Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Who is going around changing infobox images?

Why are people going around changing infobox images of various comic book characters to their most recent design? In some cases, people are actually changing a character's more iconic and well-known design to their most recent redesign in the comics. Why? For what purpose? Examples include the infobox images at articles such as Deathstroke (changed from his iconic design to his 2015 design), Killer Croc, and the infobox image at Riddler (which was inexplicably changed on 1 April 2020 by NeoBatfreak to match his 2014 Batman: Zero Year design). This seems like standard recentism nonsense, and it's usually happening without any discussion. Not only do I think we should crack down on this, but I also believe we should make an effort to start reversing some of it.

One of the reasons we should stick with the character's most iconic or established design is that comic book characters usually go through various redesigns, shake ups, changes, reinventions, etc, on a regular basis, most of which get reversed later on. Going through and "updating" all of the infoboxes to their most recent designs/artwork adds undo weight and doesn't serve any purpose other than the editor in question thinking that the newer artwork looks cooler. I'm going through many of these, and a lot of them don't have an edit summary attached. These infobox changes feel pretty crufty and certainly go against WP:RECENT. Darkknight2149 09:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the above poster brings up a good point. David A (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, and while I tend to agree with your stance, I think the problem is more with enforcing that crackdown. You have to actually be watching a page or be aware of the image change when you happen upon it. I don't think you need to develop a consensus here or anything, though. You should be covered by WP:BRD for going back to more classic images. You are also supported by the MOS at WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, so go ahead and revert. I suppose that you just want to give us all a heads up and request we do the same. Thats not a problem, its just that being a matter of happenstance it is a bit difficult to do so unless there is a flag somewhere I dont know of. -2pou (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, I think the main issue is that a lot of editors constantly feel it's absolutely necessary to have the most recent version of the character in the infobox, without regard for WP:RECENTISM. If you look at the talk pages for articles like Mario and Wonder Woman, you'll see a ton of editors always come complaining about how the infobox uses artwork of the character from the past and not more recent artwork, ignoring the fact that the artwork in the infobox is not supposed to be up-to-date.

I think for some characters who have different designs that are equally iconic, the solution may just be to have a sort of collage image as a compromise. Good examples of this are Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and Link (The Legend of Zelda). JOEBRO64 18:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm reading through the discussion at Talk:Wonder Woman, and it's clear that the user in question doesn't understand how WP:DATED works or that we're not going to change the infobox image every time a character gets a new costume (especially for a costume that didn't exist before 2016). The vast majority of Wonder Woman's costumes over several decades (including The New 52) have been some variation of the legless no cape outfit. Batman definitely needs to be changed back, since the vast majority of his appearances have been some variation of the black (or blue)-and-gray outfit with trunks. Remember when DC tried to push the removal of Batman and Superman's trunks as a permanent thing for several years, only to go right back to it in 2018? This is why WP:RECENT exists and this should honestly be hammered as the key example whenever someone tries to argue that the classic design in the infobox is "dated". Darkknight2149 20:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The irony is that the infobox image at Deathstroke is now outdated, because someone changed his infobox image to his new design in 2015, a design he hasn't worn in years and probably never will again. This would not be a problem if the infobox image stayed on what it was. Darkknight2149 20:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, "ironic". I think the replacement images you uploaded are much better. JOEBRO64 21:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak: Since the edit history shows that you are responsible for changing the infobox images for Ventriloquist (character) and Riddler without an edit summary, please do not do so in character articles again without a valid explanation or discussion in the future. Also, try to avoid explanations like WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "it's more recent" if you do. Thanks. Darkknight2149 22:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: It looks like you didn't locate the Killer Croc pic you wanted? FYI, you can find the link to the old one in last edit it was used in here: Special:Diff/784289475, and clicking the redlinked 250px will reveal the old filename. You might be able to go to WP:REFUND to request undeletion of the file by explaining what you're looking to do (including an explanation that the newer image(s) can be deleted in its stead). Perhaps you end up preferring the new one you uploaded more, but I thought I'd point that out. Likewise, you could do this for the other articles as needed. -2pou (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

On Deathstroke, keep the classic look, but try and find an image of the character standing for a nice full-body shot. Asgardian (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think people just update the picture to the newest image they can find just because it is new. I have seen where people switch out an image with the character having the same exact look, but the image is a year or two more recent. Sometimes the new image does not even show the character at a halfway decent angle, but it is newer. I think you get the idea. 2601:249:8B80:4050:ED4D:5D6:874F:E249 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Black Panther sequel

In the wake of the passing of Chadwick Boseman, we will need to keep an eye on Black Panther (Marvel Comics)#Live-action and Black Panther (film)#Sequel for unsourced WP:OR speculation and other WP:NPOV edits for a while. 2601:243:1C00:E800:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD: Conan_(Marvel_Comics) and fixing the Conan in Comics pages.

There's an AFD for Conan (Marvel Comics). As I note in the AFD, I believe the Conan comic pages need work, but I don't think the blunt tool of a deletion/merge is the answer. This is probably the sort of thing the comics project should fix, making the pages that are needed worthwhile and axing the ones that aren't. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Mister Sinister in X-Men film series

According to Mister Sinister#Film the character has been teased three times in films over the last four years, in that organizations using his name have been featured, and one scene depicting him was cut from another film, but the character has yet to appear in a film or as far as I can tell even be mentioned once. So basically, it is a list of easter eggs and essentially trivial non-appearances. I suppose those will eventually would have led to an actual appearance of the character in the X-Men film series, but as far as I know The New Mutants would be the final film in that series. Is it appropriate, therefore, to keep this section? 2601:249:8B80:4050:CC2:43:4CC:EAB (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No - I've removed that section. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Bob Fujitani

The death has occurred of Bob Fujitani, who was a co-creator of Solar (comics). Figuring he’d be a figure worthy of a Wiki article. Rusted AutoParts 18:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures

Why are Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures two separate articles? TNBA is the 1997 revival (and fourth season) of The Animated Series, it's not a distinct TV show in its own right. This is especially odd considering that The Adventures of Batman & Robin (the rebranded third season of the show) is covered in the Batman: The Animated Series article, but TNBA is not. Most third party coverage and the recent comic book revival treats it as part of the show as well.

If we're going to treat Twin Peaks: The Return as the third season of Twin Peaks (which, despite being branded as a "limited series", it is), then I see no reason to keep Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures as separate articles. Darkknight2149 23:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, I've been meaning to merge them for a while but never got around to it. I doubt that it'd be a controversial move. JOEBRO64 23:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done From the "Overview" section, I only copy/pasted the information backed by sources, since most of it was either unsourced or has been sitting on "citation needed" templates since 2013. It was a bare-bones article anyway, so virtually all of the pertinent information that was there made it in. Darkknight2149 23:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Damn, I kind of want to do an expansion on Batman: The Adventures Continue, but there is no way I would have time to actually do that, especially with real life and the other projects I am already working on. Maybe before 2030, lol. Darkknight2149 23:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just chiming in here. As TNBA has been a separate article since 2005, I do feel that more editor input should be considered prior to implementing such a drastic move, perhaps a RFC? Regards, QuestFour (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, posing this is something I have been intending to do at some point since around 2016. As far as I can tell, treating a revival as part of the main series is Wikipedia standard (examples - Family Guy, Twin Peaks (season 3)) unless its a genuine reboot or spin-off like Green Arrow and the Canaries or 24: Legacy. It's clear that WB themselves and most third party coverage considers TNBA as part of The Animated Series, and Batman: The Animated Series already covers The Adventures of Batman & Robin. To top it off, The New Batman Adventures article did not have that much content outside of a bloated and largely unsourced "Overview" section. For these reasons, I think the merge is justified unless a foray of opposition presents itself. Darkknight2149 00:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To add, I would not be opposed to someone opening another discussion or an RfC to see if opposition exists. But I think there would need to be some very solid reasons to unmerge them (or keep them unmerged), unless we create season pages for every season of the series - Batman: The Animated Series (season 1), Batman: The Animated Series (season 2), ETC. The The New Batman Adventures article (renamed Batman: The Animated Series (season 4) in line with Twin Peaks: The Return) would also need more content and sources than it did beforehand. Darkknight2149 01:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pago95: Darkknight2149 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, this isn't the place to discussing TV series and if they should be merged or not. Just for the record, I oppose the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was linked at four other noticeboards. Could you please explain why you oppose it? Moreover, could you explain why the redirect was reverted but not the actual merger? Darkknight2149 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Its a separate show. Read the article at The New Batman Adventures. It clearly states "significant change in focus from the original series, with episodes focusing less on Batman and more on the many characters that inhabited Gotham City." It had new characters, a new art style, Batman looked different, and was on a different channel that allowed them to not censor things, they having more violence. The entire article just shows the differences between the two. Dream Focus 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: It's not a new show. As demonstrated by the multiple primary sources above and most third party coverage, it's objectively the fourth season of Batman: The Animated Series. A streamlined art style and more guest stars doesn't magically change that. It had new characters, a new art style, Batman looked different, and was on a different channel that allowed them to not censor things, they having more violence. None of those things would make it a "new show", and we go by what is verifiable above all else. If you go to the main Animated Series article, Season 3 was renamed The Adventures of Batman & Robin and had a different focus as well (with more of a splotlight on Robin and less focus on villains). It's a 1997 revival of The Animated Series on Kids WB. Nothing more. Darkknight2149 19:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, WB and virtually all secondary, reliable sources (including The Caped Crusade, one of the best books on Batman ever published) consider the two to be a single series. Not only that, the New Batman Adventures article is absolutely pathetic. It only has two sources and is filled to the brim with WP:OR and cruft. JOEBRO64 19:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nearly every primary and secondary source treats it as part of The Animated Series:

1

2

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/batman_the_animated_series/s05

https://ew.com/tv/batman-animated-series-episodes-ranked/

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/season-4/8d6kgwzlch8n?activetab=pivot%3aoverviewtab

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/batman-the-animated-series-25-essential-episodes/

https://www.gamesradar.com/best-batman-animated-series-episodes/

https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2020/03/31/batman-the-adventures-continue-offers-a-return-to-the-animated-world

https://tv.avclub.com/batman-the-animated-series-judgment-day-1798176715

https://ew.com/books/2020/02/13/batman-animated-series-comic-paul-dini-ty-templeton/

Darkknight2149 20:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's not what the source say. https://ew.com/tv/batman-animated-series-episodes-ranked/ list 85 episodes which was just the Fox Kids episodes. https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2020/03/31/batman-the-adventures-continue-offers-a-return-to-the-animated-world links to https://www.dccomics.com/tv/batman-the-animated-series-1992-1995 which shows that DC Comics considers it to be just the Fox Kids run, not what came two years later. I didn't bother clicking on the rest since the official one is the official word on it. Dream Focus 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should, because if you click the link that says "85 episodes", it blatantly starts listing off TNBA episodes https://ew.com/tv/batman-animated-series-episodes-ranked/. So that's definitely not in your favour. Likewise, https://www.dccomics.com/tv/batman-the-animated-series-1992-1995 is referring to the original run and TNBA refers to the 1997 revival. This is literally no different than Twin Peaks: The Return (which redirects to Twin Peaks (season 3)). If you actually read through https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2020/03/31/batman-the-adventures-continue-offers-a-return-to-the-animated-world, it discusses how The Adventures Continue is based on The Animated Series despite using all of the TNBA character models and style, and in the EW interview, Paul Dini describes it as part of TAS as well. And if your position is "I didn't bother clicking on the rest since the official one is the official word on it." then you might as well support the redirect, because TNBA is treated as Season 4 of The Animated Series in every box set ever. As far as Paul Dini and WB are concerned, it's the same show. You are confusing a revival for a distinct TV show. Batman Beyond is a sequel TV series. TNBA is not. Darkknight2149 23:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The merger?

This has been brought up a couple of times now, but no one has answered - Why was the redirect reverted, but the actual merger into Batman: The Animated Series ignored? All of the relevant non-WP:OR content from The New Batman Adventures (which is not enough to sustain a separate article, by the way) was merged into Batman: The Animated Series, rendering the TNBA page effectively useless. Either:

1. The merger at Batman: The Animated Series needs to be reverted alongside the redirect until the discussion is closed.
2. The redirect needs to be reinstated.
3. The merger stays, but The New Batman Adventures is renamed Batman: The Animated Series (season 4) and is rewritten into an acceptable state with much less WP:OR and cruft.

We can't have it both ways. Either it is part of the Animated Series (which every primary and most secondary coverage supports) or it isn't. Darkknight2149 00:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is 19,531 bytes in the The New Batman Adventures, that too much valid information to merge over entirely, and it is significantly different. Anyone who watched the episodes would tell you that. It should keep its proper name since that's the name it was first released under. Dream Focus 00:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note that you have to tag both articles if you want to have a merge discussion for them. Dream Focus 00:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The merge already happened and all of the cited information was indeed added (hence this post). One part of the merger (the redirect) was reverted, but not the other. Unfortunately, most of those 19,531 bytes come from original research in the "Overview" section, which makes up the bulk of the article. As TheJoebro64 pointed out, The New Batman Adventures was (is) not a very good article in the first place. Even if it stays, there will need to be significant changes. If all of the cruft and OR was removed from the article, it would be a stub other than tables and awards sections. Darkknight2149 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It didn't happen since most didn't get merged. You just declaring it cruft doesn't mean it is. Hopefully if no one agrees with your merge- I certainly don't nor do the two editors who reverted you- you won't just go and try to destroy as much content from that article as you can. Note I easily found and added references to that article. Dream Focus 01:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • No, literally everything was merged except for crufty bloat in the "Overview" section that has either been unsourced or has been sitting on "Citation needed" templates since 2013 (and even before that). Likewise, no one is trying to "destroy" anything. Policy exists. Period. You don't get to write paragraphs and paragraphs of self-commentary and analysis, and then act surprised when it gets removed. Even in Batman: The Animated Series, there is a lot that needs to be removed and cited. Darkknight2149 02:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I haven't even gone through to see if the information itself is verified in the sources you provided, and I can see that all you did was add links to various editorials from a singular source - Comic Book Resources. That doesn't solve the underlying issue. Darkknight2149 02:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
        • So you added in pointless tags without checking to see if they were still valid. It proves the information in the article is valid content, and not "cruft", because a reliable source did cover it. Dream Focus 04:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The article went from being largely unsourced to now relying almost entirely on one source. Comic Book Resources (ever since it became CBR) is also known for pumping out clickbait editorials on topics like this on a fairly regular basis, so the chance that the author was influenced by the Wikipedia article itself is also high. And if memory serves, I think there were even problems with this site in the past both at WP:COMICS and at WP:AFD (Favre1fan93 probably remembers some of this better than I do). I can recall for a certainty that there were factual errors in some of their Gotham editorial coverage. Even with the one website you cited several times in the article (even duplicating one of the citations), huge chunks of the article are still unsourced and are in fact original research, personal analysis, and WP:FANCRUFT. A couple of examples:

1. "While Batgirl did not actually appear in every episode, she did appear more often than Batman's other partners in the series. She also was Batman's main partner in the series rather than Robin, which differs the series from most Batman television series and in the comics (as Robin is usually Batman's main partner)."
2. "Batman made a new suit which is similar to the first one worn by Dick Grayson and identical to Tim Drake's original Robin costume from the comics, but the color scheme was simplified to red, black and yellow, eliminating green entirely. The costume retained the familiar red short-sleeved shirt, as well as the black cape with yellow inner lining. New elements included black sleeves, gloves, trunks and boots with red leggings. The familiar domino mask had also changed, giving the new Robin a more wide-eyed, innocent look. The color scheme would later appear as Tim Drake's Robin costume in the post-Infinite Crisis comics, while the original costume worn by Dick Grayson was seen in the flashback sequence of "Old Wounds" and in Barbara's nightmare sequence of "Over the Edge" where it is seen in the costume display before it gets destroyed by the Gotham Police."

The focus on the redesigns more than any other element is also a problem. By the way, this still doesn't address the issue that most sources are treating it as part of The Animated Series, and you adding a bunch of CBR sources into the article honestly feels more like an attempt to say "You actually did NOT merge it after all!" (because I didn't include every last smidgen of text from the "Overview" section) than anything else. Even as far as what you did cite goes, I'm about to check and see how much of it aligns with what CBR actually says. Darkknight2149 04:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Got your ping. What exactly are you looking for information on? Couldn't really tell by you reply and where you pinged me in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• That comment sounds so much like a TTN rubuttal in an AfD. Seeing it in this context just seems so ironic... Heh. ;) -2pou (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Darkknight2149: Responding up here because it's mainly a courtesy response not relevant to the real discussion at hand, which has gone on considerably since my previous comment. Please don't take that comment seriously in any way. I was merely amused by your statements that CBR is a problematic, crufty click-bait site. That is an argument that TTN makes regularly, and I was just commenting since I thought it was funny to see that argument made by you. I've seen some heated AfD discussions between the two of you in the past, and it just seemed like a "wait, who's talking?" moment. That's all... just an attempt at lightening the mood... You know a joke landed when you explain it! heh -2pou (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@2pou: To clarify, Comic Book Resources (generally speaking) is in fact a reliable source for coverage. What I was saying was that, since they became CBR, they have been posting a lot of editorials (often several editorials on the same topic within a short period of time), and this has occasionally led to factual errors or opinionish/questionable claims. For example, while Gotham was on the air (if memory serves), a few of their rushed editorials pertaining to that show and the Joker contained the occasional erroneous claim and typos. But yeah, my main point was that the article's bloated Overview section went from having almost no sources to now relying almost entirely on such editorials and opinion pieces from that single source, and a lot of it STILL is unsourced and WP:ORy. Between stuff like this, the (self-admitted) ignoring and cherry-picking of sources, erroneously claiming that this discussion is invalid because it's not somewhere else (even though WT:TV and four other noticeboards were notified), nitpicking as many differences as possible and claiming that it automatically makes it a different show, self-contradictory arguments, rarely responding to discussion at all, etc, it honestly feels like the two users opposing it (I'm not counting Pago95, a newer user who reverted it without an edit summary and has not said a word since) are in "I don't like the change, let's protect the article at all cost" mode. Even now, others are coming in with more evidence that TNBA is a revival of TAS. The 24 hour deadline before WP:DRN is about to expire. Especially after I was reverted again for for this redirect (after multiple failed attempts to get a reply from the opposition), I was expecting a much stronger rationale than this. Darkknight2149 00:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• @2pou: Can you elaborate? My point was that the article went from having almost no sources to now relying almost entirely on editorials from a single source, and large swaths of the article are still unsourced and filled with WP:OR, personal analysis, undo weight, and other issues. At one point, the "Overview" section (which makes up almost the entire article) even starts comparing the designs to later comic book crossovers. How is this relevant to the subject of the article, and where is the verification for this supposed influence?

But really, that's neither here nor there. The underlying point is that TNBA is a revival of The Animated Series, and after the two articles were merged, only the redirect was reverted for some reason. There has been no explanation or discussion, which is the most frustrating thing about this situation. Whereas myself and TheJoebro64 have given extensive ironclad reasons for the merger, there have only been three users opposing it:

1. Pago95 a relatively inexperienced user who reverted the redirect (but not the merger) without an edit summary, and has not addressed it since.
2. Gonnym, the second user to revert the redirect (but not the actual merger). S/he also opposed it above for no explained reason.
3. Dream Focus who started off arguing that TNBA is a distinctly separate TV show from Batman: The Animated Series, contrary to what every primary source and most secondary sources are saying. Then when I mentioned (for the umpteenth time) that all of the substantive content from the TNBA article was merged into Batman: The Animated Series (despite only the redirect being reverted), Focus started arguing that (because I did not include every uncited claim from the "Overview" section), I actually did not merge them and therefore the article should stay. This is contradictory, because Focus just stated that they are separate TV shows. Either TNBA is part of the Animated Series or it isn't.

Ultimately, consensus policies do not exist so that a small group of users can hold an article hostage without substantive discussion. Discuss is one of the pillars of WP:BRD, after all. This whole thing feels very WP:IDONTLIKEITy, if I'm being honest. Since no one (absolutely no one) wants to address the merger at Batman: The Animated Series, I went ahead and moved The New Batman Adventures to Batman: The Animated Series (season 4), which is in-line with primary sources and how every other TV revival (aside from full reboots and spin-offs) is handled on Wikipedia. But since the article is (evidently) staying, it does need extensive changes. More sources, better structure, less original research, more development outside of the bloated "Overview" section, less reliance on a single source (CBR), etc. Darkknight2149 23:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It's worth noting that The New Batman Adventures article was created at a time when WP's standards were way more lax, when more likely than not articles about TV shows, movies, comics, and the like were what we'd now call fancruft. I'm really failing to understand how users are still contesting the firmly established fact that TNBA and BTAS are one and the same, not two different shows. JOEBRO64 23:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. TNBA and TAS are such different TV shows that they have the same frickin' intro. The thing is, if you tried to go out and buy The New Batman Adventures: Season 1 or The New Batman Adventures: The Complete Series on Blu-Ray or DVD, you would not be able to. It has only ever been released as a season of The Animated Series. If someone went to another part of Wikipedia and tried to move Twin Peaks (season 3) (the 2017 revival of Twin Peaks that was marketed as "A Limited Series") to Twin Peaks: The Return, or if they tried to create a separate article for the revival of Family Guy and treat it as a separate show, they would be shut down immediately. Even the entirety of Doctor Who is treated as one show. This is really no different. Darkknight2149 23:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The intro was different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws68JFY8qfI So were a lot of other things, but whatever, they reused the same voice actors and later on got packaged together. Dream Focus 00:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That intro has nothing to do with TNBA. That was the intro for the 14-episode third season of TAS (which was retitled The Adventures of Batman & Robin), and this is what we were talking about earlier. TNBA is not the first time the series has rebranded itself, it's just the first time it was revived after a cancellation. TNBA used the same intro as the first two seasons of the animated series. Darkknight2149 02:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3T19qRRYOw although you could've easily searched the name and found that on your own. When they sold it as a box collection perhaps they used the same intro, but when it was on television, it was a different one. I remember watching it when it was on television and other than the voice actors, everything about the shows were different including the intro. Dream Focus 11:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a fanmade intro for a non-existent show called Batman: Gotham Knights. It is not official at all. Darkknight2149 19:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3l8HLHwXK8 It was packaged with Superman and used a shared opening as The New Batman/Superman Adventures when it was first shown. They then used the old intro when it went to syndication according to some. Doesn't matter, still a different show. Dream Focus 20:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Except it's not. It's the same show. You haven't provided any evidence for the contrary, other than "it used a different intro" (a LOT of shows use different intros for different seasons). JOEBRO64 20:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Different channel, different art style, characters were all redesigned, new characters were added and given far more airtime, etc. Already mentioned by me and in the article itself. It should be a separate article with the name it was first broadcast as. Dream Focus 20:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of shows change channels. And the art style of the fourth season was changed because that's how BTAS was always intended to look. The only reason the first three seasons look the way they do was because WB was more strict about it; when it moved channels they let Timm/the others pretty much do whatever they wanted. You're beating a dead horse at this point. JOEBRO64 21:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually it was given the art style of Superman. It was never intended to look that way. The creator of the series has done interviews about it. Dream Focus 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you're wrong. TNBA had the same exact intro as TAS. The intro you provided above was specifically for the Batman: The Animated Series / Superman: The Animated Series programming block, and has not been used since (even for re-runs). Unless you are advocating that we merge The New Batman Adventures and Superman: The Animated Series into one article, you are grasping at straws here (and even then). A streamlined art style does not make it a different show. A different network does not make it a different show. More guest stars does not make it a different show. All primary and most secondary coverage flat out says that it's a season and revival of The Animated Series. Darkknight2149 02:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Only two of the same writers did episodes for both, most of the episodes done by new writers. Different directors were used for the episodes. So you have a show that focused mostly on characters other than Batman, with everything made to look much different, on a different channel years after the other show ended, with different writers, and different directors, but you claim its not different enough for its own article because it was later packaged together with this other show. Coverage of the show as a different entity exists. If someone only reviewed it after they were combined for syndication reasons or sold together on box sets, then they might not separate them in their reviews. Dream Focus 02:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've been pinged so I'll say this. From a procedural point, this should have been on the talk page of the article in question, not here. If it were on a WikiProject page, it should have been on the TV one. You can tag whatever you want on a talk page, but the fact is, the entity in question is a television series, not a comics, so having this discussion in a place without television editors actively watching is problematic to say the least.
Now to comment on the issue at hand. I read some of the above links given - first let me say that just spamming links without direct quotes to where they validate the point is equal to not sharing links at all. I'm not going to read entire discussions in the hopes to find what you meant. Now having said that, I actually did read a few, including [1] with the creative team which never says that TNBA is season 4. Even the above link given for Rotten Tomatoes that "proves" it is season 4, has another link for it as a stand-alone series.
I really don't see enough evidence that this is officially season 4.
Now for the redirect. I'll say that even if it were season 4, there is still no reason for a redirect as I'm sure there are more than enough sources talking about it. Think there aren't? Go to AfD.
And finally, since you keep asking for someone to revert the merge and act as if that is some sort of loophole you found, I'll revert the merge and the rename. Renames happen in WP:RM, especially when you know that it is controversial. --Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Wow, this is getting cartoonish. First of all, as hard as you are trying to de-legitimize the discussion, the article falls under the scope of WP:COMICS just as much as the others. Repeating "Why are we discussing it here!" is not a magical loophole to keep reverting to your preferred version without discussion. Secondly, per your request, WP:TELEVISION and a few others were already alerted that this discussion is taking place. Anyone with WT:TV on their watchlist is well aware of it.

"first let me say that just spamming links without direct quotes to where they validate the point is equal to not sharing links at all. I'm not going to read entire discussions in the hopes to find what you meant."

No, that's a cop-out. Sources were provided and you are choosing to ignore them. For the record, you don't even have to read through "entire discussions" (which you would know if you simply clicked on most of them), but if you are unwilling to address/refute the sources or discuss the issue, then continuing to revert is disruptive.

"I really don't see enough evidence that this is officially season 4."

You just admitted to ignoring all of the sources, except for a couple that you (poorly) tried to spin in your favour. This means absolutely nothing.

"Now having said that, I actually did read a few, including [2] with the creative team which never says that TNBA is season 4."

Jesus Christ, that article explicitly says "Batman: The Animated Series changed the titular character’s mainstream profile forever. It consisted of 110 episodes (the latter 25 of them billed as The New Batman Adventures), spun off into a theatrically released film called Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, and is now regarded as one of the greatest collection of superhero stories ever told." You are proving yourself wrong. As for Rotten Tomatoes, Twin Peaks and Twin Peaks: The Return are listed as two separate shows on Amazon Prime as well.

"Renames happen in WP:RM, especially when you know that it is controversial."

There is no controversy. As we have been over, this is an artificial controversy at best. The only people who have reverted it are Pago95 (a newer user with less than 400 edits who reverted it without explanation) and you. The only user to oppose it outside of that is Dream Focus, who hasn't provided a strong argument either.

Frankly, you don't get to revert an edit for some abstract "I don't like it"ish reason, pass the buck to everyone else to avoid discussion, and then use that as an excuse to hold the article hostage. That's not how WP:BRD works. You had a problem with the edit, you chose to revert, therefore the onus is on you to discuss why. But I have been in situations like this before. I know for a fact that if this drags on, you will continue to tapdance around discussing it.

I am going to wait approximately 24 hours for you to provide a substantive reason to keep it where it's at, and then I am taking this to WP:DRN if there is no reply. Then we can iron this out over there. This thread is wasting enough time as it is. Darkknight2149 00:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not a strong argument? Did you not read this? [3] Of course anyone who doesn't agree with you can't possible have a "strong argument". Dream Focus 04:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any personal feelings about this discussion, but by coincidence I was reading Wizard #98 (Oct 1999) this weekend and it described this as one show that had two name changes and a station change. When it was airing, viewers and critics saw this as one continuous show. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and file WP:DRN. Everyone here will be notified when it's up. Darkknight2149 22:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Not long after my Google Chrome crashed, my laptop started getting the "Repairing disk errors" message. It's been on that for a couple of days, so I have to get a hard drive and then factory reset it 🤦‍♀️ Darkknight2149 16:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Harddrive is on its way through the mail. Hopefully I can reset the laptop then. Darkknight2149 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternate versions

The latest deletion spree at WP:AFD revolves around users nominating every single Alternate versions of... article they come across. Several of them will ultimately have to be rediscussed due to rushed and poorly handled AfDs, with this being one of the more egregious ones (where several of them were nominated in a single post and were subsequently impulse-deleted, despite at least one of them actually passing both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN).

Right now, standard practice is to include an "Other versions" section for comic book characters and have this branch off whenever there is too much substantive content to cover on the main page. But to help assess the situation, the community's input would be helpful. How many of these articles (with coverage) can be feasibly merged into the main article by trimming unnecessary plot and not losing anything? Is there a better system to cover Alternative versions of characters? Can anyone list any articles that irrefutably pass WP:GNG and WP:LISTN that cannot be feasibly merged? Personally, I would include Alternative versions of Spider-Man, Alternative versions of Joker, and Alternative versions of Batman (soon to be reassessed; inevitably undeleted) on that list. Darkknight2149 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Comic book illustrator Harry V.R. Anderson

Would some member(s) of WP:COMICS mind looking at Draft:Harry V.R. Anderson to assess its viability as a potential article? Although the editor creating it (Morykwas) has stated that he is the husband of Anderson's stepdaughter, he does seem to be making a good faith effort to try and create the article in accordance with establish practice unlike a much earlier attempt that didn't go to well for various reasons. This one might have a chance, but the problem is that it's not clear (due to a dearth of sourcing) as to whether Anderson meets WP:BIO or even WP:NCREATIVE. I'm not sure if there's a separate notability sub-guideline for comic book artists, but perhaps someone here can suggest possible types of sources the creator should be looking for that might specifically pertain to this genre of article. An early draft of the article (here) basically claimed Information in this article comes directly from Harry V.R. Anderson's family: his son Loryn Ryder Anderson, his stepson Scott McCain, and his stepdaughter Carolann McCain Morykwas. All of them contributed to it and confirm its accuracy. as "References" and that obviously was going to get nowhere, but some citations have now been added (though they're probably not nearly sufficient on their own) and perhaps these can be built upon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly (talk) Thank you so much! I appreciate your kindness, and I will abide by whatever the editors of Wikipedia decide.Ed Morykwas (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Kang the Conqueror

Jonathan Majors has been confirmed to be part of the cast to the sequel to Ant-Man and the Wasp, and although the source provided claims that he is "likely to play" to play Kang, his role has not been confirmed, so help me keep an eye on that article please. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

IOM appearances in lead section?

Is this common practice to be encouraged or discouraged as seen on that edit to Satana (Marvel Comics). 98.32.192.121 (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be common practice based on other articles such as Thanos, Captain America, and Cyclops (Marvel Comics). The lead is supposed to summarize parts of the article, so it is hardly redundant. I am going to revert per WP:QUO and invite User:ComicsAreJustAllRight here to discuss. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just leaving this here

From a thread on Reddit about Wikipedia:

Swear to god, Wikipedia is where I learned a lot of my comic book knowledge on top of finding out about the great stories then finding them at the local library. I was bullied when I was younger, Wikipedia helped me block all that out and just read.

Something to keep in mind when curating, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do with an unlinked quote from a random person on message board? Redefine GNG? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

... Herostratus (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with "Reception" section

Hello, I am translating the article The Boys (comics) to Russian and I was asked to write about critics' reception to prove its significance but since I don't know any famous comics critics and neither meta critics nor rotten tomatoes rate comics I find it hard to do, so could someone please show me some reviews or even just write the section for the English article?--DonGuess (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You can try www.ComicBookRoundup.com. It's a review aggregator for comics. If you don't have luck there, let me know and I'll see if I can track down some good reviews individually. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

These are all reviews/commentary from reliable sources. I'm not sure they'll all have useful material, but you can decide. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Original research on Nitro

This seems to be a classic textbook case of WP:OR, especially since it is unsourced, but the user reverted without comment, so I am wondering if anyone else can please take a look? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, instead of using the "undo" feature, they are copying the same edit summary over and over to make it look like they are using the "undo". 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@BOZ:, can you help with some page protection on this? Please & thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea, looks like shady activity has been going on for about a week, so let's see if a week of semi-protection shuts it down. If not, let me know, and I will protect it for even longer. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Graphic novel list template update

I am proposing some updates to the {{Graphic novel list/header}} at this talk page template to improve some functionality and would appreciate it if anyone who has an interest in this template could add some input, since this template is listed under this project, thanks. Terasail^[Talk] 23:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving Madman (Image Comics)

The Mike Allred comic Madman's page is currently at Madman (Image Comics), but considering the comic has been published by at least four other publishers and isn't currently published by Image, this needs to be changed. I think moving it to Madman (comics) makes sense, but there is a Marvel character with that name (Madman (Marvel Comics)) so if it needs to be disambiguated further I'm not sure what the best name to use would be. Maybe Madman (Frank Einstein)? Thematthewmurray (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NCCOMICS, since the publisher dab is failing us here, I'd say move both to the Codename (character name) option. So Madman (Image Comics) to Madman (Frank Einstein), and Madman (Marvel Comics) to Madman (Philip Sterns). But I think the "Codename (character name)" is meant for similarly named characters from the same publisher. So perhaps something the includes Mike Alfred or "creator owned", since that's what the Image one is, a creator owned character that Alfred has gotten published where ever he could (based on my quick research). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be renamed Madman (comic book) and tweaked to be about the publication instead of the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A potential issue with this is that there have been a number of Madman comics with similar though different names. (Madman Adventures, Madman Comics, Madman King-size Super Groovy Special, Madman Picture Exhibition, etc.) Thematthewmurray (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a cue from WP:BOOKDAB might work in this case? Along the lines of Favre1fan93's recommendation Madman (Allred comics) would capture wherever he takes the property to be published. If there are concerns about that looking like a publisher, then combine that with Argento Surfer's alternate suggestions to go to Madman (Allred comic book). -2pou (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other examples of similarly named articles, but would Madman (Allred character) work? Thematthewmurray (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say the full creator name should be used, so Madman (Mike Allred character). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, page has now been moved to Madman (Mike Allred character). Thematthewmurray (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Move request

There is a move request at Talk:Zigomar (comics) that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Comic book wikilinks

I've been fixing wikilinks which lead to the wrong target, such as characters claiming to come from Krypton when Krypton (comics) was clearly intended. In particular, I've fixed some links to comic characters which seem to be about a similarly named book, as here. I'm now finding more cases (e.g. 93 links leading to Alpha Flight but about the related Alpha Flight (comic book)) but have paused in case I cause any problems. Can a subject expert please confirm whether what I'm doing is useful or at least harmless? Thanks, Certes (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a valuable activity, if you're doing it right. ;) --Izno (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm limiting this particular activity to links in italics. (Comics editors seem diligent about putting book titles but not character names in italics.) I'm semi-automating the change with AWB but checking the text before saving. Certes (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Family tree templates

I just want to make everyone aware of Template:Batman family tree, Template:Spider-Man family tree, Template:Fantastic Four family tree, Template:Iron Man family tree, and Template:Black Panther family tree all created by the same user, in case there is any issue with those. 2601:249:8B80:4050:E42A:EC23:23E8:F316 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh... yuck. What wasted effort. Family trees were never meant to include clones and children by a wife on Earth-2. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Cassandra872, who created them. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add notes to deal with that promptly. Cassandra872 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

These should all be deleted IMO. They serve no encyclopedic purpose as far as I can see that prose can't accurately cover. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I created them because prose wasn't accurately covering it. I would keep the Black Panther and Spider-Man pages. Cassandra872 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is clarifying anything, though... Maybe if it were more focused... The Spider-Man tree makes it look like the clones are children of Parker and MJ out of wedlock, and it doesn't make it clear why the Osborns are included. Mixing universes makes this pretty confusing. -2pou (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If these last, you probably shouldn't have so many links within the same page as (at least) Black Panther does. It looks like you will navigate away from the page, but you don't (when viewing on the main BP page). -2pou (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

A new one, Template:Kravinoff family tree. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, Template:Hulk family tree. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Another one, Template:Braddock family tree. 2601:249:8B80:4050:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The majority of these have been nominated for deletion here, along with the Dragon Ball one and the Metal Gear one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Features of the Marvel Universe

I've proposed splitting Features of the Marvel Universe at Talk:Features of the Marvel Universe#Splitting if anyone could weigh in on that. The article itself is absolutely horrid, so I'm proposing splitting it into several lists that can then either stand on their own or be deleted as non-notable. There is no way the topic as it stands can ever be made into something worthwhile. TTN (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Drawn and Quarterly

Despite what the logo on the Wikipedia page might say, the official name of the company is "Drawn & Quarterly". Is there a policy of avoiding use of "&" in titles of articles or is there any other reason to avoid moving this? Thematthewmurray (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's used officially, the manual of style instructs us to use the ampersand (see MOS:AMP). Drawn & Quarterly is currently a redirect, so you'll need to put in a request here. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As the redirect leads to the article and has no history, any autoconfirmed editor should be able to simply move the page over it. Certes (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it's been moved to Drawn & Quarterly. I also standardized the article so that everything uses "Drawn & Quarterly" as the name (it had been using both versions previously) and will try to make sure all relevant links are updated. I've also updated the Template:Drawn and Quarterly and Template:Comic book publishers in North America to use "&". I don't know what to do about Category:Drawn and Quarterly or Category:Drawn and Quarterly titles so any advice/help is appreciated. Thematthewmurray (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never done that but I think you apply at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy quoting reference C2D. Certes (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done: The categories are now at Category:Drawn & Quarterly and Category:Drawn & Quarterly titles -2pou (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Kitty Pryde's sexuality

Is this legit? [4] 98.32.192.121 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The bisexual thing in that issue or the Chris Claremont thing? This article references both. Thematthewmurray (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations needed on video game appearances?

User:Dibol has been restoring unsourced material about characters appearing in video games, and removing citation requests for voice actors.[5][6][7] Is this OK, or should the user be providing citations? 2601:249:8B80:4050:9818:5E64:27A8:80A (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Dibol has proceeded to revert all of my edits, after trying to remove my comments here. 2601:249:8B80:4050:9818:5E64:27A8:80A (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have my own opinions on this, but I've reached out to the Video Game project for input since they probably have their own best practices. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

From my knowledge, generally no, the outside media does not need citation. If a piece of work is featured in a video game, it doesn't need citation as the game itself is the source (being a primary one). For example: the ballet production Swan Lake has a list of games the song has appeared in, but none are sourced. Le Panini ^Talk 15:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So, I should stop asking people to provide citations for characters appearing other media, and for the voice actors? 2601:249:8B80:4050:9818:5E64:27A8:80A (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Panini, Swan Lake is a bad standard to follow, notice the orange tags. You're not technically in the wrong to be asking for citations, but looking at it another way, those lists of unsourced trivial appearances should not exist in the first place. See WP:TRIVIA. That user's additions, sourced or not, are not worth getting into a dispute about because the trivia problem still exists on the page. However, View the video game, idiot.[8] and reverting your talk page posts is no good, and if they continue, should be reported. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair points! 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Tarkus has the right idea. If the character's inclusion is an essential character of a game, which would be something like the advertised roster characters in the Capcom v Marvel games, you probably don't need a source, but anything that's not that in-your-face obvious should be sourced per WP:TRIVIA. --Masem (t) 00:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

After looking at the info being added after giving my response, yeah, this is trivial and doesn't really serve any purpose. I worded my response pretty badly. Le Panini ^Talk 00:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Blazewing16, you pretty frequently work on IOM sections, do you have any input on what can be done here? 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, I firmly believe trivial material has no place on Wikipedia. It detracts from the information that should be on Wikipedia and most of the time, it only interests a small, niche audience that are intimately familiar with it while leaving general audience readers confused and wondering why it's listed there in the first place. I also believe that information on Wikipedia, at least the information that should be on Wikipedia, should be sourced. Anyone can make a claim about something, but proper, reputable sourcing actually helps back up your claim. In regards to the video game dilemma, I do think the information should be sourced and that 2601:249:8B80:4050:9818:5E64:27A8:80A and 2601:249:8B80:4050:9818:5E64:27A8:80A are in the right and that User:Dibol should not be undoing their edits. Blazewing16 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Blazewing16, but here once again we see User:Dibol removing requests for citations on the voice actors[9][10]. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Also since this says a character was "mentioned" that leads me to think it was a trivial non-appearance, but it was restored as well:[11] 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Blazewing16, I think it's better that I just don't edit war with this user... if they don't want to provide any sources, then I guess they are not going to do it. :( 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Nightscream do you have any ideas on how to proceed here? 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, works of fiction can serve as their own primary sources for basic information, such as their existence and their content, such plots and credits. WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, and WP:BOOKPLOT, for example, explain this for television episodes, films, and books, respectively. The same should hold true for other media as well. However, this should only be for works that have been released (not-yet released works need secondary sources), and material that is evaluative or analytical needs secondary sources. Beyond that, I do prefer to provide secondary sources, even for basic info, simply because I like the material I add to articles to be air-tight, and secondary sources are always preferable to primary ones. Plus, an online source makes it easier to verify a claim about the work's content if it's something like a book or video game. But I wouldn't absolutely require it, unless an editor has a valid basis to challenge some claim made in the material. Good judgment should be used. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review page update

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Tom (LT). You are right that the review part of this project is very inactive, not just in the Peer Review page but also in the Assessment page. The Peer Review page appeared to die in 2012, while the Assessment page (which seems to have done a very similar job) has been inactive since perhaps 2018-19. I'm not really sure what to do about it though. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: agree with you - almost all of the 108 Wikiprojects I reviewed have undergone the same change. I think it is because there are now more and clearly defined central venues, and that many Wikiprojects have become less active. My personal feeling is lots of Wikiproject-based activity was more fundamental articles or questions that are now answered, so more editing is now to do with tinkering or improving articles and so occurs in article space. You don't need to do anything specifically about it, so long as you're enjoying your stay around here :). What you can do for ME though is to go to WP:PRWAITING, pick a peer review and respond to it to help reduce our backlog . --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tom (LT):I didn't think I'd be reading about bomb threats in Australia but here we are... HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Revising character lists

Right now, both the alphabetical Marvel and DC lists are really weirdly formatted. The are a combo of:

• Links to articles
• Links to other list entries
• Links to be created (or those that have been deleted over the years)
• Merged characters deemed too unimportant

They do not possess a uniform formatting structure. They currently do not comprehensively cover all the articles on Wikipedia. They are not appropriately weighted (as in they contain a hodgepodge of super minor and some relevant characters). They are sometimes redundant to other character lists. Should they be:

• A. Simply links to characters actually covered on Wikipedia, either articles or those covered in per-series lists. The current merged characters could be re-targeted to appropriate lists or series articles. This should focus on the creation of more dedicated per-series lists either in main articles or split should the weight be too much.
• B. Turned into dedicated minor character lists with stable formatting, merging in some of the various minor lists. Not all individual series lists should be removed, but they should be reduced. Batman is important enough to retain its own set of lists, but other minor series likely don't actually need them under this structure.
• C. Mix of A and B, comprehensive list of all characters covered on Wikipedia but also having these lists as the main target for the majority of minor characters instead of the current weird divide.

I think some kind of formatting structure should be decided as well. I think a table format would suit it best, something like Name (Alias/real name), first publication appearance and date, and creator. If the lists retain the merged characters, the final field could be a description that's limited to around a paragraph of necessary context. TTN (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Of those three options, C.

A is unacceptable because there are too many characters notable within the fiction but are unable to qualify for their own article. Having a place to centralize the information avoids the problem of contextualizing the character in every plot summary they appear in. In nearly all cases, I'd be in favor of merging character lists for individual series into lists for the fictional universe. Labeling some characters as "X-Men characters" instead of "Marvel characters" is an exercise for fan sites and wikia.

B is unacceptable because a list of "minor" characters would invite deletion. The lists were actually called that about 10 years ago when they were just bulleted lists. I also have no interest in the 20k words that would be devoted to deciding who's "major", who's "minor but significant enough to include", and "too minor to include". Option C limits that debate to one line, "notable in the fiction" and "not notable in the fiction". There's still disagreement on that, but at least it's just one line.

I wouldn't object to reformatting them as a table. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Namenamenamenamename and Voicebox64:, who edit these lists a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it's a problem. It's largely a political problem rather than a technical problem, so that makes it very much harder to solve.

So, for example, we have a case like Human Top (Bruce Bravelle). This redirects to an entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: H. It's a long entry -- 332 words. Enough for a decent article and more than 3x Wikipedia:One hundred words after all. And the article List of Marvel Comics characters: H is plenty long -- about 48,000 characters, 7700 words (I'm including in that count entries such as "Marcus Milton Main article: Hyperion (Marcus Milton)", of which there are plenty.) And Wikipedia:Article size (which, granted, is just some suggestions) has as a rough place to start:

• > 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
• > 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
• < 40 kB Length alone does not justify division

And so the article is kind of bumping up against where you would maybe want to start to think about splitting it off. Well, what easier way to that then split off the larger entries into separate articles! This is a common cycle for list articles after all, and would leave us with only short entries -- simple pointers to the full article when there is one, and short one-paragraph descriptions for those entities for which there isn't enough meat to make a full article. You don't have a reader-unfriendly mishmash of article-length entries included with short entries. So win-win.

So but here's the problem: we had a separate article about Mr Bravelle. But it was destroyed. In this instance lot of the material was merged into List of Marvel Comics characters: H, but some of it was thrown away. So I mean breaking the material back out into an article is just going to be undone, probably, and its all an energy sink.

Why was the article destroyed,and why would it be destroyed again if recreated? Well.... that's a big question, but it's mainly a political question. It's not one that is going to be easy to solve, but I think that it can be solved, but it's going to take a fair amount of planning, and work. I'm not up to leading such an effort at this time (I'm also not good at politics), so.... we'll have to see. I'm willing to assist anyone who has the chops and energy to take point.

I mean for instance you have User:Argento Surfer's statement above

Labeling some characters as "X-Men characters" instead of "Marvel characters" is an exercise for fan sites and wikia.

to kind of demonstrate the mindset we are dealing with here. I could characterize that statement in a number of ways, but... well, yall can read English as well as me.

If it was just one editor, fine. But it's not. That's why we have a problem. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone interested in reviewing the "destroyed" article on Bruce Bravelle can view it here. The discussion to delete it in 2008 can be reviewed here, and a discussion about restoring it can be reviewed here.

Anyone who believes I'm an editor "who appear to have limited regard for the subject of the project" is welcome to review my contributions and discuss it with me on my talk page. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your work, that of your... sympathizers, your methods, the existence of Wikipedia:Fait accompli and why it came to be, and much else, thank you very much.

Destroy, erase, delete, cause to cease to exist... does the article exist? What is your definition of "article" and "existence?

Granted, in this case, most of the article material was retained. But not all -- such as, you know, the gosh-darn image. Bye, image!

As more material is added on the various entities in the list -- which we can assume, or at least hope -- and assuming more articles are destroyed deleted and merged into the list, which we can also assume -- the list will become more unwieldy, as the thread initiator decried (not just this list of course, it's just an example), and will approach the upper limits of what is usually consider proper article size.

Breaking this logjam is a political question, is all I'm saying. It's helpful for people to that technical solutions such as "Hey, List of Marvel Comics characters: H is pretty unwieldy, I'm going to break the entry on Bruce Bravelle out into a separate article, as it's article-ready now, any objections?" [and so forth] is going to run into political objections. Editors deserve to know if they're going to be knocking their heads against wall, is what I'm saying. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is it that you instantly go to the idea of reintroducing the "Human Top" article rather than trimming it down an appropriate amount of text to better fit into the list? Where does it show it meets WP:GNG? If fictional content does not meet GNG but it is decided that the context is otherwise necessary, it is relegated to a small summary in the main article or on a list. That is an inarguable fact on how Wikipedia works, so you'd need to redefine several guidelines and polices if you want to argue against it. I have no inclination to get into some sprawling fifty paragraph discussion with you, so I'd ask, if you're interested in a discussion, to please keep your reply brief and to the point. TTN (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your work, that of your... sympathizers, your methods, the existence of Wikipedia:Fait accompli and why it came to be, and much else, thank you very much.

Oh, so you're aware that I've created and expanded many comic articles to GA status, including five FAs? That I've gotten 25 of them on the main page as DYKs? Because you sure seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that I have limited regard for comics. This isn't the first discussion where you've suggested that, and I'd like you to stop. Having enough self awareness to realize my favorite characters don't always meet GNG is not a bad thing. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking to make an example table to propose, what exactly is the preference on real name/code name as the primary listed name? Should it all be uniform under one or the other, or is it more of a case by case basis? Currently seems like a mixed bag with no real criteria outside of characters that share the same hero/villain name going with their real names more often than not. TTN (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Common practice is to prefer codenames. Real names are used when a codename is shared or when a character is equally well known under multiple code names. The alphabetical lists often include both names and cross reference. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about this. So I was thinking something like this for the character list:

Name	Introduction date	Series	Creator(s)	Description
Codename (Real name)	Date	Series	Person 1 Person 2	Text

The fields can be changed to something more suitable, but this would help organize and condense things by removing some unneeded prose and allowing for trying to standardize the size of each character's description to roughly a paragraph as any minor list character should have. TTN (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd make codename and real name separate columns. I don't know how, but the columns can be made sortable so a reader could browse in the way that best suits their needs. Any suggestions on how to incorporate characters with more than one identity? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice to participate in this discussion because it's not going anywhere Talk:Joker_(character)#Joker_skills_in_combat

Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Request input of project's usage of Category:Comics articles of NA-importance

Please note that it appears that the project's category of Category:Comics articles of NA-importance is an orphaned category, and does not appear to be used by the project's banner template. It appears to have been replaced by Category:NA-importance Comics articles, which is a category that is populated by the {{WikiProject Comics}} template. I had nominated the category for deletion; however, the deletion has been contested. I'd appreciate any input to whether the category is still useful to the project, or not. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Marvel (Spider-Man TV series) content dispute

I stumbled across an edit war / content dispute in edit summaries earlier today, seemingly an extension of a dispute from early last month. The editors are newer contributors, now engaging on talk but I sense they're still quite far apart. I have no clue what they're talking about, but perhaps some folks here may be more able to wade into the dispute and help them out a bit / offer some thoughts? Discussion is Talk:Spider-Man_(2017_TV_series)#Guardians_of_the_Galaxy if interested. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the neutral term better?

In more than a few cases, where lines have been blurred on a particular character so that they may not fall so neatly into the "superhero" or "supervillain" category, we tend to call them "character" instead in the lead sentence. In this case, would that apply to Norman Osborn or should we call him supervillain as asserted here? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead describes him as a villain three times, so I wouldn't argue the point with a new editor who's working in good faith. It's something to keep an eye on, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I know that this has been an issue on more than a few characters, but I will leave this one be. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a trivial non-appearance?

"Dazzler is mentioned in Spider-Man: Miles Morales, with one of the game's collectible time capsules containing tickets to a Dazzler concert that Miles and Phin purchased several years ago."[12] I am thinking it is, but what is your opinion? 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I am inviting User:CBcleaner to discuss this here. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that other references/easter eggs were deemed suitable for inclusion on the wiki, I don't see what makes this unacceptable. She's called by name and tickets to her concert appear as easter eggs. CBcleaner (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi CB. I understand your confusion - there were other inappropriate non-appearances listed on the Dazzler page. However, that is not a good reason to add more. (I removed one of the items.) If you'd like to review previous discussions about when a film appearance should/should not be included in an article, you can review some here, here here, and here. Because of the large casts and Easter eggs, the X-Men films come up a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lifeform (comics)

The article Lifeform (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable fictional character that appeared in one story across four annuals 30 years ago; no secondary-source coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Batman Forever GA Reassessment

Main page: Talk:Batman Forever/GA1

Darkknight2149 22:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge "Magneto (Atlas Comics)" with "Magneto (Marvel Comics)"

The subject of Magneto (Atlas Comics) is not notable enough to require his own page, this version of Magneto only appeared in one comic, made little to no cultural impact and I found absolutely no reliable sources on this version of the character, as for the page, it cites no sources and is comically short. Propose merging with Magneto (Marvel Comics) as Atlas was just an early version of Marvel.--WikiEditor1o2oi3i (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure a merge is needed. It would only add one sentence saying the name had been used earlier for an entirely different character who appeared one time. Seems more like obscure trivia than a noteworthy addition. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Atlas version could be seen as an early version of Magneto as he was created by the same person, shares the same name, has the same powers and was made by an early version of Marvel. Maybe a mention in the "Publication History" section would do, but treating it as a coincidence in order to follow WP:NPOV. --WikiEditor1o2oi3i (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's going to be merged anywhere that's the wrong place to merge it, but since you've started an AFD not much is going to be accomplished by discussing it here any further. BOZ (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you can really view it as an "early version" of Magneto. It's a completely different character that has the same name. Thematthewmurray (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns for Loki

Please discuss at RFC on Talk:Loki (comics)#RFC: Which pronouns should be used to refer to Loki? 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no basis for debate nor an RFC here as the character is referred to as strictly male in reliable mainstream sources as well as by Marvel, the creaters of the very material, themselves https://www.marvel.com/characters/loki/in-comics. Thus, the post should be deleted as any contrasting opinions will be based on original research and personal viewpoints rather than a reliance on quality sources. Furthermore, such a debate in the first place would not just concern Loki but every comic book character that has ever spent any time as another gender as a result of magic or shapeshifting throughout the duration of their comic run, such as Mystique and Thor amongst many others. They would all under this basis have to have their pronouns changed to 'they/them' and be referred to as genderfluid. Davefelmer (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It is still worth having a discussion if there is a dispute; if the consensus agrees with you, then you can point to that if anyone continues to try to push their POV. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

New discussion for Darkseid infobox image

We are discussing a potential change to this infobox image, and could use some other opinions at Talk:Darkseid. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Erfworld unsourced & primary sourced.

IMO the entirety of the synopsis & characters sections of the erfworld article should be deleted, but long experience teaches me that if I do so I'll be reverted & banned for "vandalism", so I bring the matter here. I think the problems are obvious at a glance; the article has been tagged with -primary sources- since 2015.81.135.234.139 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Trim it down to appropriate levels of coverage, but deleting the entirety should not be done. Per MOS:FICTIONPLOT self-sourcing factual plot information is fine as long as there is no interpretation/analysis happening. It's pretty much a necessity when putting summaries into pieces on fiction. No matter what secondary sources are publishing plot details, it's still derived from the primary source. It's more important for the commentary to be from reliable sources. If the whole article is relying on primary sources, the whole article should be discussed for deletion for failing WP:GNG. -2pou (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When I saw this header, I genuinely thought it was a misspelling of Elseworlds... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Batman about categorizing him

There's an RFC at Talk:Batman#RFC on if he should be categorized for each individual martial arts styles he knows. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:New Rockstars

Hello, I need help with getting a draft of a Youtube channel that deals with comics ready to be published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:New_Rockstars TonyStank123456789 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking to comic piracy sites

I have nominated several files for deletion for being sourced to comic piracy sites. If interested, please see the FFD page for today: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 17. Note that I will eventually be asking for these sites to be blacklisted as well, once the cleanup is complete. Linking to these sites violates WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYVIOEL. Please do not link to these sites when adding issue references either. None of us can control how you read your comics, but it is important that we do not directly link to these sites to protect Wikipedia itself. If using references, you can just just use the issue information, a hyperlink is not a requirement for references. If uploading images, most covers can be found pretty easily from the publisher, GCD, or Comixology, etc. Regards, 2pou (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger of LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages

A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the Webcomics work group

I started a discussion on the Webcomics work group that people here might be interested in. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Excessive navboxes

Always a constant problem on character articles. Does this inclusion seem like a bit much? As for the argument made by the person adding them...? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a stretch to say Thor's a Spider-Man character, but I personally find these battles to be more effort than they're worth. The navboxes are at the bottom of the article and they don't have a negative impact on readers. If you have the energy, you've got my support, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right - they will always be put back on if someone removes them. I mean, why not have 20 or 30 navboxes for some characters? </sarcasm> 2601:249:8B80:4050:D496:C5BA:C1C8:F2B0 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This used to bother me, but then I realized it's an uphill battle that isn't worth it. I can't say, "I couldn't care less" because it still makes me roll my eyes briefly. I could care less, but not much. The problem is not unique to comics, though. In fact, it's much worse elsewhere. Take a look at this from the awards project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards#Link spaming. Thank goodness they can be collapsed... -2pou (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review of 300 (film)

I have nominated 300 (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Marvel's Selene in the Underworld movies?

Has this been discussed before? First of all, one of the citations is marked as "citing a blog or free web host" so that is suspicious. The CBR link might be legit, but I am concerned that its use in the article as it is may be problematic[13]. 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. That's a huge jump in logic. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Marvel's Superman pastiches

When we have sources which show that Marvel modelled some of its characters after Superman, such as Hyperion here and Gladiator here, is it OK to remove that content as "irrelevant" as suggested by User:DavidRossMiller? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Then go onto every other comic page with a character who copied another. Go to Aquaman’s page with evidence that he was inspired by Namor. Comic characters are comic characters, no need to put that he is a rip off or copy of Superman when all fans care about is the powers these characters have. DavidRossMiller (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If there's evidence of that being part of the reason for development, then yes, that's a part of the real world history of the character. No reason for that to be ignored. The fact that one editor here is not particularly interested does not mean that it isn't of legitimate interest for those into comic book history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourced information about the specific inspiration for a comic character is the kind of real-world information articles need more of, not less. @DavidRossMiller:, if you have a source saying Aquaman's creators were thinking of Namor when they designed him, that would be a great addition. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he is continuing to edit war to remove information from these two articles... 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I was not the last to revert the edit. I added the power list and kept the source u added back onto the page. Talk with @Huggies.panties I believe they’re the one who reverted the page the last time taking away the source material. DavidRossMiller (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Extra-long list of powers in the infobox

With new user User:DavidRossMiller again, but at least this time he is not removing sources from articles anymore. He is adding very long lists of powers in the infoboxes of articles such as Hyperion, Gladiator, and Thanos, and unless I am mistaken not all of these powers are mentioned in the "Powers and abilities" section, so it is unclear if all of these powers should even be added to the infobox. Is it OK to bloat these lists to 20 or so entries, or should we aim to be concise? I am asking for comment here. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the infobox should only contain the most defining abilities and powers, but that will have to be decided on a case by case basis. Looking at Flash (Barry Allen) as an example, I don't think Electricity manipulation is what is thought of when people think of the character, but have no problem with it appearing in the main body of the article. I do recognise there is a growing feeling that we should include all information, but it's better we give an overall sense of the character than delve into minutiae. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

How about the three cases above? 2601:249:8B80:4050:61F9:B39F:FE63:9EBF (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that all are far too long, and contain unnecessary specification, bordering on duplication. I'd say that there don't need to be any more than 5 entries on powers and abilities in an infobox, but don't have a horse in the race as to which 5. That should probably be discussed on the article's own talk pages. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is probably going to have to be another case of "one user wants it, so we have to keep it" because he reverted the long lists back on, and chose not to discuss further here. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Catering to a single editor's desire is not a consensus-based approach, and in a worst-case scenario, refusal to engage in a Talk page discussion and continued edit wars could result in a some form of block. Hopefully nothing gets that far... As Killer Moff says, it is going to be case by case (agree that ~5 sounds like a decent ballpark), but regarding powers not stated elsewhere in the page, those should definitely be removed. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it should summarize key facts, and if you were to remove the infobox, the article would still remain complete. -2pou (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. User:Kinsley Bottom was able to revert successfully on Thanos. 2601:249:8B80:4050:14B4:A6A3:528D:93FA (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Unlike a mountain of collapsed nav boxes or overly specific categories, a cluttered infobox will negatively impact readers. That's a battle worth fighting. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Recently created user account User:Huggies.panties has reverted to restore the long lists in the infobox. 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That name doesn't inspire much confidence... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

For example, I don't know that this is not a sockpuppet. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been a few days since the last time either account reverted these changes, so I once again removed the long list and pointed to this discussion; we will see if it sticks this time. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that did not work at all, as User:DavidRossMiller simply continues to edit war, and refuses to continue discussing it here and ignore the comments in this thread. What is the next step? 2601:249:8B80:4050:456D:5135:59CC:6B19 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted both articles once more, and I am crossing my fingers... 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page pointing him to this conversation. If he continues editing without responding, perhaps User:BOZ would be willing to apply some kind of block as an additional prompt. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will add to your message and indicate that discussing this matter here would be in his best interest. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Thai comics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Edit warring

Can someone care to step in over the ongoing edit-warring on Wasp (character) and Captain America between User:Kinsley Bottom and User:Johnf69, or can they at least discuss it here rather than continuing to be disruptive? 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We already discussed for Captain America! Johnf69 (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox comic book title § Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox comic book title § Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2021. If you have any thoughts on which solution is better or if you have any insight to the logic as originally intended. -- 2pou (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Transians

I am wondering if Category:Transians created by User:DZEI3101 is an appropriate category at all? Most of the characters in the category are non-human beings artificially created by the High Evolutionary out of normal animals, and are therefore not citizens of any country (technically his base in Mount Wundagore is in Transia, so they were "born" there, but is that a stretch?) so I think the only legitimate character for that category is Puppet Master, and there is no sense in having a category for one article. Some of the articles don't even specify where the High Evolutionary created these beings, so we can't assume it was at Wundagore. 2601:249:8B80:4050:C4A2:6A9D:1937:6847 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's ultimately no worse than Category:Wakandans or Category:Latverians. I started a CfD on those many moons ago to a no consensus result, but this feels like a more minor relative of those categories. I suspect it's not something that most people in this project are going to strongly oppose, and if there's a few ardent supporters, it's almost not worth the effort. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll echo Moff's thoughts. I think the category's mostly pointless and would support deletion, but it's also mostly harmless and unobtrusive for readers. If this exercise keeps an editor from adding cruft to fictional biographies, I'm fine to let it go. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fan film

Listed as "unofficial media" in at least two articles[14][15], is this something we should be including? 2601:243:1C80:6740:A107:F113:B09:97D5 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks reliably sourced, so the biggest issue might be WP:WEIGHT, but it looks okay to me. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Including MCU character info in the comics section for characters?

My understanding is that the practice we usually follow for comics characters is to first describe them in the context of the comics throughout the majority of the article, and then describe their other media appearances in the other media section. User:Remy+rogue feels that having "a short paragraph that makes it clear that the "Fictional character biography" section refers to the comic portrayal only and not the MCU" as seen here on Helmut Zemo is a bonus that will help readers. Seeing as we do not do this on any other article that I am aware of, what is the proper way to handle this situation? Pinging User:Blazewing16 as a knowledgeable editor in the "Other media" subject area. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious too to know the best approach to this situation. I personally feel the "fictional character biography" section should at least have some indication it refers to the comics and not the MCU - especially when the introduction to the page already contains some mention of the MCU. Even if the paragraph is omitted, at least a phrase that says "in the comics" in the "fictional character biography" segment should be added to clarify that the biography is referring to the comics and not the MCU. - Remy+Rogue

That is definitely worth having an answer to. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I say keep the "In other media" information out of the "Fictional character biography" and include a brief "In the comics" section to the latter to make sure readers know that the biography refers to the comics version. In my mind, the "Fictional character biography" should only refer to the character as they appear in the comics only. We already have the leading section to briefly touch on other versions and the "Other versions" (as in any alternate reality versions) and the "In other media" (referring to TV, film, video games, etc.) sections to discuss other versions of the character. In other words, I cannot agree with Remy+Rogue's approach in this case because it implies favoritism. Why is the MCU version so special compared to all of the other versions of Zemo from non-comics media? By that I mean, why does the MCU version get special treatment over any of the TV versions or video game versions? (I know MCU Zemo deviates drastically from all other versions, but I'm sure you get my point.) It violates WP:NPOV in my mind and it's just wholly unnecessary when the "In other media" section already covers it. Blazewing16 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the futile nature of attempting to produce a coherent biography when faced with a plethora of retcons, as well as the ludicrousness of the idea that the comic version is somehow the primary version, despite more people being aware of adaptations, maybe the section (across the whole project) should be renamed to something like "Activities in the comics". --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Detective Conan: Sunflowers of Inferno listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Detective Conan: Sunflowers of Inferno to be moved to Case Closed: Sunflowers of Inferno. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Including IOM-related categories in character articles

Here is one question that seems to have come up from time to time. When a character has a different origin story in a film or TV show from their main comics appearances, do we include in-universe categories related to that difference? For example, the Invisible Woman is an American in the comics and in every adaptation I am aware of, except for the 2015 Fantastic Four film where she is from Kosovo. User:DZEI3101 believes this is a valid reason therefore to include Category:Fictional people from Kosovo as seen in this edit. So my question is, do we treat each character's article as an amalgamation of all the information in every version of that character with the same weight? Or in most cases is the comics version of the character the primary version, and most if not all of the other versions will be a far distant secondary at best? My thought is, since the lead sentence says the character appears in comic books, the lead details her comics origin story (only briefly mentioning other media appearances), and the publication history, fictional character biography, and powers and abilities sections only detail her comics appearances, and the "in other media" section is much smaller than most of those sections individually and contains only the barest details... my feeling is that the article is 90% about the comics character, and 1% about this one film appearance, and therefore we should not include this category with equal weight to the categories pertaining to the comics version of the character. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? 2601:249:8B80:4050:90DC:AFE8:569C:CD24 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that movies and TV should be relegated to "in other media"? No, I can't say I agree with minimizing these aspects while flouting the comic books. I don't know any statistics, but I would think that Movies and TV series reach a FAR greater audience than comic books, and as such I think we should write to our readership. — Ched (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

David Anthony Kraft

Someone added to his article that he just died yesterday[16], but if that is true then we need a source for it. BOZ (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

a couple refs have been added to the lead, I'd imagine they'll be moved to a specific section once some expansion has been done. — Ched (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you Ched. BOZ (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions

A discussion on updating the comics article naming conventions has been started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Guideline needs updating. All comments are welcome.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Batman: Death in the Family 55,935 1,864 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to change the assessment, Coin945. It was a stub when initially assessed, but since then it has been expanded significantly. -2pou (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's more making the point that this article is being viewed by tonnes of people daily so it's importnt for it to be high qualiyy for Wikipedia's reputation. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Donald Duck § Lead image

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Duck § Lead image. We need more input. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Magog (comics)#Requested move 9 June 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Magog (comics)#Requested move 9 June 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Invulnerability

Over the last few days, various IP users have been adding "Invulnerability" to numerous character articles. Edit-warring over this got Ikaris and Thena protected. User:RyoxVV88 is now continuing this, and I have been removing it as unsourced. Should we be including Invulnerability in the infobox if this is not mentioned and sourced in the article? 2601:243:1C80:6740:521:7686:DF2A:26A0 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat has helped revert some of these edits, so hopefully we can determine whether including this at all is appropriate. 2601:243:1C80:6740:521:7686:DF2A:26A0 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Characters are only invulnerable until a writer wants to hurt them. I'd be hesitant to add that description even with multiple reliable sources, because a single panel with a scrape or bruise would invalidate it. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Argento Surfer. User:RyoxVV88 is continuing to add it to the infoboxes as seen here,[17][18] so unless someone has an objection, I will be removing these as well. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that RyoxVV88 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Rymax23 (talk · contribs). I have already opened an investigation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

When every edit someone has made has been reverted, that definitely tells you something. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RyoxVV88 is continuing to edit war over adding "Invunerability" to character articles as seen here and here. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've left them a warning - feel free to let me know if they continue. — Ched (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

— Ched thanks; this time without the invulnerability, but this time with just immortality?[19] 2601:243:1C80:6740:52F:C87D:7250:594A (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

— Ched, now they are doing the same thing with "immortality", here misspelled; note that the article does not once mention that the character is immortal. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours - hopefully they'll rethink their approach when they get back. — Ched (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Fan theory; Sylvie Lushton version of Enchantress in the Loki TV series?

It has been reverted, but I felt I should bring this up here in case it is added back again. The cited sources here, if they are even reliable in the first place, seem merely to be teasing a fan theory based on scant evidence. It may ultimately turn out to be true that this is the character being used in the show after all (rather than a female variant of Loki), but at this time I don't think this is enough evidence to be including this information in the Enchantress article. Is that about correct? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

People are continuing to commit this original research, including by established users such as here. The cited source does not mention the Enchantress, and while it links to Marvel's article about Syvlie Lushton, the article does not explicitly state that this is a "composite character" as claimed by User:InfiniteNexus. Until we have an actual reliable source explicitly tying the TV character to the Enchantress, the only thing we have is "well, it sure looks like her" and countless fans believing a theory, so I do not think we should be including that at this time. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll keep it hidden until it is officially confirmed that the character is based on the Enchantress. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to exactly what sort of proof Wikipedia needs, a character who looks like Enchantress, is named Sylvie, and preforms "enchantments" (as stated by the show multiple times), is 100% an intentional reference by the show to Enchantress. Even if this character is reveled to be a Skrull, a Time Keeper, or Howard the Duck, the intentional reference to Enchantress in the show is 100% there. 107.137.207.3 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be what we call original research and synthesis, which is precisely taking separate bits of information and opinions from editors and from that arriving to a conclusion, when actually no reliable sources confirm that this is a version of Enchantress. There are only sources that are speculating that, which we also cannot use as confirmation. —El Millo (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

So the TV show needs to call her "Enchantress" explicitly? Or a creator needs to come out and say this is there take on Enchantress? One or both of those will probably happen before the end of the show, but I still think the show has been pretty explicit so far. Like naming her Sylvie is obviously a conscience choice on the writers part. To think they accidentally named this character the name of one of the Enchantress's without knowing it seems like a pretty big logic leap. But I get that these are Wikipedia's policies that have been long established. 107.137.207.3 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, either the TV show itself or someone involved with the production has to say it. We can however include the similarities between both characters if enough high-caliber reliabe sources point it out. —El Millo (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been "explicit" the same way it was explicit that Quicksilver was recast in Wandavision. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly; Marvel shows have a habit of subverting fan expectations - which WandaVision did repeatedly - so we need to see what the real answer is, not just what we expect it to be. If this is left in there as a hidden note that's tolerable for now, but I will have to protect the page if people keep reinstating it. BOZ (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Per this source and this one, Di Martino says Lushton and Lady Loki were inspirations for Sylvie, but that the character is new/different from both of them, so that's probably the extent we can say. I'm going to add some wording to both Enchantress and Loki articles stating such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Great! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#titled cartoons

Discussion of individual cartoons as works of visual art and their italicization. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Red Skull - is his last name Shmidt or Schmidt?

Do we have any idea what the WP:RS's say? I thought for sure that his last name was Schmidt in the comics, but now I am not sure. 2601:243:1C80:6740:52F:C87D:7250:594A (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

On Marvel's official website it is Shmidt. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't use that source because it contradicts itself. The title says Johann Shmidt, but the initial description just below that says Johann Schmidt. —El Millo (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, except for that one instance of Schmidt, the page calls him Shmidt every other time. —El Millo (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

However, the film version seems to be called Schmidt, as that's what the character's credited as in Captain America: The First Avenger. —El Millo (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

We should use whatever is the comic book standard for the article. If his name is different in the MCU, that should be in the appropriate section. I verified in the Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe that Shmidt is the proper comic spelling. The article contradicts itself numerous times, we should fix this. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the best answer is "yes", as the comics have used both at different times. I can't speak to which is most common, however. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this level of detail appropriate for the lead?

I removed a list of 11 supporting characters from the lead of the Thor article as I feel it is inappropriate to include such a lengthy list there when we can just link to his lists of supporting characters and enemies, although this list of characters was promptly reinstated by User:Mattmurdock95 along with some other minor changes. What do other people think about this inclusion? 2601:243:1C80:6740:52F:C87D:7250:594A (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes Mattmurdock95 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise yet informative response. Anyone else? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead should be a concise summary. A list of names without context is not a good summary, and adding context would not be concise. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lists should not be included in the lede/lead. — Ched (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we assume a character's ethnic origin based on their last name?

User:RaffiKojian says "Yes we can"[20]. Does that qualify as WP:OR, or should we always make these kinds of assumptions when the source material does not spell it out for us? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. That be a stretch too far to make those kind of assumptions. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"but the comics have yet to discuss her ethnic background" is a phrase that should never be in the prose, and guessing at heritage from last names is OR. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

But the existing material also fails. Using sources that are not discussing the article topic is textbook WP:OR, the sources being relied on are on reliable (see WP:ANCESTRY.COM), and the claim that her ethnic coverage is not covered somewhere in the comics is itself unsourced WP:OR. So a triple no on that edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Usually most authors, from what I have observed, are happy to say that a character is a specific ethnicity and promote it as such, so why would they imply it? That wouldn't even make logical sense. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Can we assume a character's ethnic origin based only on their last name?" - No. - jc37 16:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, User talk:Mac Dreamstate#Tamzarian[21] shows that this is not the first such conflict this user has gotten into regarding Armenian surnames. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Also for the record, non-Armenians don't have Armenian names. But as I said on his talk page, I guess there's no reason to believe someone named Tsambikos Papadopoulos is Greek. We should ignore the most blatantly obvious facts in our determination to accomplish... I don't know what. It's an Armenian name, it's really that simple. That's not original research, it's just an obvious fact. --RaffiKojian (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

So an Italian woman who marries an Armanian man doesn't end up with an Armanian last name? And when he dies, and she has an out of wedlock child with another Italian, and names it after her late husband, this isn't an Italian kid with an Armanian name? Names are like that. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's something RaffiKojian can't explain away here. Just because a name appears to be associated with one ethnicity, does NOT mean the person who has it is that ethnicity. Some names cross ethnic boundaries.Historyday01 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather a necropost here, but you guys have missed perhaps the most important point: These are fictional characters, which means their last names are not inherited at all - they're given to them by writers. And there's no reason to assume that writers know the ethnic background of every last name they use.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Image Comics Universe

Please see Template talk:Image Comics Universe about the repurposing of an Invicible navigation template into a comprehensive template for characters that have ever appeared in an Image-published crossover, done by a since-blocked editor. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Does Ursa Major appear in Black Widow or is that an easter egg?

The character is named Ursa and big like a bear, but as far as I know we do not know his real name and he is not shown with any powers, so based on the quote in this edit summary as added by User:Trailblazer101 can we assume that the comics character of Ursa Major appears in the film? If not, should we include this in his article at all? 2601:243:1C80:6740:52F:C87D:7250:594A (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but going by what's written in the sourced article, even deeming it an Easter egg is rather a stretch. The word "Ursa" has existed since centuries before there was an obscure comics character whose name incorporated it. Not every usage of the word "Ursa" or even the phrase "Ursa Major" is automatically a reference to the comic book character.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the article to include the information with a more reputable source that explicitly states this is the MCU's version of Ursa Major. Just a reminder, If reliable sources state there is a character who appears that adapts or interprets from the comics, or points out references to said comics, it's not up to us to decide that's inherently a stretch, as we must WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Decider was clearly weaving in their wording, which is why it's always best to find a more reliable source that confirms the info instead of upright removing it. It always will take a bit for the more reliable sources to become available, and there is WP:NORUSH, as this was verifiable content done in good faith. The article Black Widow (2021 film) even states this Ursa is based on the comics character (and that's the article I copied the contents from for the Ursa Major character article), but that remained intact despite this IP's changes to the character article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we actually consider Screen Rant a WP:RS though? Based on the sentence "As he does so, he calls the prisoner Ursa and refers to him as "the great bear", making the unlucky prisoner the MCU's version of Ursa Major, a mutant with the ability to turn into a bear, who was also a Soviet super-soldier in the comics" it sounds like they are drawing a conclusion rather than confirming valid information, but I would like to hear other opinions on this. 2601:243:1C80:6740:52F:C87D:7250:594A (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest looking into WP:MCURS and the links provided there on reliable sources. Screen Rant is not outright making a claim of assumption on the matter, just commenting on what it is. I'd just like to say for the record, I am not the one behind linking "Ursa" from the Black Widow film article to Ursa Major, and that I simply brought over that article's contents onto the comics article. We have two sources now that have come to the same conclusion on this matter, and anyone is welcome to find others that may reaffirm it. But, it is in my best regard to suggest that, if you do have concerns with the character's interpretation in the film, it would be best to discuss it at the wider Talk:Black Widow (2021 film), as that is the main subject for it, rather than here, which is too broad. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have begun a discussion at Talk:Black Widow (2021 film)#Does Ursa Major (character) appear in this film?. 98.32.192.121 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC at Template talk:Infobox comics character re: new epithets parameter

RFC about the addition of a new parameter listing epithets in the infobox.

Link SinkingInMercury (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Do advertisments count as "first appearances"?

From Madman (Mike Allred character):

The character first appeared on the back cover of Caliber Presents #15 (Sep. 1990) and later a full appearance in Creatures of the Id #1 (Oct. 1990).

The back cover in question is simply a full-page ad for Creatures of the Id #1. To my eyes, that shouldn't be counted as a first appearance because it's not an actual story or publication, merely an advertisement for one; Creatures of the Id #1 was the first story by Allred to feature the character. Which is correct, the Caliber Presents advert or Creatures of the Id story? --Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not unheard of - the TMNT first appeared in an ad of Gobbledygook, and that's often noted in price guides and fans pay high prices for it. Some websites will often try to pump up ads as first appearances, but I believe that's because the people promoting it own said ads. I would prefer to see a better source than Toonpedia for this particular claim. There's no shortage of coverage of Allred and Madman, so it should be easy to find if widely believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That is true (for what it's worth, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles article notes their first appearance as the comic not the ad). A Bleeding Cool article notes Id as the first appearance "outside of ads", but scanning through various articles promoting the 25th anniversary or the new Library Editions there is simply no mention of ads as the consensus is Id #1 for first appearance. I'll pull a better source for the Wiki article. --Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

I want to suggest we rename this to something like "Character synopsis" or other alternatives if people have one. The biography aspect in particular suggests a detailed account of a person, and it's this in-universe stuff which holds back a lot of comic articles from ever getting promoted. It would maybe beneficial to also link "A plot summary of important storylines involving the character. It is essential this section not become overly detailed. " from the MOS explicitly to being about this section so that articles are not so often just a detailed account of everything a character ever did. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Batman: The Adventures Continue

Hello everyone, we have a bit of a situation at the article above; it has been brought up at requests for protection, but I think that protection wouldn't be the way forward; ideally, this needs more (knowledgeable) eyes on it. If someone would be so kind and could spare some time that would be great. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is this the only trouble? I don't see anything on Talk, and nothing in the history jumps out. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Hundred (cricket)#Requested move 11 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Hundred (cricket)#Requested move 11 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eisner Award#Requested move 17 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eisner Award#Requested move 17 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iron Fist (comics)#Requested move 18 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iron Fist (comics)#Requested move 18 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the Reed Richards from the 2015 film Fantastic Four based on the Ultimate Marvel version?

User:CaptainRobot is insisting that this is the case as seen here, but as yet has not put forth a source to support this assertion. Does anyone else have any input on this situation? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, the user removed this discussion (which I have restored) using the edit summary "I have added the source confirming." Would anyone be able to check and confirm that the source is sufficient to verify the claims? 98.32.192.121 (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, user has been blocked as yet another sock of User:TotalTruthTeller24. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Does Shuma-Gorath appear in the "What If...?" show?

In the first and fourth episodes thus far, we have seen an otherdimensional being that certainly resembles Shuma-Gorath, but the creature is never named and we only see a giant mass of tentacles. Here a source was added to support this claim, but I do not know if Inverse is a WP:RS. Can anyone take a look at this? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think inverse is reliable but at the same time its just assuming, there's no way to tell without the word of someone on the show. Tentacles alone arent sufficient.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

All that's been officially confirmed about the creature is it has been inspired by the Abelisk that appeared at the beginning of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair use image issue

I noticed on the Cheetah article had a ton of fair-use images, and when checking the rationales, all they say is that they "identify the character." I feel that the project has an issue with using far too many images with no proper fair use rationale beyond wanting to show people how one design looks different from another. I don't think that is a strong enough rationale on its own. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC: epithets parameter in infobox

There should be an epithets parameter in the character infobox, since most comic book characters have epithets, and also to prevent people from mistaking epithets for aliases and putting them in the aliases section, a mistake I have seen frequently in character articles. Any thoughts?
SinkingInMercury (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is this coming from anything in particular, like calling Captain Marvel the Big Red Cheese? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Argento Surfer: Don't know much about that character so maybe? I was referring to epithets such as "Man of Steel" for Superman, "Caped Crusader" for Batman, etc. SinkingInMercury (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Improper venue for this RfC. Please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:Advice pages, WP:RFCST, and WP:CONLEVEL: the appropriate place to have this discussion is on the talk page of the template itself, although a notice would be appropriate here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Noted. SinkingInMercury (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Characters adapted into the Marvel Cinematic Universe

I believe that Category:Characters adapted into the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a category that has been deleted numerous times under other names, but I have to wonder if it's worth it to keep doing that since it always seems to pop back up again. One of those "why bother fighting it anymore" situations. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Especially in this case, many of the characters in the category haven't actually been adapted into the MCU (some are just easter eggs, some are just aspects of the character were used in another character), and several of the articles are not even about characters (Roxxon, SHEILD, etc). 207.229.139.154 (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This should be deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for CSD G4. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's also a fork of Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Leiko" means "arrogant"?

From Master of Kung Fu (comics):

Leiko is actually a Japanese name meaning "arrogant"

I think this passage should be deleted, because in Japan, the name "Leiko"(or "Reiko") does not generally mean "arrogant". The name leiko is commonly written in kanji as either 麗子 (麗=beautiful, 子=child=girl), 玲子 (玲=pure), or 礼子 (礼=polite). Without knowing why, but in Japanese manga, wealthy and haughty women tend to have the name "Reiko" (Reiko Katherine Akimoto, Shiratori Reiko, etc). The author of that sentence seems to have misunderstood from this knowledge. Without a rebuttal or clarification of the source, that sentence will disappear in the near future.

Once again, please ensure that you clearly state your sources. And please be carefull when describing a language you are not familiar with. - User:Tenjou Zumi(talk) 06:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a few issues with that, actually.. I also note that in general ra (ら), ri (り), ru (る), re (れ), and ro (ろ) are VERY rarely romanicized to la, li, lu, le, lo, even though when spoken, it is enunciated similarly. I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source for either spelling, however. To the original point, however, since there doesn't appear to be a source for the interpretation of "麗子" meaning "arrogant", then it should be removed and I am doing so now. Waggie (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

3PO request

• Talk:Justice League

Attempting to discuss large amounts of text removals from the article. If anyone has a moment, please take a look. Thank you very much. - jc37 14:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Were these good page moves?

I just figured it would be a good idea to discuss the recent page moves by User:Virman1996 of Jean Grey to Phoenix (Jean Grey) and Reed Richards to Mister Fantastic (Reed Richards) to see if there is a consensus on whether these were good moves. BOZ (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not good moves. While I'm impartial on the Reed Richards one, there was a formal RM that put it at its current title earlier this year. And Jean Grey was always Jean Grey for me. She was not only Phoenix, though, as Marvel Girl was her initial alias. So why does Phoenix get more weight? Plus, the move left behind all the Talk page archives for Jean Grey. -2pou (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true, there was a move discussion for Richards, so I think that carries some weight. BOZ (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and although the number of people who responded to the one for Richards was relatively small, only three users, the page moves for Invisible Woman to Sue Storm or Human Torch to Johnny Storm were rejected. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe Jean Grey would fall under the same consensus as Carol Danvers or Monica Rambeau - all three have used multiple identities. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will move them back to where they were before. BOZ (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hercules (Marvel Comics)

Would Hercules (Marvel Comics) be considered a member of Guardians of the GalaxyMark Rhodes 13 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This would be in response to a conversation on my talk page, although it would be better if people responded here than there. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the Fresh Start section under List of Guardians of the Galaxy members it clearly shows Hercules as a member of the group.Mark Rhodes 13 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if he is on a list in another article, that's one thing, but note that list does not cite any sources. Note also that this is the text in the Hercules article: "When Hercules tried to track down his resurrected family, he instead was captured by them. He was freed by the reformed Guardians of the Galaxy. He aided the Guardians in stopping the mad gods, but at the cost of Star Lord's life. Following the battle with Gamora's West Spiral Arm Guardians, Hercules began a relationship with Marvel Boy (Noh-Varr)." Although clearly that spells out that he was an ally of the team, it does not actually say he joined and became a member. If he actually joined and became a member, then this text needs to be edited to reflect that, and if he didn't join the team and become a member then the team should not be included in the infobox. Do you see what I mean? Plenty of characters have been brief allies of superhero teams without actually joining the team and becoming a member; what is the case here, and is the story as written in the comics clear on that? 2601:243:1C80:6740:52F:C87D:7250:594A (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I can assume that no one disagrees with me, that we should have a reliable source showing that he actually joined a team (instead of just being an ally) before we include him as a member of a team in the infobox? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible comics-related hoax

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malkiel (comics) I found this article while using Special:Random, and I think it's a hoax that has existed since 2006. I could use some eyes on the discussion. wizzito | say hello! 20:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Avengers characters and Justice League characters

Should we delete Template:Avengers characters and Template:Justice League characters? --Mark Rhodes 13 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is Mephisto an archenemy of Spider-Man?

There has been some back and forth on Mephisto (Marvel Comics) about whether he is an archenemy of Spider-Man, most recently with User:Dealmaces in favor and User:Didelphi opposed; so much so that this is currently appearing at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring noticeboard. Based on the sources presented here, can we make that conclusion? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It is tricky. Marvel is pushing Mephisto in this direction, following up on One More Day, having Spider-Man and his daughter Spider-Girl be the ones to defeat him in the future, and even using retroactive continuity to have him be responsible for Norman and Harry Osborn’s madness and subsequent supervillainous transformations, wiping Doctor Octopus’ memory the second time around, even dragging Miles Morales into the mix. It might be WP:TOOSOON honestly, but that is the direction the character is being brought, nearing over a decade and a half now. [22] Dealmaces (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

“I am the architect of your ultimate fall. I am the null. The void. The Hell that hungers... and I'm going to tell you a secret... I’m going to tell you a secret about your life... about why you’ll never find true happiness... because you will always be missing something. Incomplete. Unfinished. And ultimately, no matter how hard you fight, which cause you choose, the battle will always end with your facing... emptiness.”

Absolutely not. The additions smack of recentism. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually have any opinion on this, the only reason I've been reverting those edits is because they have to be reverted due to failing to meet Wikipedia's standards.

None of the sources the user has been citing as references refer to Mephisto as Spider-Man's archenemy, and they're also unofficial blogs, the authors of which don't have any more authority to decide over these matters than you or me. I believe that in order for this claim to be valid, it'd have to come either from an official source at Marvel, or from a considerable number of sources or popular vote, to show that there's some sort of general acceptance among the fandom that Mephisto is Spider-Man's archenemy; none of which exists at the moment.

In fact, until I stumbled upon one of the pages the user had edited, I had never seen anyone mentioning anything similar, and I even found the statement weird, instantly feeling that the page may have been vandalized.

If there's any official source that states that Mephisto is Spider-Man's archenemy or any proof of popular acceptance of it, then I have no problem with the edits staying; otherwise they must be reverted. Personally, I'm neutral on this matter. Didelphi (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Dealmaces turned out to be a suckpoppet, in fact I was suspicious that he might be. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Serious edit dispute involving blanking of disputed content at Nathan Edmondson

Attention, editors.

An editor contacted me regarding persitent efforts by a person or persons to delete critical content from the Nathan Edmondson article.

I asked that editor to detail the diffs in question, and they did so. I examined the six areas that have been blanked by the three editors, User:Jonesmaree, User:GrantGoodMensch, and User:Npgordon25, all of whom have edit counts between 19 and 25

These deletions apepar largely without any just cause, apart from casting him in a critical light -- although some of it concerns sensitive matters that I agree require as many objective eyes as possible. Can you please offer your thoughts? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, putting a list of negative allegations under the heading "Personal life" seems in bad taste to me. He was arrested and charged in 2005, but was he convicted? Was that a notable event that needs to be covered? He was accused of sexual harassment. Was that substantiated? Did he admit it? If it didn't get beyond he said/she said, I don't think it belongs on his page. We shouldn't be spreading rumors and gossip.

Several other removals are suspect, though. I'm not sure why his bibliography was removed. He's notable as a writer, so we should have a list of his works. this seems like a bad attempt at pretending to be offended. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Sorry, I should've specified that I began the discussion on that article's talk page. I will answer your question there.

If veteran editors/adminstrators could join the discussion, please do so, because now the other editor(s) are engaging in content blanking and edit-warring. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Absorbing Man

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed multiple times in the past, but last week an IP editor added a note to the article that the character was in an early script of the 2003 Hulk film, but was later merged into Nick Notle's character. I recall that this information has been removed from the article multiple times over the years, and it was removed the next day with the source questioned as to whether it is an RS. It was added back today, and I removed it once again, but my edit was undone by User:2006nishan178713 as vandalism. Do we want to keep this content in the article or remove it once again? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes do happen. Sorry my bad. I mistakenly considered your IP for someone else. I recommend you to get registered asap Partha Basak 20:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be removed, and users should not be told to create accounts. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Heads up, as the IP editor has continued to edit war on this article, and with similar content at Doctor Octopus and Vulture (Marvel Comics). 207.229.139.154 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

A category by any other name...

Is Category:Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe another variation on one that has already been deleted many times? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The category was created and populated by User:(a)nnihilation97 this time. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a fork of Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, and is incorrectly populated with articles about comic characters instead of articles about the film characters. It needs to be deleted regardless of the creator's status (or note) as a sock. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for making that Category, I tried making a similar one this year and it was deleted. I see know of how repetitive having that Category and the Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters is. I am all in favor of deleting the category I had created. I apologize for all the trouble that I have caused making this. Argento Surfer - (a)nnihilation97 (User talk:(a)nnihilation97, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The category has been nominated for CFD. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Union (Marvel Team)

I created a page The Union (Marvel Team), however there is not yet enough information to warrant two articles for the individual topic areas so they are currently mashed into one article, The two areas are The Union (Marvel Team and The Union (comics).

I have currently named the article The Union (Marvel Team) as I think it best reflects the current situation given that the team have now featured outside of The Union (comics), but I would like advice regarding the wiki article naming policy as it is a grey area with multiple actions I could take. ChefBear01 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Are these trivial non-apperances?

It seems that an IP user has been adding quite a few non-appearances to Marvel character articles, which to me read like trivia. I would appreciate if someone would review these additions to Vulture, Electro, Sandman, Franklin Storm, Franklin Richards, MODOK, Mary Jane, J. Jonah Jameson, and Doctor Octopus to see if any of those changes should be retained. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

They are also edit warring with User:Blazewing16. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

None of those are worth keeping on the character pages. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks Argento Surfer. The IP user left me an odd message at User talk:8.37.179.254#Marvel characters, and I notice that they also started some discussions at Talk:Zzzax and Talk:Absorbing Man which are also a bit odd, but for those two articles it looks like something that User:Drmies had previous reverted. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Those articles are shit magnets, of course. I see that Sro blocked, for likely block evasion by User:Tornatore2007. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that Tigra in the Hawkeye series?

A character named Greer appears in the series as a friend of Kate Bishop. A citation was added[23] to the Tigra article to support the idea that Greer is actually Tigra. Does this citation actually support this connection, or is that speculation and assumption? 98.32.219.40 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that edit was undone[24] but someone may try to add it again. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

And indeed, it has been added back again. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not confirmed to be her. Just an easter egg, which is common in MCU properties. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Frank Miller Disambiguation

The Frank Miller article is currently located at Frank Miller (comic book writer). I don't think this is the best title for the page as it ignores his art. Would Frank Miller (comics creator) work better? Thematthewmurray (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It was created as (comics), was briefly moved to (comics creator) in 2016, then moved to (comic book writer) earlier this year, then back to (comics), then back to (comic book writer) again. There was one poorly attended discussion about it at Talk:Frank Miller (comic book writer)/Archive 1#Profession over field. I suggest starting a formal request with Template:Requested move to find a solid consensus. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I created a move request on the the talk page.Thematthewmurray (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

CfD Hawkeye TV series (2021) category

Category:Hawkeye (2021 TV series) is up for discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_8#Category:Hawkeye_(2021_TV_series) Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Avengers characters

Who considers Rocket Raccoon a member of the Avengers in the comics?--Mark Rhodes 13 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Sheldon the God insists that he did, but the closest thing I can find to that in the article is that he was summoned along with several other heroes to fight an enemy, and the article states "Rocket mused that this would allow him to cross "being an Avenger" off his bucket list." So does that mean he was an actual member of the team, and thus should have membership listed in the infobox? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that the above user initially reverted User:Mark Rhodes 13[25] to include that supposed team membership in the infobox. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

And now it has been removed again: [26] 207.229.139.154 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations for Anne Rice comics

Hello! The Anne Rice article is nominated for an ITN for her recent death. There's a number of cn tags in the article, 9 of the current 16 of which are for comic adaptations of her work throughout the 1990s (this section here). However, I'm having trouble quickly finding high quality sources to verify this information, and I'm not sure where to start looking and I'm not sure if inserting citations directly to the books with their ISBNs is enough. Been ages since I've done this sort of thing with comics. Advice or help requested. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, I managed. Though, I would not say no to a spot check, but there's references now. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Archenemies

I'm sure that this has been discussed before and the consensus was that in order to call a character an archenemy of another character, we need a WP:RS source to confirm this. For example, the article on Norman Osborn has multiple sources cited to demonstrate that he is the archenemy of Spider-Man. User:Sheldon the God added to the article on the Leader (character) that he is the archenemy of the Hulk, and when this was challenged he added it back. Is it OK to accept this as a fact without a source in this instance or do we need a source to state it? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Mark Rhodes 13 attempted to revert this, but User:Sheldon the God added it back. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As I commented on User talk:Sheldon the God, this dispute should be discussed on the article's talk page before any changes are made. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Sheldon the God reverted once again, removed the talk page warnings about finding sources and edit-warring from User:Mark Rhodes 13 and User:InfiniteNexus, and has made no attempt at discussion of any kind. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have slapped another warning on the user's talk page. If this disruptive behavior persists, you can report them at WP:AIV. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, so he reverted again but this time added a CBR link which does call the Leader the arch-enemy of Hulk. Do we accept this? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Harley Quinn powers

Do you guys think Harley Quinn’s powers are excessive? A user thinks these are 100% accurate, but I just think that some of these are irrelevant and should list what the character is known for (ie underwater breathing):

• Trained psychiatrist
• Expert gymnast
• Using weaponized props
• Enhanced strength, durability, stamina, reflexes, and agility
• Immunity to various toxins
• Skilled hand-to-hand combatant
• Weapons proficiency
• Genius level intellect
• Psychological manipulation
• Underwater breathing

Sheldon the God (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Just show them the infobox guideline. It's for notable powers only, Harley isn't known for underweater breathing, psychological manipulation, genius level intellect (!?) or weapons proficiency/weaponized props and being a skilled hand to hand combatant. Her fighting ability generally falls under her gymnastic abilities, and she uses a big hammer or guns. I don't know about any of that enhanced physical ability stuff either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Devil's Reign

How do I remove Storylines in comics2021 in comics from the top of the Devil's Reign page?--Mark Rhodes 13 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How do you remove what from the top of the page? Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Check out the top of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_ReignMark Rhodes 13 (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Rhodes 13: I've seen this occasionally before. I think it has to with the sortkey parameter of this particular infobox. For some reason, it cannot be blank. If I were a savvy template editor, I might try to fix it, but the workaround is to insert the text {{PAGENAME}} into the parameter so it reads
| sortkey = {{PAGENAME}}.
Alternatively, you could insert "Devil" or some other sorting text to resolve the issue. -2pou (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it with this edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Miss America (America Chavez)#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Miss America (America Chavez)#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Comics Industry

Hello, first I apology for my english. I'm french and a little rusty to write in english but I hope you'll understand me. Is there an article where I can find how the comics industry works ? I mean how the comics are created (writer, artist, letterer and so on), how an artist is hire (exclusivity or freelance) ? what is the part of the editor ? The part of the advertising in comics ? And so on. Thank you for your answers. --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Google would probably be a better source for this information than Wikipedia. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Does Mockingbird appear in the Hawkeye TV series?

Or at least, do we need to notate the fact that his wife Laura is also known as Agent 19, at the Mockingbird page as seen here? Mockingbird (aka Barbara "Bobbi" Morse) was known as Agent 19 of SHIELD in the comics, so this seems to me to be at most an interesting Easter Egg, and I don't think we should be including anything about the Hawkeye series on the Mockingbird page until Marvel starts also referring to Laura Barton as Mockingbird or that "Laura" is an alias for Barbara Morse. But, maybe that's just me. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the last episode of the series, her watch has a SHIELD symbol on it and the number 19 and that is all there is to go on, so to me this is definitely a stretch to include on the Mockingbird article. 98.32.219.40 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's not so much speculation as a clear connection to "Agent 19," which is well spelled out on the Mockingbird (comics) page. It is possible there are other Agent 19s, but we only know of one, and that's Mockingbird in the comics. So it belongs here, for now, until someone at Marvel tells us different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit weird to me to include an easter egg that way, but if there is no other opposition to including it then fair enough I suppose. 98.32.219.40 (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike, I think you're confusing "clear connection" with "implication". The source provided veers into wild speculation about how the connection could be explained and shouldn't be included in any article here. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. I know I saw the "19" on the watch and was very clear what it meant for the Laura character. But you're right, it could just be speculation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the content from the article and pointed back to this discussion. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Template: Justice League characters

Should the protection on Template: Justice League characters be lowered?--Mark Rhodes 13 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Given the constant disruption caused by random names being added to similar templates, I would say no. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we want to include a family tree in the article for Blade?

Does the article Blade (character) need an elaborate family tree as seen at this edit? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, personally. It seems more like a Marvel Wiki type of tree (too in-universe), it doesn't say the relationships, and it mixes universes as well. I don't think it helps in understanding, either. -2pou (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor restored their edits without the family tree, but still with a lengthy section called "Family members"[27] - is that something we want to include as written? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No. If the family members are important, they can be found in the character's biography. 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Argento Surfer, I will remove that and point them to this discussion again. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics superheroes listed in articles but not in editor

Moon Girl (Marvel Comics) has Category: Marvel Comics superheroes at the bottom with other categories. If you edit it with Edit or Edit Source, same results, other categories listed, but this one does not appear. The same thing for Abigail Brand and apparently everywhere that has this category in it. Any idea what's going on? Instead of regular categories, does this one load from somewhere else? In articles that already have category:Marvel Comics female superheroes and/or other more specific categories, this category is pointless and should not remain in those articles. Dream Focus 11:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It was populated by an infobox parameter. I removed it from Moon Girl with this edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comics creator - proposal to change coding

There is a proposal at Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Proposal to simplify the coding re images when template is used outside of article space that members of this WikiProject may be interested in. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Rocket Raccoon as a member of the Avengers?

According to his article, in a 2018 storyline Rocket accompanied some of the Avengers and "mused that this would allow him to cross "being an Avenger" off his bucket list". The accompanying source from CBR said he would "join the Avengers on their mission", but it did not state that he is becoming an actual member of the team, and the article does not say anything about whether he did appear as a member of the team after that single 2018 storyline. Despite this, User:Titan Boulder feels that is enough to include the Avengers as one of his team memberships in the infobox[28]. Was he actually a member of the Avengers team, or did he just accompany them for a single storyline as many non-member characters have done in the last 60 years? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Avengers should not be listed, as even if someone felt he joined the team, it's not a notable affiliation. In my opinion, the whole paragraph on "No Road Home" should be removed as a trivial adventure. It's recentism that is unlikely to have any long term impact on the character, and quoting actual dialogue from a story is beyond excessive. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Argento Surfer. I reverted it and pointed to this discussion, but User:Titan Boulder reverted again without discussion. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, he was blocked as an apparent sock, so I am undoing his edit. Thank you! 207.229.139.154 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Tales

Would any editor knowledgeable about the topic please take a look at Talk:Marvel Tales? There’s a requested move there at which an editor has suggested that the comics article is not sufficiently notable to exist. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's at AFD now Mike Christie, are there more sources to improve it to show notability? It ran long enough that you'd think there would have to be something. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I would think so, but I don’t have any comics sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Does Ben Grimm have superhuman speed?

Despite asking for a source to prove it (since as far as I can see, the article does not mention this), new User:Hydro-Molecular Dude has continued to add this to the article. Is this an appropriate addition? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any story where Grimm was a Speedster (fiction), but even if one does exist it's still not a defining power. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean technically he might just from the virtue of having superhuman muscles but it's not a defining power. Spider-Man is superhumanly fast, I assume Grimm just moves faster than a human. Batman is probably faster than the average human but we don't say he has superhuman speed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted and pointed to this discussion. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alan Moore's Magic Words

The article Alan Moore's Magic Words has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

After 15.05 years, this stub is still only cited to a fansite and a LiveJournal post.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we going to see Professor X and Shuma-Gorath in the second Doctor Strange film?

Well... maybe?

Hey there! :) I'm just looking for some more eyes on this one. I have removed a reference from the Professor X article:[29] and from the Shuma-Gorath article:[30] which in both cases to me seem to be only speculating that these characters will be in the film. They may both be right ultimately, but of course I believe we need confirmation before reporting such a thing. For that matter, I am wondering how much of that should be included under Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness#Post-production. Thoughts? BOZ (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this source is reliable enough for Shuma-Gorath?[31] BOZ (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Professor X, no, too early to tell. Shuma-Gorath, yes, as it's seems pretty resolved, it is the creature, but named differently per the ComicBook.com article (combined with the CBR one), that it is just named differently since the rights to that name are held elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)