that. The potential problem ones are pages that are already monitored a lot already and most likely won't get out of hand. I believe most pages other than the few won't become abused or bloated and that this should t least be given a chance. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Killer Moff: Ok maybe spouses shouldn't be included just blood relatives or in special cases. Can we make a set of parameters/guidelines to make it clear who is significant and who isn't so it doesn't become the subjective experience you have mentioned? Also what role would the talk pages have in deciding who to add and not to add? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The talk pages probably won't have any role unless there's an active dispute. Guidelines won't be very constructive because there's too many gray areas. For instance, would Jor-El or Johnathan Kent be listed as Superman's father? What happens when someone notices Aunt May isn't listed on Peter Parker's page because she's not really his parent? Especially when his parents, who aren't significant to him, will be listed by someone who thinks the fields are incomplete? Should Mayday Parker be listed as his daughter? For another example, should any of the Robins be listed as Bruce Wayne's children, or just Huntress (Helena Wayne)? I think the potential for bloat is larger than you realize. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I think the talk pages could be the right place to settle these cases as the could be disputed and have a consensus. I was waiting for the Aunt may uncle ben case and I believe they would be listed since they are significant but, his actual parent not. These grey areas would be settle by setting precedents with it as this has been implanted yet so we don't know what will happen but, can e bring this to the experimental stage? I think we can settle these grey areas and can work to make it so this section doesn't become bloated or abused. Also Robins no. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Right now, all but one editor has expressed reservations. Why would we implement it? Also, how would Aunt May be listed on Peter Parker's page? As proposed, the parameter would be "Parent", not "caregiver". Giving it a less precise name (or adding another parameter) would invite more bloat on other pages, not less.
Based on your edit history, you've only be active here for a few days. Speaking from experience, bloat sneaks in over time. The powers/abilities and team affiliations are two examples that have been long-running problem issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I've actually been active for a few years but am have been very active these past few months. Anyways it is a special case where Aunt May and Uncle Ben would be the ones to fill that role since that it the case for peter parker as I would say for common sense in that case but, we could use precedents to establish this and work it in. Also I don't think it could bloat it to much as they won't add much space wise to them for most of the comic book characters anyways. Also there are three in support (including me). Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Setting a precedent won't fix the parameter issue. If the parameter is named "parents", you won't get a consensus to insert an aunt's name, especially when the real parents have their own article. If the parameter isn't named "parents", then it will be something more generic and invite bloat. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Having had a look at a few relevant pages, like Aunt May, Thomas Wayne, and Supergirl (Kara Zor-El), they all have their relationship to their respective main character mentioned in the lead. Do we need to duplicate this in the info box? Killer Moff (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: :@Killer Moff: Those are the big characters but, we also need to use common sense with this and most character don't have that listed right at the beginning and this would be a nice clear visible format that would be desired and look good so I believe it does add value to the info box. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Fluffy, you're not addressing the issues that are being raised. Common sense says that Aunt May is not Peter Parker's parent, so she should not be listed as one. Common sense also says that she should be listed, given that she's the strongest and longest family connection he has. So, how would she be listed? Common sense says another parameter should be used. However, you can't add a parameter to one infobox without adding the option to all infoboxes. If it's present, it's a clear opportunity for bloat. Please explain how this can be avoided without saying we'll discuss it on the talk page every time. That will be a lot of wasted effort.
You're also saying this is desired information, but I'm skeptical. No one here has said "Yes, this is a good idea because I often wish that information was easily located on character pages." Please explain why you think this information belongs on the infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm copying the comment below from the Template talk page, where this has also been discussed. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I would dispute that fictional characters' relationships to other characters are of no interest to readers. It is often one of the most covered matters in conversations about characters.
In Jean Grey's the basic family tree has remained fairly simple since the 1960s. Father Dr. John Grey, mother Elaine Grey, sister Sara Grey-Bailey, nephew Joey Bailey, and niece Gailyn Bailey, and all five of these supporting characters have since been killed. While Jean has had a number of clones and even children through these clones, she has had at best limited contact with any of them. I am not certain they would even count as family.
In Cyclops' case the most discussion or dispute I have ever seen is in the status of Adam X, a character created by Fabian Nicieza to serve as a maternal half-brother to Cyclops. The character and the implication was introduced in the 1990s, but Nicieza was not allowed to complete his story. Adam keeps making minor appearances but the story about his family has never been picked by other writers.
In Colossus' case, his siblings are fairly important characters with several appearances. But his parents Nikolai and Alexandra Rasputin were very minor supporting characters and their deaths were barely even mentioned. I am not sure there is much to write there. A mini-series called "X-Men: Colossus Bloodline" established that Colossus is actually a descendant of Grigori Rasputin, but this did not add much to the character.
The one character I would be unsure how to handle is the Scarlet Witch. In about 50 years, Marvel has given 3 different versions of the identity of her parents and they are recently trying to introduce a 4th one. Do we list 8 different parents? Marvel gave the Witch twin sons in the 1980s, then retconned them into magical creations, then destroyed them, then introduced two teenage characters as reincarnations of her children. So who do we list as "childen", the originals or the reincarnations? And there is not even a reboot involved, just entirely contradictory ideas by different writers and editors. Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: :@Killer Moff: :@Dimadick: :@Jhenderson777: First of all you answered your own question in regards to Aunt May so she would be listed. The way Dimadick word the Parents of colossus is exactly how I would put the common sense on that form of parent so colossus' parents would not be listed. Jean grey would only have her kids listed not any of her clones kids nd the one that a prominent and relevant. Also some characters like spider-man with be special cases that would be understood and can be applied to in i guess for a lack of a better term a precedents way. Also Argentosurtur both Dimadick and Jhenderson have said as well as myself that that information is desirable and we would like it to be put in the info box. So I believe that is now 5 in support of it. Also do either you or killermoff have potential solutions to your concerns if mine aren't working for you? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why would Spider-Man be a special case. After 50 years of appearances, his most prominent relatives (excluding an army of clones) are his long-dead parents Richard and Mary Parker (CIA agents who mostly appear in flashback tales), his paternal uncle/adoptive father Uncle Ben (who was actually killed in the very first Spider-Man story but keeps appearing in flashbacks, dreams, hallucinations, etc), his paternal aunt/adoptive mother Aunt May (a supporting character with over 50 years of appearances), and his former wife Mary Jane Watson (a marriage that lasted about twenty years and ended in a magically-imposed annulment by orders of Mephisto). He has had one of the largest supporting casts in comics but very few actual relatives. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Spider-Man would be a special case because the parameter "Aunt/Uncle" was not initially proposed specifically because very few of them are significant. The problem, which has still not been answered, is that adding an aunt/uncle parameter will invite bloat on other articles. Please explain how this can be avoided without saying we'll discuss it on the talk page every time.'
Also, could you please link to Jhenderson777's support? It's not on this page... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Different parameters for any conceivable relationship? Isn't a parameter of "Family" or "Relatives" with the specific relationship in a parenthesis enough? Something like "Family: a (parent), b (sibling), c (spouse), d (offspring)." Which characters are significant enough to mention may vary largely when dealing with different characters or stories. Dimadick (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Without adding specific parameters, we leave ourselves open to people adding Batman's 7th cousin, twice removed, who appeared in 1942 and hasn't been mentioned since. Which is what we're trying to avoid. Killer Moff (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: :@Fluffyroll11: Forgive me, but exactly was the question regarding Aunt May answered? Specially how would she be listed. I think my solution to the problem has been clear: Don't add relatives to the infobox. For the vast majority of characters it's simply not required, but would be added because the parameters are there. For the few where the relationship is integral to the understanding of the character, it can be mentioned in the lead. Beyond that, I fear there's a real danger of furthering the tendency on Wikipedia to deal with these characters in an 'in universe' way. That said, if the consensus is against me on this one, I won't fight further. Killer Moff (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: :@Killer Moff: First I want to say Killer Moff that is a cap out and we are looking for a compromise that could work with this being added. Also it been established that Aunt May would be list but, the other thing is I do think his parents are significant enough to be list in spider-man's special case. So let's start thinking of how we can deal with these special cases? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: I'd argue it's a cop out. The issue is whether or not to do it at all, Not we're doing it, now how do we do it. Killer Moff (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I found JHenderson777's "support" on Fluffy's talk page - " I am mostly ok with the idea except for the idea that it's kind of Wikipedia:IN-UNIVERSE territory" - not a glowing endorsement. By my count, four people oppose - Me, Baron Bifford on the template talk page, Triiiplethreat, and Killer Moff. I only see Fluffy, EnlightenedOne, and Dimeadick showing real support.
And Fluffy, you still haven't explained how to add Aunt May without adding a new parameter that invites bloat in other articles. I don't see a solution, which is why I'm opposing the proposal. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Don't forget that guy with the numbers in the name is in support. Also Baron Blifford isn't against anymore and is leaning more towards support now just look on his talk page. Also Jhenderson I would count in support. :@Killer Moff: I believe that it is worth doing and is desirable information that others have also stated is desirable so yes we should do it. Also I think Argento needs to look again as the support and oppose again. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The guy with the numbers in his name.... that helps. Link please.
And from Baron's talk page: "I'm ambivalent, leaning towards opposition" Argento Surfer (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: this guy with the numbers (talk). Also scroll down Baron says after that. If you continue reading it appears he's more neutral but, open to the idea of this being added. So as of right now I wouldn't count him as a supporter or opposer. Also I would count Jhenderson777 as a supporter indeffinently after rereading his post I would count his as support. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: also when you reply to my post can you do the thing with the reply so I get a notification when you make a reply? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: IP didn't support or oppose. He asked a question.
As for User:Jhenderson777, let's ask him to weigh in here since we seem to disagree on the strength behind his comment.
Also, I've asked twice now for you to comment on the Aunt May scenario, and you seem to be ignoring me. Please respond. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@BaronBifford: :@Argento Surfer: So are you saying you are neutral on this matter as of right now? Also numbers sounded like he was a support let's ask him to make an official statement. Also I guess there is no full proof way of preventing bloat or abise but, that is the case with a lot of thing already on wikipedia and so I guess we will just have to manage it like everything else on this site. I believe it will be worth it since this is something I believe is desirable and should be present in the info boxes. Also as for Aunt May common sense says she should be list and therefore should be list and is a special case I thought I answered you on it and worded t better than what I just did. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: I don't know how I can say more clearly that I oppose this proposal. I also don't know how you're construing the IP as support, when all he did was ask a question. Speaking of questions, should I take your continued silence as an "I don't know?" Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems that Fluffyroll11 really wants a consensus! I hardly don't want to disappoint him but honestly I at first didn't think of it being too much of a problem when I said that I am mostly ok with it. Since I was thinking of essential characters like Uncle Ben/Aunt May for Spider-Man and Thomas Wayne/Martha Wayne for Batman and characters with articles on it appearing in a infobox, it clouded my judgement on how I felt about it. But I can imagine (definitely with the conversation going on now) that it can be a big issue down the road with bloating of many characters (like TriiipleThreat already noted). Also trying to figure out what is significant is a problem already used on navboxes. I think it being in infoboxes seems like more like something Wikia already has done excessively and is better kept there. I should note that I think if there would be a infobox containing such a parameter only characters that would have articles would be the best route. I think I am going to change my once unsure support to an oppose. I think FluffyRoll11's intention may not be bad but other editors (especially IP editors) may be a issue for such an addition. Also it still is in universe issue. I would at least note it as "fictional relatives" if added. Jhenderson 777 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: That's it! I thought I mentioned it but, after rereading realized I didn't put it in. That would be a way to definitely lessen bloat and abuse if we could make it only characters with pages. Also we both have discussed in the past the subjectiveness of significance which is something that plagues superior enemies list as well as other heroes villains appearing on that list as well but, anyways would this be a purpose of the Talk page, like what is the purpose of the talk pages anyways? would they be useful in this department? Also yes I want a consensus but, one that figures a way to solve these issue or quell these concerns and have it added. Anyways if we are able to come up with a solution would you be in support because you don't seem to be totally opposed? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: that neutral thing was directed towards Baron. Also silence on what? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: Silence on the question I've asked about repeatedly. I'm not typing it again. Scroll up until you see bold text. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - As other editors have stated, there are too many variables as to who or what is significant, and parsing the criteria for fictional characters with clones, alternate versions, retcons, etc. would create an inordinate bureaucratic density in what is supposed to be a quick-glance box of simple, non-controversial information. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Support - I know that we once did something like that in the comics before someone discontinued it alongside their statuses ranging from active or deceased. If the relatives part is re-included, I might be down with adding it's re-addition to it's template. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)|

@Argento Surfer: Looks like it was removed too quickly. Anyways cross linking pages is another reason why this would be good. Also I believe the effort would be worth it. Also clones and alternate realities have both been address and resolved here. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
First, where have the clones and alternate realities issues been resolved? Give a time-stamp or a diff to there. Also, I'm seeing one redlink user failing to recognize that consensus so far is almost unanimously against him, yet he continues to argue without any support except a single "semi-support." I also find him arguing in favor of tabloidy speculation in this talk page's "Speculation regarding Earth's Mightiest Heroes" section. Continuous argumentativeness in the face of multiple editors opining against one's position is not a positive attribute. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: Did you read the entire discussion? There is myself, Enlightenedone, Dimeadick and an IP address in Support and also a Semi-supporter which makes 5 for and there are also some opposed but, not everyone is against me here. Also I would say there are two Semi-opposeds out there that you say are opposed if the semi part is that significant. We said clones are there own characters and don't count but, on there own pages should have their own relatives listed if they have some as they are there own character so Madelyn Pryor's parents aren't the same as Jean's and she wouldn't have any listed just any kids that she had which I believe is Cable. Alternate realities I believe established don't count. Please read the entire discussion before making insulting remarks no one has been insulting any else in this discussion so lets keep it civilized. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I've read the discussion. I'm seeing one vociferous editor writing reams and reams of text. I missed Theenlightenedone, but Dimadick is hardly unqualified support: "Which characters are significant enough to mention may vary largely when dealing with different characters or stories." (18:18, 4 August 2016), which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. Anon IPs carry no weight as far I'm concerned; if they were serious about contributing, they'd register. So, no, I'm not seeing any great support for this at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Support - The criteria of whether a character is important or not is already fulfilled by the existence of an article for such character. The field can be defined as relatives in the current main continuity, with alternate or previous continuities defined in a section in the article itself. The relatives to be included: parents (including adoptive or caregivers), siblings, children and spouse. Examples:Aunt May is Peter's adoptive mother or his caregiver. Mary Jay is Peter's "ex" regardless how the divorce took place. Dick Grayson and Tim Drake were adopted by Bruce, even if they don't use the "Wayne" last name. All these should be included. Cassandra Cain was adopted by Bruce in a previous continuity, so shouldn't. Neither would the marriage of Green Arrow with Black Canary. So, support for close relatives with articles from the current main continuity.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Coquidragon: That is a very good way of wording it and I agree with the current main continuity thing as well, thought I said that but, didn't but is really how it should be. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This proposed guideline is a violation of Wikipedia:Recentism. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Did you miss where I said that "alternate or previous continuities defined in a section in the article itself?" The reason for this long debate is the possibility of infoboxes been too convoluted due to the dynamic changes in the world of comics. Infoboxes don't necessarily need to include everything. Using "current" information in an infobox does not necessarily violate Recentism, especially if the information is well-handled in the article.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I don't think it is because the main continuity isn't opinionated Earth-616 is the main marvel continuity. Also can we have the RfC put back I guess it could be considered that didn't realize it was a violation of anything and those original comments were slightly biased when I reread them wasn't my intention was try to have it appear as a positive message wasn't my intent to be biased when I saw her point was when I fix them to adhere to the wikipedia standards. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: Marvel isn't the only publisher. Things like "Cassandra Cain was adopted by Bruce in a previous continuity, so shouldn't [be listed]" is the part that violates Wikipedia:Recentism. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I know there are more publishers than Marvel it was just an example. I like both Marvel and DC. Anyways ok I can see that point then but, what do you suggest? Also can we restore the Rfc to this discussion? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: I suggest not adding the parameter. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: What about restoring the RfC and moving that Canvassing Vio because new people to the discussion are getting confused and commenting down there when they should be commenting right here so we can have this properly discussed? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can see having parents and even say like Supergirl is Superman's cousin that kind of stuff but I see this getting way out of control at some point and the info boxes becoming a jumbled mess. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on both procedural grounds (canvassing) and because no discernible effort has been made to address the issues raised in the discussion which removed that content from the infobox in the first place. -RfCbot invitee VanIsaacWScont 07:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Vanisaac: Well the canvassing is still being disputed and until that is resolved the conversation has been put on pause but, the issues noted above will most likely have solutions or compromises once we resume the discussion once the canvassing thing has been put behind us. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As much as I want to support this. The nature of the comic medium causes the information to constantly fluctuate. This would cause many inconsistencies among all the character articles. DrkBlueXG (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing vio[edit]

This RfC needs to end right now: Fluffyroll11 is canvassing editors with talk-page advocacy such as "Hey if you want to help bring back the comic book characters relatives field in info boxes comment [at this RfC] [1]. "[C]anvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." Read the guideline: This RfC has been irredeemably tainted, and certainly, no responses that followed the canvassing, including Coquidragon's above, can be considered. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what Fluffyroll did on other userpages, but with me, the invitation was: "Bringing back the relatives file in comic book character info boxes. What's your opinion on this topic? Want to weight in on it here?" There is no advocacy in here. I could have come to oppose the idea. Anyways, you can all decide what you believe is more appropriate.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe Tenebrae is referring to edits like this, which have been corrected. It is worth noting though, he only invited contributors from the previous discussion who opposed the removal, NOT those in favor. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think I will have to withdraw my support. I said Fluffy could experiment in his sandbox, but that won't do anything to prevent the sort of tedious squabbles that I've seen over the Abilities and Team affiliations lists. Fluffy doesn't think this will be a problem, but he can't promise that. BaronBifford (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Sorry I don't know when or why I changed the wording I'd say half were like Coquidragon's and then I changes it for some reason. Also I thought I sent one do the man in black who was the guy who got it removed in the first place as I thought he would have some real good value to the discussion. Also I message Tenebrae and she was in opposition to this so you can't say I only mentioned people that would support it, I was messaging people who were active users that showed an interest in comics. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is what I just posted at Fluffyroll11's talk page in response to "So can the Rfc be restored as this has been resolved?":

It doesn't look at all to me or, I believe, Argento Surfer that the issue has been resolved. If you'd like, we can go to the Admin Noticeboard and ask for an admin to give an opinion. Otherwise, as it stands right now, my feeling is that this RfC is tainted. An admin may well feel differently. But until we get such an opinion, I don't believe any admin will be comfortable closing this RfC one way or the other.

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: Well seeing as the only three people to actually comment on the RfC from my message were ones who received my unbiased message and that I fixed the ones that received the slightly biased message before they saw it or commented on the RfC would in fact mean the RfC hasn't been tainted as this was swiftly corrected before it could become tainted as well as the fact I did message more than just people who I thought would support it but, just people I thought would have an interest in the discussion since it was comic book related. So I feel we can call this resolved and restore the RfC. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: The person who is accused of something cannot be the person to say that the thing for which he is accused has been resolved. That's not objective, but self-interested. Why are you so afraid of letting an objective third party render an opinion? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: When did I say I was afraid? I was just saying how it played out and how your claim of it being tainted aren't true for the reasons stated previously. I am just wondering how long it will take for the admin to resolve this. Also your hole case resolves around coquidragon's post but, you weren't even able to comprehend the situation. Their post which they have said countless time was neutral and could not be the result of canvassing and with that said seeing as the discussion was never tainted by canvassing this matter has been resolved in my opinion and the RfC should be restored. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fluffyroll11: You say the discussion is not tainted. That's your opinion. I say it is. That's my opinion. Per our discussion, I asked for an objective third-party source to say which opinion was correct. Then you began legalistically arguing your case on the page where I had made the request. If you were confident in your position, you would have just let an objective third party decide. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I didn't like the way you worded it and especially hated the last sentence. Anyways how long will it take until we get a decision? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. It depends on how busy the admins are. In any event, there's no deadline and this isn't anything that has to be decided immediately. RfCs generally last 30 days anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)