I know that this has been hashed out numerous times, but bear with me once more. If a character does not appear in a film, video game, or TV episode, but is merely mentioned by another character, or their equipment is shown in one scene, or that sort of thing, do we make note of this in the character's article or is that too trivial to bother mentioning? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason this topic is being brought up is because of a dispute on the Doctor Octopus article involving whether or not to include content from The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I didn't reliably source the material but I'm sure I can find reliable sources to back it up. However, the reason the content on that article keeps getting removed is because it's "too trivial." What decides what is "too trivial"? It seems like something that is decided purely by opinion and bias. Considering the mechanical arms are Dock Ock's signature characteristic, and the TASM2 movie AND the film's promotional materials put an emphasis on the ending scene that they were featured in (not to mention the mechanical arms re-appear in the credits), I don't see how it is trivial at all. As a matter of fact, I'd say other material in the "In other media" section of that article is more trivial than this (such as, but not limited to, a minor unsourced cameo Dock Ock apparently had in the Spider-Man Unlimited cartoon and a small unsourced appearance Dock Ock had in the opening of Spider-Man 3 that was only there to recap the previous films' events).
If there are RSes that mention it, then there are no technical reasons to keep the information out. It then comes down to WP:WEIGHT and editorial discretion, issues that should be kept to the specific article's talk page. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out those other trivial appearances. I've remvoed them. Is the Amazing Spider-Man franchise still moving forward with the Sinister 6 film? If not, then I think the arms are trivial. If so, then they take on greater weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer Again, how is his non-appearance in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 any more trivial than his non-appearance in the 2002 Spider-Man movie or some of the other things listed in the "In other media" section? "Trivial" is a pure matter of opinion. Just because you consider it "trivial" doesn't change the fact that he was clearly referenced in the film. The mechanical arms are Dock Ock's signature characteristic. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 movie and game is Other Media. If it can be sourced (which it WAS) then there is no reason it can't be in the article. The removal of the listing of the first The Amazing Spider-Man video game was especially unnecessary as he was mentioned BY NAME several times throughout the game. Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything about a game. I left the info from the 2002 movie because it was sourced and because of the nature of the source (the director). And sure, saying something's trivial will always be a matter of opinion and will change with circumstances. In this case, there are lots of other media appearances, and I don't think the background bonus of some equipment is significant enough to make the list. Other people seem to hold that opinion. If a majority hold it, then there's a consensus for that element to be classified as trivia. If a majority want that item included, then I won't dispute the consensus. Pointing out that other items are also trivial is not a valid arguement. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, those are reliable. However, I don't believe anyone was ever questioning the appearance of the tenticles, just the importance of their appearance to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Marvel.com is the OFFICIAL Marvel website, not a fanmade website created by fans of Marvel. As a matter of fact, many press releases are released on Marvel.com. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Your comment confused me, so I went through the Wikipedia guidelines and after reading WP:THIRDPARTY, I see what you mean. However, I can just as easily find a non-primary reliable source as well. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I would think that if a RS can indeed be found mentioning the appearance of the item, then it stands to reason that the item in question is notable...as in notable enough to be made reference to in an RS. I would think it should stay, provided that. After looking at the references used, I would say that if nothing else, the CBR reference is solid enough. I wouldn't consider it trivia, and apparently RSs are treating it as an easter egg with deeper implications for the franchise.Luminum (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
But is the franchise still going? I thought plans were scrapped since Spider-Man's joining the MCU. Are 'deeper implications' for an aborted movie still relevant? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
As as been mentioned here previously, mere name mentions or items related to characters in media is not really notable. We should be sticking to actual appearances. Now if a character gets a tease before a future appearance, that can be mentioned in the appropriate article (in this case a Sinister Six film article could say the equipment for the characters appeared in ASM2). Now to Argento's comment, Sinister Six is still in the works, though how it connects to the Spidey MCU film or any remnants of the ASM universe, is unknown. So in summary, no this should not be mentioned on a characters in other media page or section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree that this is a "mere name mention" or "items related to characters". The media in question is a 2 minute long teaser trailer at the end/unlockable from ASM2 for the Sinister Six film with the purpose of inferring the various team members by way of their items (Vulture, Doc Ock, Mysterio, etc.) for the future film project. While the trailer appearances of Doc Ock's tentacles and Vulture's wings in ASM2 would probably count as non-notable, the teaser trailer is obviously intentional about its use of items to infer the direction of the coming film project to the viewer. The Comic Book Resources article gives a decent summary. That would make it very different than a background appearance in the ASM2 trailer, or, say, the numerous mutant character name easter eggs who appeared on Stryker's computer screen in X-Men 2. Those would be non-notable. But the teaser trailer for Sinister Six, and the statement from Sony co-chair Amy Pasqual confirming the purpose of the trailer ("At the tail end of ['Amazing Spider-Man 2'] we set up some of the other characters that will probably end up being in the Sinister Six...We're going forward on all fronts.") makes this distinctly different, much like the way various future Marvel Avengers characters were inferred at in the teasers of their other films. One prime example being Iron Man 2, where Thor's hammer is shown in a teaser expressly to point to the future Thor film that was coming. In those instances, I don't think it would be trivial to reference it, given that the purpose was clear and definite and there were RS discussing it and its meaning.Luminum (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it trivia if it's a teaser for a future production? According to WP:CRYSTAL, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced...Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF)." It's not a paragraph devoted to the teaser. It's, at best, a sentence. In that case, I don't think it flags any undue weight issues. An entire paragraph or more over a single teaser would be undue weight.Luminum (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Luminum has a point. And, with all due respect, your question is irrelevant. We are not fortune tellers and we do not base what to include in a Wikipedia article by predicting what people will think 20 years from now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Darkknight2149 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The question asked us to predict what public opinion will be twenty years from now. We are not fortune tellers and we do not base what to and not to include in an article solely upon predictions of the future.Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you really think you're making a point? The question was posed in a specific context. I explicitly brought up weight. Weight is the issue. Answer to the issue of weight. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please cool it with the attitude. I've been engaging in this discussion in good faith. You asked about weight. I gave you my opinion on your question about weight. "It's not a paragraph devoted to the teaser. It's, at best, a sentence. In that case, I don't think it flags any undue weight issues. An entire paragraph or more over a single teaser would be undue weight." I added the point about WP:CRYSTAL because you invoked the argument about relevance based on a factor of time ("20 years from now, will anyone care?"), which WP:CRYSTAL covers. Whether you intended to or not, you asked a question about WP:WEIGHT and made an argument about WP:CRYSTAL and I responded to both points.
So, to restate: RE: WP:WEIGHT - No, I don't think it violates WP:WEIGHT. In an article that is as long as it is, and in a section that gives clear weight to actual appearances he makes in major motion films (Spider-Man 2), having one sentence about how his character is teased as a future character in another film is not unbalanced. My opinion is that it's properly balanced with regard to the content and purpose of the media itself. Were this a sentence substantiated only by the background appearance of the character's tentacles in the actual film, it would have little recourse to be included. I would agree that it is little more than trivia that a character item appeared in the background of a film. But, what has actual significance is a trailer that includes the character as an intentional promotion for a future film in which that character is likely to be featured. That is not trivia. That is evidence of a project in development. Perhaps the two appearances are being conflated?
RE:CRYSTAL - As to whether anyone will care in 20 years, the fact that it's reported on now is what matters and is appropriate to include. I neglected to include this point in my earlier comment because I didn't want to run on about the obvious, but if the bit of information is rendered either redundant and irrelevant as time progresses (i.e. the movie comes out, or the movie doesn't come out or doesn't include the character), then it's not a problem because content can always be changed/removed as necessary. Likely no one will care about a line about a teaser about Doctor Octopus in a Sinister Six movie if a Sinister Six movie comes out within the next 20 years featuring Doctor Octopus because the information will be rendered redundant by the movie itself. Likewise, probably no one will care about a line about a teaser about Doctor Octopus in a Sinister Six movie if a Sinister Six movie comes out within the next 20 years and doesn't feature Doctor Octopus or if a movie never materializes at all, because the information will be rendered irrelevant. Evaluating this information as if it will be permanently etched in stone, seems to miss the context: Films go through production changes, but the information as reported in the present is reliable. Whether it amounts to something later isn't the point, provided that it's meaningfully discussed now, and that information can change and the content should change to fit it as appropriate. CRYSTAL makes it clear that despite this ambiguous end result, the information is fine to include anyway, and points out that there's no reason to evaluate it by the standard of "20 years from now" in this specific context.Luminum (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As to whether anyone will care in 20 years—this is not what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It is about articles talking about future events. This is why WP:CRYSTAL is entirely irrelevant to my comment. The point I made is that the only reason this information is in the article is because it's about something that is happening right now. The problem with that is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Is the information relevant to the history of the character as a whole, or is it merely trivial recentism? Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If the Sinister Six film is still in production, I think the appearance should stay. Regarding the issue of 20 years from now, it's possible a user may find this non-appearance interesting. Especially since it's not something that will be commonly discussed 20 years from now, and wiki might be the only place the information is readily available without doing a specific search for it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it at all appropriate to use the Cite Episode template as a "citation" for a character's appearance in an upcoming episode of a television series as seen at the Dracula and Red Skull articles? 50.141.204.194 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have looked through some of the WP:COMICS pages, and I have been unable to find a guideline or policy that says that this sort of (non-)sourcing is acceptable for articles about comics characters. What am I missing? An article with this sort of sourcing in other categories would be proposed for deletion quickly for not having significant coverage by reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
An article like Porcupine is an ideal candidate to merge with List of Marvel Comics Characters. A large-scale movement to merge these stub articles into the list has been underway for a couple years, but it's a slow process for lots of reasons.
I'm not aware of any hard and fast guideline, but my primary personal stardard is "Has this character had a self-titled series?" If so, then a discussion and review of that comic most likely exists somewhere, even if it's not yet sourced in the article. This is harder to apply to some characters - villains like Mad Thinker or promient heroes like Cannonball who have only been in team books. In cases like those, proposing a merge to the character list usually results in a discussion that helps improve the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that some characters have trivial abilities listed in their info boxes. I've seen editors remove "martial arts training" and "hand-to-hand combat training" since many comic book characters have this type of training; I agree with the removal of such abilities. However, if the training is essential to the character's persona or background (ie: Bronze Tiger, Batman, Deadpool), then I would leave it in the info box. Also, when it is listed in the info box, I think it goes well with other similar abilities in the same bullet. For example, in the Deadpool article, his training in the martial arts, swordsmanship, and marksmanship are grouped together, rather than listing each discipline in its own bullet.
Also, I believe the bullet format looks better than simply listing the abilities, as this reads easier and prevents confusion from the previous line. If we see a character whose info box does not have a bullet format in the abilities section, I think we should make the change.
While I agree that many of Batman's listed abilities are trivial, his detective skills should certainly be left in there, as he is commonly called the "World's Greatest Detective." Furthermore, Batman's gadgets make him who he is. If Deadpool's devices and Wolverine's claws are listed, certainly Batman's high-tech weaponry should be included. JosephSpiral (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Wolverine's claws and his singular identifying feature, strip away the flesh and the claws are what make him not a Terminator. Batman on the other hand has gadgets, but he is Batman without them, most of his greatest stories do not involve the use of gadgets. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!18:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree completely. Batman's utility belt, batarang, grappling hook, Batmobile, etc. make him very different than other superheros. His greatest stories, do in fact involve the use of these. In fact, The Dark Knight Returns, one of the most critically-acclaimed Batman story arcs, involves him using a tank-like Batmobile to take out the Mutants and a high-tech armor to fight Superman (an armor that would otherwise make his ability to defeat Superman impossible). JosephSpiral (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Its all about summation. While I think it would be okay to state that he has access to a variety of high-tech weaponry, I wouldn't list them individually. Same goes for his detective skills. You could probably boil most of these down to four or five bullet points, if not fewer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed many characters who have "Superhuman strength, agility, endurance, stamina, etc." listed when it's not really part of their ability set. When the character has these traits as part of their superhero ability set, like Spider-Man, I think saying "Enhanced physical attributes" works because it sums that up without being too long. With Superman, I think it's a good idea to list the individual powers as his superhuman strength, speed, and hearing are very much part of his ability set and should be listed instead of grouped as just "Enhanced physical attributes." JosephSpiral (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That might be alittle too vague. As most people would probably wonder what they are. Spiderman is well known for his strength and agility but endurance and stamina could probably be combined since they are so closely related.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, it might be too vague. Spider-Man's attributes should be listed. It's more for characters who have an all-around enhancement of their physiology. Those are the characters who should have "Enhanced physical attributes." Spider-Man is well-known for attributes like agility, as is Mystique. Also, "Healing factor" can be listed along with the other physical traits, rather than having its own bullet for characters who are not known for this ability. I don't mean Wolverine or Sabertooth, but for characters who have had that ability added into their power set over the years like so many characters nowadays. It seems like just about every character has cells that regenerate quickly. If the character isn't known for having an accelerated healing factor, I think it can be listed along with other similar physical abilities, rather than giving it its own bullet. Giving a separate bullet for healing factor to characters who aren't known for this ability takes away from characters who are known for this ability. JosephSpiral (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Spider-Man should not have a healing factor listed. It's an explanation for how he takes damage but it isn't a particularly notable or potent ability, it certainly isn't a defining characteristic, he dies like anyone else and pretty easily. He got shot like 3 years ago. All the spiders in that recent crossover were getting killed left and right. Wolverine on the other hand... also Spider-Man's list includes superhuman senses. What is that? He has the spider-sense (which is listed separately). Also I've never heard of superhuman stamina in relation to him. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Darkwarriorblake on the issue of Spider-Man's abilities, and thus, the ability set presented in the infobox of many characters. The problem is, the idea of enhanced cell regeneration has been touted for innumerable characters to explain their ability to survive injuries that really should have gotten them killed. I think accelerated healing factor should only be present for characters who are specifically known for that power (ie: Wolverine, Sabretooth, etc.). So, the infobox ability set should only have those powers that the power is known for, as well as associated devices the character is well-known for. We can get rid of Spider-Man's superhuman stamina, senses, reflexes, and healing factor as part of his power set. Perhaps we can leave his strength and agility. Also, Hulk's power set is currently being edit warred with trivial powers. Like Darkwarriorblake mentioned, healing factor shouldn't be added unless it's an ability the character is known for, and Hulk isn't known for this power. I removed Hulk's ability to "sense astral forms" since it's trivial. Do editors agree with this or should his ability to sense astral forms be left in the infobox? JosephSpiral (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that his ability to sense astral forms isn't a particularly notable part of his power set, but should not "invulnerability" or something similar be in there? If I think of Hulk I think that he can't be damaged outside of Wolverine's claws most of the time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, his near invulnerability should be included. Do you think "virtual invulnerability" should be used? Since invulnerable means incapable of being harmed, I think an adjective should preface it, as he is not completely invulnerable. Also maybe "superhuman invulnerability" can be used. What do you think? JosephSpiral (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have invited 24.42.17.117 (talk) to join this discussion, as they spend a great deal of time editing these infoboxes. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned user seems to have done quite a lot of unconstructive edit-warring on various comicbook pages. David A (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The ability of "genius-level intellect" is in the infobox of numerous characters who aren't known for having a gifted mind. Like an accelerated healing factor, a genius-level intellect should be reserved for those characters who are known for this ability. JosephSpiral (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the Joker considered a genius though? Like he's not an expert in the field of science but he's always able to go toe to toe with people like Lex Luthor. I don't know I need outside opinion on that one. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!18:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this an actual game? [1] We don't have an article on this game. 2601:D:B482:CCE0:3173:7EC3:9DDD:3452 (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
A quick search shows that it is a real smart phone game. Just because we don't have a Wikipedia page for it shouldn't matter necessarily.Luminum (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Requesting artwork from Publishers
I think many of our comics and comic book artists articles are rather poorly illustrated, which I assume is because of the copyright problems. Has anyone thought of approaching publishers and artists directly asking them to release some artwork into the public domain for specific articles? It seems to me that publishers would have an interest in having well illustrated articles about comic book characters, and artists as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Publishers would have an interest in not having good pictures of their characters in the public domain, as it makes it that much harder to prevent people from using them inappropriately. But you are welcome to try! --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@NatGertler: Maunus is not talking about Public Domain, but about a licence like CC-BY-SA (or maybe more restrictive) that would allow their free usage on Wikipedia—meaning individual images so licenced, not free use of the characters in those images or any images not explicitly so licenced. Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That strikes me as a weird assumption. If Sony is willing to pay people for making sure the articles on their products are up to date and gives a good impression of the subject, I am sure Marvel or other publishing companies could see the point in getting that for free. Is it possible to release images for exclusive use by wikipedia? If we could offer that then maybe they would be more easy to convince that they would still retain some control over the image's use. Which copyright statuses would be best, for them and us, if releasing it into the public domain entirely is unfeasible. Also what documentation would wikipedia need to see for any images released by artists or publishers?·maunus · snunɐɯ·04:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
While you're right, you have to keep in mind that Sony's not in the business of selling pictures, while Marvel and DC are. Sony might not like it if an image they made free started appeared on T-shirts and posters, but such a thing wouldn't make a dent in their core business. That's exactly the kind of thing that would eat into Marvel and DC's business, though. Having said that, use of the images would still be restricted by trademark laws—there are comic strips out there that are older than 1923 and are thus in the public domain, but even if there are thousands of images of Olive Oyl out there that are PD, the TM on the character prevents certain kinds of usage (none of which affect Wikipedia editors). Certain companies might be more open to this kind of thing than others—DC has a reputation for tightfisted letigiousness, so I wouldn't expect them to allow any images of Superman or Batman under free licenses, but other companies or individuals may be more open to it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Another option could be to contact artists directly and ask them if they would like to produce drawings to exemplify their styles in their wp bios. I just don't know how to contact well known artists except through their publishers.·maunus · snunɐɯ·20:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's something the publishers themselves may be into, assuming the artwork isn't of trademarked properties. If the artists are freelance, they likely have a contact page online, and may be more responsive—they may see it as advertising their work or something. I wonder if there's something like a form letter out there that people have found effective at getting this kind of stuff. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not possible for them to release the images only for use by Wikipedia, at least not in a way that Wikipedia will accept. Per our Image Use Policy, "Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. non-commercial use only), or which are given permission to appear only on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted." Yes, trademark can be used to prevent some uses of it, but big companies often disliked to yield any leverage. This isn't to say that they will always say no (as a comics publisher and a rights owner myself, I'd at least give it some consideration if requested - but as a small player, I have less to lose by doing so.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Propose developing umbrella categories and navigations according to "Fictional universes in literature", "Fictional universes in film" and "Fictional universes in television programming"
My suggestion is that all appropriate universe related articles could have namesake categories created for them and that these categories could be placed into the umbrella categories mentioned above.
I would also suggest moving other contents into a "universe" based navigation scheme:
Thanks to Unreal7 as the nom who has been diligent with these proposals and, from this one (and before it occurred to me that The Joker might qualify as primary topic), I first wondered about a possible destination as The Joker (DC universe).
My main thought here is that the comic/graphic novel, film, TV etc. manifestations of this genre might be brought together by using a Universe based classification, navigation and categorisation scheme. GregKaye18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. What's an umbrella category? Fictional universe articles (e.g. articles about fictional characters) don't need to be categorized by which specific media (book/film/tv etc) that character has appeared in. DexDor(talk)20:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If this suggestion carries through, I would propose that the categories should be called "Fictional Continuities", rather that "Fictional Universes". The latter is not logical, as many fictions by far exceed single universes in scope (multiverses, higher-dimensional space, etcetera). David A (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I do not agree with the notion that "DC Universe" and "Marvel Universe" should be used as umbrella terms for genres. Film, music, literature, comic books, etc. are genres that are identifiable to people who see them on Wikipedia. However, "DC Universe" and "Marvel Universe" are not well-known enough for people to identify them as umbrella terms for different genres. Most people don't know what these umbrella terms mean and won't know that they encompass comic books, film, television, etc. JosephSpiral (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose on the ground that the articles will be a mess. If you divorce the article from a primary medium, then you lose all frame of reference for the focus of the article. The cited Joker article may be well written, but it's an exception, not the norm. Wolverine's article was changed from (comics) to (character) as a disambiguation from the article about the comic books titled Wolverine.
There will be widespread edit wars and a general lack of cohesion as some articles put movies on a higher pedistal than comics. Take Infinity Gems, for example. In the comics, they have one color arrangement. In the films, they have another. Well-meaning editors have been changing and reversing the colors for months because they saw the films and know the space stone is blue, even though the comics show otherwise. The huge variety of backstories and versions for some characters already makes some articles nigh-unreadable. This will not improve anything. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose convoluted, POV-heavy cruft. Both DC and Marvel have made the point this year that continuity is overrated. DC, in particular, is taking the view that fans should stop worrying about making such distinctions. Even if they had not, too much of this is a matter of interpretation. The movie Highland has three incompatible theatrical sequels, none of which can take place in the same universe as the others. Bugs Bunny cartoons never worried about continuity. Bugs and Elmer met for the first time in numerous different cartoons without continuity. There is no Bugs Bunny universe. Despite the use of the phrase Marvel Universe, it is not a singular universe. When Superman met Spider-Man, Archie met the Punisher, or Batman met Captain America in WWII, which universes were those? It doesn't matter. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Predominant plot sections
Several articles about comic titles have fairly massive plot sections, listings of republications, and precious little else. I’d just like to know the thoughts of project regulars about such articles. To me, it seems to indicate that the fictional events of the comic are the most important aspect about it in the real world—often with no context, no discussion of any impact the story may have had on the real world, which seems like a huge WP:WEIGHT issue (if not a WP:NOTABILITY issue). So, am I missing something? Is there a legitimate reason to describe each story arc in detail without establishing their real-world significance? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a flaw that Wikipedia has when writing about art generally, but especially a popular art form like comics that doesn't have much critical literature to cite. The requirement for neutrality and sources is sensible and useful in most contexts, but it makes it very difficult to write about a work's aesthetic qualities, its innovations, its influence, its place in the context of a creative movement or how it fits in the progress of the creator's career, unless reliable third-party sources have written about any of that, which they rarely have in the case of comics. The bare facts of the plot are about the only thing you can describe based solely on the book itself, and some editors will go overboard in how much detail it's necessary to include. Here's the relevant bit of the manual of style that tells you what you're allowed to draw from a work of fiction, which is really depressing: you can include "performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices", but nothing about the work that actually matters, because that would be making a judgement, and that's OR. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Many articles have too much plot, but that's not because the fictional events of the comic are the most important aspect about it in the real world. It's because the fictional events are the most important aspect to the editor who made the page. I view those pages as works in progress, and I prune them as I find them. Reviews of varying quality can be found for nearly all books from the big 5 publishers, and for the majority of top 10 publishers. Likewise, interviews with the creators about the books are also available for most comics that can provide something more than release dates for a publication history section. By and large, those articles aren't disputed because it's possible to make them good, even if they aren't good now. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So what is an appropriate amount of plot detail for an article that yet has no other content to speak of? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the same amount that would go in an article packed with other information - enough to summarize the plot. Subplots and blow-by-blow retellings should be avoided. You'd probably be interested in some or all of the material at WP:JUSTPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM. You can also utilize the all plot template on articles that need to be pruned if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself. Do you have an article in mind? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there no guideline like at the film project to enforce a word limit? We can decide what is reasonable in describing a single issue of story and what is considered a notable element of the series or character history. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Expedient summaries are very welcome indeed. What shouldn't be forgotten as well is the requirement to write for an uninformed audience. Too often these summaries drop mentions of characters' names, powers, and histories like they're all well-understood facts to the general public, which they aren't. So there is a double challenge here, particularly when writing about fictional events which bear heavy relation to long publication and conceptual histories (such as DC Comics' highly metafictional "crisis" stories) or the intricate fictional worlds of things like Doctor Who and X-Men.
For this reason, I don't think strict word counts should be enforced – a plot summary for a linear narrative which doesn't require much unpacking will be far shorter than one which requires extensive contextualisation. But, certainly, we should aim with character pages to think of them from a position removed from current story events. For example, character "bios" can be usefully subdivided into decades, and these sections can be kept to strict overviews of character arcs – summarising what changed conceptually, what progressed, and wherever possible, how writers arrived at these decisions, and which factors influenced them.Zythe (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it'd be hard to specify a word limit due to the serial nature of the medium. For some series, saying "One sentence per issue" may be unfairly limiting (Watchmen), and for others it would open to door to an unreasonably sized summary (Amazing Spider-Man). If we're wanting to base something off another project, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Televisionwould be a better comparison. (A quick look at their page didn't specify a word limit for plots, but I may have missed it.) Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, all the ones you listed should be cut, especially Y:The Last Man. Since it's arcs have their own page, the whole story could probably be reduced to two paragraphs. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Death of "Superman Lives": What Happened? Article
I believe there are enough sources for the documentary to have its own article. Anyone care to help me out with the creation of the article? Thanks! Npamusic (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
First Appearances
The lead paragraphs of characters mention their first appearances. Often, this is mentioned in the past tense. Should this not be in the present tense? For example: "Superhero X first appears in Comic Book Y #1 (May 1940)". Character biography sections that recount characters' stories tend to be in the present. What do editors think of first appearances being written in the present as opposed to the past? JosephSpiral (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Bio sections are written in present tense because they're in-universe (see WP:FICTENSE). If a specific title and issue number is mentioned, then it's real-world and should be written in past tense. (see MOS:TENSE) Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Attribution of very well-known object to creator(s)?
Minor but odd question. Adamantium is perhaps one of the most cribbed terms from comic books, showing up all over the place in popular culture, and so it's probably one of the best known creations of its creators (they also created the villain in Avengers: Age of Ultron, so that tells you something). Is there a category for this, a la "Characters created by..." categories? That doesn't seem like the right place, but it seems you'd want to know, say, Roy Thomas was perhaps the first person to ever write down the word "adamantium" when you went to the list of his creations. Nor is it redundant to know that, like it might be if you made an entry for Power ring (DC Comics) on Finger's or Nodell's lists because they created Green Lantern, since "adamantium" isn't really associated with its first appearance in comics in most people's minds, but with Wolverine. Just curious. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum
I have been informed that Reed Richards was diagnosed with autism in "Fantastic Four: Season One", and also remember that it was mentioned in "Fantastic Four: 1234". Thus, I would like to request that he is added to this category.
It would be a welcome addition, given the lack of diversity in comics in this area. Autistic people comprise 1.47% of the world population. Yet we have mostly had to make do with being represented by Legion, who has usually read like an offensive stereotype. David A (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
From what I can tell, in Season One, Reed diagnoses himself, and in 1234, it's speculated by others that Reed might have Asperger's. The second is speculative only, even if in-universe. However, the writing of it seems it have made its way through various autism spectrum websites when I was searching, and self-diagnosis seems to be supported by entities like NHS in the UK IRL, so there may be some real-world grounds to support it, even if the primary sources are less clear about it. If that all checks out, I would say be bold and go for it.Luminum (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly how was it worded? Reed Richards, despite all his other qualifications, is not qualified to diagnose himself. If he did not say he had been formally diagnosed, this is not appropriate. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is that true? After doing some searching, I found that UK's NHS views self diagnosis as an appropriate decision for adults weighing their own risks and benefits. (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Autism/Pages/Diagnosisinadults.aspx). Again, this is treading into real/unreal territory, but as far as formal diagnosis goes, it seems that it is not necessary to be considered valid.Luminum (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it be sourceable to the primary source(s), the actual appearance of the alternate version? But I agree that we should stick to secondary sources. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
To perhaps clarify the confusion here, the appearances are sourceable (as in the appearances can be traced to a source material, which is primary), but they may not be notable per WP:RS based on primary sources alone, and therefore wouldn't warrant inclusion. Alternate versions would be notable if they appear/are discussed in secondary sources.Luminum (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Notability determines what we can have an article about, not what information we can include. Also, RS says nothing about notability. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
What does "sourceable" mean? "Sourceable" means that something can be sourced, and indeed, alt universe depictions can all be sourced...back to their primary sources. So they are sourceable (the content exists), but not necessarily worthy of inclusion unless they are discussed in secondary sources. Perhaps instead of "notable" (which I meant in the casual sense), I should have used "significant"/"meaningful"/"impactful", rather than creating a conflation with notability. My bad. (Sidebar RS does say something about notability in its lead: "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Reliable sources are directly related to issues of notability as far as articles go, though, as you said, not directly related to their content.)Luminum (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTEWORTHY is also relevant here, and may also be the word you meant. “Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Notice of spam blacklist discussion
This is a notice that a frequently used source by this project, http://www.screenrant.com, has been requested (and added) to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The request can be found here, and the request for removal can be found here. Editors are invited to weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Justice League Input
A user going by the name Kurzon has been recently deleting entire paragraphs of various articles and rewriting entries with unsourced material. Very recently, this user has repeatedly deleted a section of the Justice League without consensus on the talk page. Despite my constant undoing of his revisions until consensus, he continues to edit the page.
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is an admin category used for a techical purpose, and isn't neccesarily intended to be understood by everybody. It's a hidden category, so only editors can see it anyway. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Rymax23 has been adding quite a few templates to character articles. Someone may want to review these edits to see if this level of coverage is appropriate. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I think his Rogues Gallery additions need to be dealt with; he's adding redirects, one or two time enemies/enemies the template's characters has no significant history with (Master Mold on She-Hulk?Sinister Six on Daredevil?) and links that don't lead to the articles he seems to think they do (Nuclear Man on the Ghost Rider, Scavenger (comics) on Man-Thing, etc.) -- Lord Crayak (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: User Haleth has decided that some templates, such as {{Uncanny Avengers}} and {{Peggy Carter}} are "Not notable enough to warrant a template". However, instead of simply removing these template from articles, he has been moving them to {{West Coast Avengers}}, effectively deleting the templates altogether [2][3]. I've tried to restore what I can, but the histories for those templates are now reversed. So far, all attempts to communicate on his talk page have been removed, with a response on my talk page to mind my own business. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Also @Fortdj33:, next time you should be able to just move the template back. Restoring the "current" view of the template does not restore the histories. I've added necessary requests to the templates to hopefully fix this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I created a problem with the histories, by restoring the contents of the templates, but I couldn't simply move them back, because Haleth had already changed the contents to {{West Coast Avengers}}. To my knowledge, that template did not exist before he started moving things around. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Widespread lead deletions
The user Cebr1979 is deleting the word "American" from the phrase "American comic books" in the lead sentences of comic book articles. The user claims using the word is "trivial". However, the American comic book genre is very different from comic books from Japan and elsewhere; hence, American comic book has its own article. Another editor brought this to my attention, and I'm bringing this to light for other editors. JosephSpiral (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
First, quit being childish. I wasn't "widespread deleting," I was removing trivial (and sometimes incorrect) info from the lead that was only put there by a random IP address who had never edited before until today. Most of those characters have been published by Marvel UK as well (and, a lot of them, also in Brazil) so it's a little misleading. Sorry to have hurt your precious feelings on the matter, I didn't realise you owned the lead of these articles and would take such offense. Goodness gracious, whatever have I caused here? Oh, I just feel terrible. Joseph, I do so ever hope you can recover.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You don't endear yourself when you talk like an asslicking bitch, Cebr1979. The issue is deeper, anyways: they are characters of American origin, and that they appear in comic books (or the comics medium) is a secondary, non-defining characteristic. That they are American needs to be put back in, but not with such poor, misleading wording as "appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics" in the definitional, opening sentence. Curly Turkey¡gobble!11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the "vicious insults" only draw this kind of attention when they incorparate certain words, eh? The comment I was replying to was far more uncivil, and my comment was designed to bring that vicious disruptiveness to an immediate end. Why did Cebr1979's comment not "stun" you? Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the lead to not have "American" in there. However, they are American comic books and that is correct. For example, it is not incorrect to call the comics Wonder Woman appears in "American". I don't see how it's trivial. "American" hasn't just been added by a "random IP", "American" has been in the lead of certain articles for ages. It doesn't matter really. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to include it, too. Most cultural products, particularly widely exported ones like comic book characters and TV shows and films, are identified by their country of origin.Zythe (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Cebr1979, you're claiming that all you did was remove information from the lead put by a random IP. That's simply not true, as the issue being brought forth is your strategic deletion of one word: "American". Second, no one "owns" the lead, obviously, and the general consistency of the leads through consensus makes for quality articles. Third, it's not a matter of whether or not the comic books appear in other countries. Of course they do. However, the American comic book is in itself a particular genre, very different from Japanese manga, for example. The burden of proof is on you to delineate why using the word "American" is trivial, since it most clearly is not. JosephSpiral (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Lg16spears regularly posts information to character articles about other media appearances. The problem is that he seems to often post rumors, uses non-reliable sources, and sometimes even adds information that is very clearly not supported by the information in the sources that he does use. He does not seem to respond when his edits are reverted, or when warnings are placed on his talk page. What can be done in this situation? 2601:240:C703:5340:D477:9535:887D:52C (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether action is warranted, but is there a way we can reach out to him that hasn't been done before? 2601:240:C703:5340:102D:B603:C45E:5C30 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Go with a WP:ANI. He's had one for him before when he had similar behavior, and he had that because nothing else seemed to reach him. He makes good faith edits, but sometimes he gets out of line of what is allowed on Wikipedia and he needs to be nudged back into better behavior. Spidey10413:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Do toys and games qualify as 'other media'?
User:TriiipleThreat has been removing the info from lots of character pages (like this one). I think this kind of information belongs on the character pages, and I think it belongs in the media section based on the broader fine arts definition. However, I can see an arguement for removing it based on the narrower communication definition. I guess it comes down to how you view comics and comic properties, and I wanted to get a general consensus before I reverted any of his edits. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I think most readers use the media (communication) definition, and it would be a stretch to define toys and games as a fine art. Also most of the items listed in these sections are either unsourced or poorly sourced to unreliable sources or primary sources. Furthermore, the lists are hopelessly incomplete because out of the thousands of character-related merchandising, only a few are listed without any indication given as to why one is more notable than other. It all reeks of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think its better to describe this information in the general sense, backed by third-party reliable sources, as suggested by @Jhenderson777: on my talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that these don't belong in the "In other media" section by the strict media/communication definition, but I think it is information that is important to include. For a character like Spider-Man there are tons of toys and it will be hard to list all of them. For characters like Cardiac and Demogoblin removing that information removes all (or almost all) of their adaptations outside of the comic books, so it is important to be included. Unfortunately that brings us to a tough argument of when the list is short enough to include everything and when it is too long to include everything and becomes indiscriminate. Also, it is possible to find reliable sources for the toys, but I don't think any user has put in the effort to do so. Spidey10419:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If we change the "In other media" heading to something like "Adaptations outside of comic books" it would include toys and games. Spidey10419:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of the edits I saw removed sections that were essentially lists of toys and other merchandise. Do we really need sources confirming each toy exists? And how can any source be unreliable when it's being used to say "this exists"? Isn't that entering WP:BLUE territory? If you think some of the listed items are false or questionable, it seems like a [cn] tag or selected removal would be the best option, not wholesale deletion.
Generalizing bulkier lists into prose and including souces to toy reviews would be a good idea, but it may be easier to do if the list is already present to work from. Why not add a Template:Prose tag to the article? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The mere fact that a toy exists doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. What makes it encycolpedic is it's coverage by third-party reliable sources. If nobody except those directly associated with the product cares, then why should we? WP:INDISCRIMINATE speaks directly against these kinds of excessive listing of data.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think INDISCRIMINATE would support adding the toys to most (minor) character articles. The first example of what not to do is summary-only articles on fiction and says "Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." As pointed out above, there are a significant number of characters who have only appeared outside comic books through toys, and these sections are frequently the only real-world information provided in the articles. In the context of their notability, perhaps it's not always clear from an individiual article. However, collectively, there are loads of comic characters who do not have a toy/statue/gamepiece made after them. The mere existance of one, in my opinion, adds some amount of notability to the character because someone (usually not the publisher) has deemed that character popular enough that mechandising them would be profitable. For what it's worth, the inclusion in a toyline is actually one of the criteria I use when trying to decide if a character is independantly notable or should be merged to the list of Marvel Comics characters. I also don't think you can use INDISCRIMINATE to explain this edit, where you removed the words "action figures" and "trading cards" from a list of merchandised Galactus has appeared in. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It would only count towards the notability of the character if the information were sourced to a reliable entity that is not associated with the product whether its licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling or trading. Someone else must take note of it for it to be considered notable. The other edit falls under WP:LEAD and WP:V, as uncited information that is not cited anywhere in the body.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Some toys (or other merchandise) can be worth noting. Some don't. The best way to know if is (as TriiipleThreat said) third party reliable sources. Another way to know is that they already have their own article like this. Also I believe information regarding the company that is allowed to sell the character is worth noting as long as they are sourced. Regarding it being called "other media". I do think toylines can qualify. Definitely with franchises like Transformers and G.I. Joe. Jhenderson77722:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Can a compromise be reached where we have articles about the toylines, which include lists of which characters had figures? 2601:240:C703:5340:8DE2:1EDF:95B5:86C8 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There are articles for most of the current toylines, and links to them were typically provided in the list. If TriiipleThreat's edits are left in place, then there will be no indication to a reader to look at those articles because there is no indication in the character articles that toys have ever been produced. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that toys and games should be included "In other media", as long as it is properly cited. It might be overwhelming for a character such as Spider-Man, but popular characters usually have a separate article like Spider-Man in other media for that. For other characters, an appearance in a toyline or video game can help to establish mainstream notability. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I partially agree with TriiipleThreat that these lists can become indiscriminate, but I think the best solution to this problem is to tag those sentences with {{citation needed}} so reliable third party sources can be found. (And obviously his recent deletions of that information would have to be reverted first.) If third party sources are not added within a year (I think that's the typical waiting period for 'citation needed' tags) we can start this discussion again and possibly delete the information again if no one has found reliable sources. Does that sound good to everyone? Spidey10413:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
A couple of things: #1. I would be fine with that for characters with limited presence in toys and games. For characters like Spider-Man, and Batman, I think a more general prose section is better. #2. The information should go under a separate heading like "Merchandising" that is separate and removed from "In other media" sections and articles. I still don't think toys and games are considered media under the most generally accepted definition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
1: Agreed, but how do we define the difference between characters? For characters like Batman and Spider-Man it's obvious, but the medium exposure characters that could be argued both ways are going to be tough and potentially contentious.
2: Do we want to go with a separate heading like "Merchandising" or change "In other media" to something like "Adaptations outside of comic books" that could include the toys/games and everything else that is under the "In other media" heading? Spidey10414:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the amount of coverage. If it starts looking like a laundry list, I would say it should be turned into a general prose section about merchandising rather than focusing on specific products. Either way, but I think a separate heading would be less intrusive than renaming articles and sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a consensus here that while toys are not necessarily a communications medium, they may or may not be a fine arts medium; however, given that various forms of children's dolls and similar figurines have been found almost throughout recorded history, there is also a broader historical/cultural context. Plus, these things are about as close to mass-produced sculpture as many characters are likely to get, but no less culturally significant for that fact. And I think requiring something to be "fine art" relies a little too much on opinion. I would support third-party sourced inclusion, especially for characters for which representation in the medium of action figures and/or the medium of other similar toys is surprising (for instance, there is a real licensed action figure for the Flaming Carrot!). There are surprisingly encyclopedic collectors' guides available online and in print, especially for comic book superhero characters. Certainly one could reference those among other sources. I also agree with TriiipleThreat that for the most part, prose is preferable to a laundry list.Boomshadowtalkcontribs16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Boomshadow. I think we'll have to start with reintroducing the information back into the articles and then from there slowly improve them with prose and reliable sources. Spidey10415:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
One significant risk we run is that people will just remove the tags without adding sources. The usual argument given for removing citation needed tags in "Other media" sections is that it is obvious, if you observe the media, that a tag is not needed. 2601:240:C703:5340:802A:A67:28FB:EF19 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
In the filmCatwoman there is a picture of Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. Supposedly that makes it connected to the four Batman feature films. I am uncertain that makes it official. If not than I feel that is an issue of these two articles. Especially the highest-grossing film article. An featured list article. Jhenderson77721:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I've checked on the list and it separates it into "Main Series" and "Catwoman". That appears sufficient to me. I think we'll need to get some consensus before a change. Iady391 | Talk to me here21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello chaps. I've noticed that for a lot of female comic characters we specify where they rank in some "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" list. However we don't seem to do this for the chaps. This strikes me as unfair and not a little ungentlemanly. We shouldn't be behaving like boors by alluding to some kind of attractiveness ranking for anyone in my opinion, but if we are going to do so we should at least make it an equal opportunity thing. Otherwise I would recommend we drop this rather tawdry bit of trivial fluff from female characters articles. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there an equally notable list for chaps? If so, we should include it. If not, there's no reason to remove sourced content from reliable publications like Comics Buyer's Guide. Characters are designed for a certain appeal, the list reflects the reception of said design. It should also be noted that WP:BLP includes comparable lists under their scope articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If the listing exists, then they should be added. If they don't exist, it's no reason to remove them from character pages where such reliable sources already exist. The lists, while a manifestation of the generally one-sided sexual objectification of women in general, are still reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the character. And that happens to be, for better or worse, due to how notable the character is for their "sexiness". A more balanced approach would be to, where possible, even out the character's appearance on such lists with other sources and content demonstrating the character's notability for many other reasons. And, by all means, if male characters appear on similarly RS lists, feel free to add it (this is a good start: http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters/).Luminum (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No. No, no, no, no, no. And no some more. List articles are spacefillers at best, entirely subjective,and of no objective worth. And that was before the advent of the listicle debased the currency even further. Even the Rolling Stone lists are of questionable value, this one is pure sophomoric worthlessness from beginning to end. The fact that the listing exists is not a justification for including it, per WP:IINFO, and it is absolutely not a justification for giving it any prominence whatsoever in the article. $RANDOMSOURCE put this character at $RANDOMNUMBER in $RANDOMLIST should never be in the lede. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ofcourse they are subjective. That is their nature as are all Top lists, reviews and awards. As Luminum pointed out a character's reception helps establish its WP:Real world notability. Now you can argue if it merits inclusion in the lead per WP:WEIGHT but a ranking by a notable publication should be included in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Every single publication in the universe has hundreds of list articles. This is one of the most sophomoric and meretricious, IMO, but that's an aside. This falls squarely in the realm of indiscriminate information. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd say this falls just below the IGN listing of 100 greatest heroes or villains. It's subjective, and the list is large enough to include pretty much all the significant characters. It's not the kind of thing I include when I create or improve articles, but I'm not inclined to remove it if others add it. I do think it's innappropriate for a lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion in lead, to me, depends on the structure of the lead and the article as a whole. If the lead contains other similar superlatives and no reception section, then the would probably be the best fit. If there is a reception or design section then I think it should be included there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
My feeling is this. If the list is simply just a list, then it is not very helpful. However, if the list includes some commentary (which they often do), such as why the person writing the list thinks certain qualities mean one character should be rated over another, then that can be valid reception info. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Just to make up an example: "Magazine X rated Captain America the number one superhero, because they stated that he represents timeless values." 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think TriiipleThreat nailed it with the reasonings why that shouldn't happen. Although I do feel that OP's comment was quite amusing even if it wasn't intended to be. Jhenderson77722:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I brought this here because I think it should be discussed. I undid this split, first of all. Should we split the main character who used this name from Wasp (comics) to Janet van Dyne?
I don't either. Janet hasn't had a lot of different codenames like Carol Danvers, and the Wasp identity hasn't been passed around like Captain Marvel. This seems fine as is. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems like it may be that users are trying to make the argument for a split based on the MCU's interpretation of the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This field doesn't seem to be clearly defined only featuring the description "Partners include any current or previous partners. Please stick to notable partnerships. Also, please avoid "employee/employer" relationships." As seen on articles like Batman and Superman it's ripe for abuse in listing pretty much anyone the character has ever worked with and since the guideline is so loose, there's no real way to determine if it is being misused or not. It also seems redundant in some cases to the Team Affiliations field, since for instance Batman has "Batman Family" under team, but then all the individual members thereof. Ideally I think this field is not essential to the infobox and should be removed, but if need be the guideline needs to be rewritten to clarify what it is for and what it is not for, and perhaps put a limit on quantity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit war at Wonder Woman over "who" vs "that" for fictional characters
Despite the RfC we had in May this year that determined we are not required to use "that" to refer to fictional characters (e.g. "Nelvana is a fictional superhero who ..."), Cebr1979 is edit warring at Wonder Woman to force "that" where "who" was being used. He has been informed of the RfC on both his user page and mine, as well as in an edit summary. Can we do something about this contentious editing? Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As is I've already stated on your talk page, "That conversation you linked to is mostly about "he/she" and they have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The few times "who vs. that" comes up, you're the only one who thinks you're right. Please just go with the consensus. It is correct."Cebr1979 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
You've seen the consensus (you're the one who brought it up). It seems more like you still just don't like it. It's time to accept it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've seen the consensus as well. The onus is on you to provide evidence of widespread real-world usage and styleguide recommendations. Of course, no such thing exists, because the premise is absurd. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
<annoying edit conflicts> The onus is on you to follow consensus instead of repeatedly trying to make your way the right one.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness... it talks about gender pronouns being okay (he/she). It doesn't say what you're claiming it does about who/that, though. In fact (aside from what you say), it says the opposite of what you claim... and I'm really not interested in having the same consensus talk all over again just so you can try and be right this time.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you can't be bothered to provide even the slightest evidence that your absurd proposal has anything resembling validity. Fine, we can safely ignore you and your imaginary "consensus". Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, here is evidence (3,760,000 hits) that "a character who" is extremely widespread in printed books. And no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is recommended to be avoided outside Wikipedia. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The consensus of the RFC boiled down to it being a question of context. This particular edit ("other characters who adopted this name" vs "other characters that have adopted this name") talks about the character in a fictional context, and who is the proper fit. Since this is all going in an about note at the top, why not sidestep the question by shortening it to "other characters given this name"? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not true at all. The fact that it is talking about the "character" in a fictional context is exactly what makes the character a thing where "that" is a proper fit. Had we been talking about her in a real-word/in-universe context, "who" would then be proper. However, I can see this is going to confuse many so I'll just change it to the "given this name" compromise you mentioned.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The kicker seems to be is that the sentence describes the characters performing an action (like people) rather than having an action performed upon them, like objects. "Characters who have taken up the cowl" or "characters who were arrested by Amanda Waller" makes sense, and so does "characters that have been marketed to children." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not particularly satisfied with the current She-Hulk image, and would rather change it to a version that i.m.h.o. better embodies what the character is about.
The consensus here is coming out pretty overwhelmingly "No, in fact they're standard." The only issue is whether the MoS or MOS:FICTION should state this explicitly or whether it's so obvious and the problem so minor that it can be expected to go without saying. Contributions still welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not the actual matter under discussion though, no matter what the heading says; it's whether its best to rewrite to avoid confusing uses of "who[m]" and "[s]he" in an out-of-universe context. Attempts by Curly Turkey to spin this discussion as some kind of "ban the use of 'who' in fiction articles" move is misleading nonsense; the discussion has long since moved past that idea (which was a reductio ad absurdum, making it a non-neutral RfC to begin with; the entire point of framing the question that was to provoke an extreme negative reaction out of this and related projects). — SMcCandlish ☺☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you take a look at the inciting edit, you'll see that an editor was indeed saying "who is only for real people - fictional characters are things". You may not like the way Curly Turkey paraphrased, but then again you're twisting his words too. The RfC asks "Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?" If you're saying the answer is "Yes, passages should be rewritten to avoid them in a real-world context," then I don't see how his original question was poorly framed. It was an open ended question that does not lend itself to any of the 3 solutions that have been proposed. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you actually look at the discussion in question you will in fact notice that, exactly as I said, the focus long ago shifted to whether MOS should advise rewording to avoid confusing constructions, not whether who or [s]he should be "banned" or "permitted" (in- or out-of-universe). — SMcCandlish ☺☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've never written an article about a comic before so I find myself looking at a lot of unfamiliar sources, but I've been working on Millennium (2015 comic book) and would like to know if Comic Book Round Up, and/or any of the "critic reviews" it lists can be considered reliable in terms of the critical reception of a work. Thanks for any advice. GRAPPLEX08:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Comicbookroundup is an acceptable source, and you can use it in a comic article like film articles use RottenTomatoes or book articles use GoodReads. Most of the sites they aggregate are also acceptable, but you'll want to be selective about which ones you use and what information you're taking from them because they're not equally reliable or equal quality reviews. If you'd like an example of how ComicBookRoundup has been used, I used it here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
1.) Spiderfan.org is not a reliable source. 2.) The article says that the story made references to King Kong, Attack of the Fifty-Foot Woman, and mainstream Avengers continuity, but says nothing of the cover.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
First, the image’s file page already describes the #13 Attack of the 50-Foot Girl! (2007) cover as being “based on” the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) movie poster. WP style dictates that image sourcing should appear on the file page so an additional inline caption citation is gratuitous, at best. WP:CREDITS. If there is a problem with the file page of a fair-use image, then that needs to be resolved on the file page.
Second, Spinderfan.org should be considered a reliable source on this point. It is one of the top five or so Spiderman websites and, crucially, it employs a staff editor. The reviewer’s reference is clear to anyone familiar with the movie poster; requiring direct support is not the same thing as requiring a direct statement. The image description is at most a lightweight claim and so even a lightweight source would suffice. WP:UGC.
Regardless, an image description does not require additional sources. Describing an image is not original research because it neither synthesizes nor analyzes. The verification is the image itself. WP:WHYCITE. An additional reliable source would not be needed to state that Spiderman appears in the cover image. Just so, an additional reliable source is not needed to verify that the cover image is based on the move poster. Again, please consider WP:Blue.
Our disagreement may be about the artist’s intent. An additional reliable source may be needed to verify that the artist intended an homage or a tribute. I would agree that an intentionally neutral description such as “reminiscent of” or “similar to” would be more appropriate. Lord Monboddo (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't know what to point you to, but I can suggest a layout. I'd keep the opening sections, and then cut back on a lot of the prose, because in theory, all of what you have here should be further expanded upon at Joker in other media. So like I said, keep the opening few sentences, then say something along the lines of "In live-action television, Joker has been portrayed by X, Y, Z", repeating for animation TV, live-action and animation film, and video games. You really just want to give a short overview of what the reader can find out more about at the "in other media" page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe giving a bit more context though for Hamill and Ledger, given the images and they are considered the "iconic" portrayals. But otherwise, you should just be able to list all the voice actors or portrays in each media type. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Separation on In other media section between animation and live-action
Is a separation like this necessary? I am concerned because the other character articles do not do this. Are these sections in the Doctor Strange article too long and need to be split in the first place? 2001:558:6033:DB:4CB2:272E:895F:9F1A (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Because of both Loki's nature as a deity, and his changing role as a character over the years, I am concerned that labeling him as supervillain is a bit simplistic. Therefore, I contend that "fictional character" is a better description. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he is a supervillain. Do you know how many times he's antagonized innocents and killed? Do you know this is why he is one of the Avengers' archenemies over the years? As such, I've put the label back. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I've stopped reverting a while ago, and it doesn't look like this talk page gets much traffic, so the discussion will probably take some time, if ever. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This page gets lots of traffic, actually. Especially when there's a topic worth discussing. You may be right that Loki has antagonized and killed innocents, but there have also been times when he's helped protagonists and saved lives. Per WP:ANTAGONIST, it's best to use a more generic label (fictional character) and let the reader determine for him/herself if Loki is a villain. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Civil War Reception
I was going to add sources to Civil_War_(comics)#Reception because the first paragraph makes general statements about reception while citing nothing. I know plenty of sources worth citing. However, I then saw that the second paragraph quotes me, so I should not touch it. I bring this up here because the link citing me is dead. I took the paper off the Internet once it became a journal article (which has now been reprinted in a book). So leave it alone, remove it altogether, or fix the citation. I obviously have COI, but the dead link bugs me. I'll add the correct source information below. Do with it (or don't) as you will.
Langley, T. (2015). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. In K. M. Scott (Ed.), Marvel Comics’ Civil War and the age of terror: Critical essays on the comic saga (pp. 69-76). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Langley, T. (2009). Freedom versus security: The basic human dilemma from 9/11 to Marvel’s Civil War. International Journal of Comic Art, 11(1), 426-435.
Okay this whole category listing is screwed up. For the older years, it's listed as "COMICS". Apparently somebody started shifting everything to "COMICS", but then stopped at the 80s, leading to a big mess. I'm not even sure if that's right. All I know this is screwed up, and needs to be fixed, but fixed right. Templates can't just be changed without moving the actual cats. JDDJS (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Category pages have a move option. If Comics is the preferred format, just move the old Comic category. If not, the recent moves need to be undone. Either way, some consistency should be in place. Avicennasis @ 03:44, 1 Tishrei 5776 / 03:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I proposed the singular at CFD for merger into the plural. If that's it, then it'll resolve itself fairly soon. There should be a comic debuts by year main category though so I'll create that which should help either way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I have created the article Comics collection and it is linked to on a few pages. It has been marked as needing to be developed from a definition to a full article. If anyone wants to help, much appreciated. Or offer input on whether it should just be a dictionary definition (that's okay too)! Bod (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Those edits weren't from the lead, they were from the PH, FCB, and "Friends and Relationships" section. It didn't belong in the PH, but it does seem appropriate for the FCB and F&R sections. As they were, it did seem like undue weight for a recent development though. It also seems early to add the categories. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
616 Iceman is gay, that was the whole point. The creators have been quite clear that younger Iceman's coming out has implications for older, closeted Iceman, as they relate to being a teenager in the present vs. when older Bobby grew up. Should be in lead and categories. Zythe (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be cynical, but creators are always hyping the most recent developments. How long will these "implications" play out? Will they survive a new writer taking over? Will they be undone by some universe shattering event? I think putting a six month old development in the lead for a 60ish year old character is treading into WP:BALASPS issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It turns out they just had the issue where older 616 Iceman came out, and admitted to being closeted. Plenty of sources. It's always the same when nerdy stuff meets gay stuff on Wikipedia, an urge to explain it away, but it's really just a category and a category that links depictions of gay men in comics, which you cannot deny Iceman is.Zythe (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It turns out I never denied anything. I merely voiced skepticism iceman would remain that way, the same skepticism I voice when, say, editors want to rename the Ms. Marvel page Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) one month after her new book came out. (note: I'm aware I didn't participate in that conversation. It's an example.) I think adding something as recent as this to a lead is sloppy, and I think it's (so far) too minor to rate a category tag - what percentage of the page, or even the FCB, mentions anything related to iceman's homosexuality? I don't use categories much, but I suspect anyone wanting to look through one wouldn't want it crowded with articles that are barely relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Do editors believe that information regarding his sexuality should or should not be in the body of the article, independent of whether or not it's in the lead? As of now there is an edit war, and this information keeps being deleted. I believe it should be in the body on the article. (Formerly Joseph Spiral) DrRNC (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Given our focus is the real world, and real world notability, it should at least be covered - if not substantially analysed with sourced reactions. This is X-Men after all; it's the core theme of one of the most successful comics of all time, being explored in a major character after what some would say were years of hints from different writers. That's real-world notable.Zythe (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Is Win Wiacek's "Now Read This!" blog of reviews considered reliable?
It seems reliable enough for what it's being used to source - critical reaction and existence of things. Mongo (fictional planet) is the only article where it's being used for a substantial claim, but I'm not familiar enough with Mongo or Wiacek to know if it's acceptable. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is everyone on the project satisfied with one of the main articles on the subject: Comics?
The owner of that page, since about February 2013, has a very specific idea of what that page should be like.
It is not at all the article I expected to read. It feels archaic and erudite and even obscure.
I would hope there would be support from the project to allow changes to that page. Otherwise, it will just stay the same. Bod (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#In-line use of dates and issue numbers "The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance" Please note the term "cover date" rather than "made up date". The Grand Comics Database gives the cover date of All Star Comics #3 as "Winter 1940-1941" and an on-sale date of "1940-11-22". The ComicBookdb gives it as "Winter 1940". Mike's Amazing World of Comics also gives a cover date of "Winter 1940" and an on-sale date of November 22, 1940 and has a snippet view of the Library of Congress copyright record as verification!
So why in the name of Gardner Fox did someone change the cover date of All-Star Comics #3 to "December 1940"? The cover clearly shows the word "Winter" NOT "December" or "Dec."
Per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#In-line use of dates and issue numbers "The lead section of a character's, team's or object's article should include within the text the issue number and cover date of the first appearance" Please note the term "cover date" rather than "made up date". The Grand Comics Database gives the cover date of Superman #1 as "Summer 1939" and an on-sale date of "1939-05-18". The ComicBookdb gives it as "Summer 1939". Mike's Amazing World of Comics also gives a cover date of "Summer 1939" and an on-sale date of May 18, 1939 and has a snippet view of the Library of Congress copyright record as verification!
So why in the names of Siegel and Shuster did someone change the cover date of Superman #1 to "June 1939"? The cover does not have the word "June" anywhere on it.
Here are print citations for the issues in question as well as the similarly-dated Batman #1:
DC Comics: Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes by Les Daniels, 1995, Bulfinch Press, ISBN 0821220764 page 54 gives a date of "Winter 1940" for All Star Comics #3; page 22 gives a date of "Summer 1939" for Superman #1; and page 38 gives a date of "Spring 1940" for Batman #1.
The All Star Companion by Roy Thomas, 2000, TwoMorrows Publishing, ISBN 978-1893905054 page 44 gives a date of "Winter 1940" for All Star Comics #3; page 41 gives a date of "Summer 1939" for Superman #1; and page 35 gives a date of "Spring 1940" for Batman #1.
75 Years of DC Comics The Art of Modern Mythmaking by Paul Levitz, 2010, Taschen America, ISBN 9783836519816 page 57 gives a date of "Winter 1940-1941" for All Star Comics #3; page 79 gives a date of "Summer 1939" for Superman #1; page 115 gives a date of "Spring 1940" for Batman #1.
I probably should have put it to a vote in a discussion before adding it to the article. I'm not a comics reader, so I don't know how things are done around these parts regarding "In other media". Sorry about the confusion and if it's decided that it's not an appropriate category, I won't fight. (IJVin (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC))
I don't think it belongs. The DSM criteria for PTSD vs acute stress disorder is dependent on timing of the symptoms in regards to when the traumatic event occurred. The article referenced does not delineate this, and one would need more information to give the appropriate diagnosis. I find that when armchair diagnoses are given to fictional characters, they're almost always wrong. This was the case with Deadpool, in which editors attempted to diagnose him with any number of psychiatric conditions based on inconclusive evidence. Unless a Marvel/DC Universe physician makes a diagnosis for a character with an abnormality, I advise editors avoid trying to give diagnoses themselves. DrRNC (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
An SPA redlink editor at Superman has been making wholesale edits, many of which have pushed a particular book, by Brad Ricca, that was never cited in the article and now has been cited there several times. I suspect a COI issue. In any event, this editor, with very few edits outside this article, has been combative when I've pointed out Wikipedia guidelines, MOS and even a policy (WP:NONFREE) that he was breaking. For example, this passage on the talk page:
Tenebrae: Would it be possible for you to add a "quote= " field to your book cites, so that other editors can see what the book is saying?
BaronBifford: You want me to actually quote passages from my books? This is first time that has been demanded of me on Wikipedia.
I've tried to accentuate the positive — thanking him on the talk page for his often very good copy edits [4], and for this initially collegial response [5] — but he was edit-warring until I pointed our WP:BRD and overall has been behaving WP:OWN-ishly. As I pointed out to him, some three-quarters of his edits have gone through without issue. But he clearly wants what he wants, apparently primarily to push this Ricca book, and I'd simply like to ask other editors to look at the talk page, particularly at Talk:Superman#Superman, the immigrant story, before anything continues to escalate. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. After reading the conversation on the Superman talk page, the editor does show a bias, and it looks as though a particular work is being promoted in the edits. DrRNC (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc. I'm trying to work collaboratively with him, and posted a proposal today on how to go forward. We're in agreement that Superman deserves to be a GA, and I'd like to call on my fellow veteran editors to join in, as you indeed already have started to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I do admire this editor's attempts to improve the article by putting the work in. It would be great if you could work with him in making it better, as the Superman article in general is lacking quality. DrRNC (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted most of the changes by new user Mothmz on Moon Knight, because as I explained in my edit summary, a lot of wikilinks were removed for no apparent reason, and some of the additions appear to be unsourced original research and opinions. I may or may not have cut back too much? I did try to retain most of the updated material on the newer comic series that the user added though. The user reverted my changes, and went on a number of talk pages trying to explain themselves. What is the best way to resolve this situation? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I replied to him on the Moon Knight talk page. Is that the same material he put on other talk pages? If not, can you link to the other discussions? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems almost at random where he was placing some of these things, but that includes:
He seems to be a new user trying to figure out how things work, so I appreciate you trying to give him some guidance. I noticed a sentiment of "my submissions shouldn't need to be reviewed" so if that is the case, he may need some explanation in that regard. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The list of abilities in this article is outrageous. Per consensus (archived discussion) we only list the character's most recognizable abilities in the infobox. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Further details can be expounded in prose in the Powers and abilities section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I shortened the list, but a red IP user reverted my edit with some nonsensical abilities like "superb athlete". DrRNC (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
A better standard for organizing character articles (?)
I'm looking at Green Lantern, and trying to work on it. But its a little difficult. I barely get the gist of it through youtube videos. But there has to be a better way of organizing character information. Especially if there are retcons and such. I was thinking. The first thing i thought would be beneficial is having a physical list of publications regarding these characters. The only thing is to actually make the list. At least that way Comic book articles can feel a little more tangible to edit by just following the order of their release. Of course the retcons is one of the most difficult things to look into. Lucia Black (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I think if you try to add a list of every comic that's ever featured a Green Lantern (or just Hal Jordan - I assume that's who you're actually talking about), you'll meet a lot of resistance, especially it you're also suggesting discussing the contents of the issues at the same time. Publication is real world information, events happening in the story are fictional. Those two types of information should rarely, if ever, be mixed. There's also a vague consensus not to have 'bibliography' sections detailing ever appearance in a list form, although I'm not sure which (if any) official guidelines that's based on. A publication history section that list appearances in paragraph form is one work around (see Thanos), although that's usually reserved for B list characters who are almost always 'guests' in other books instead of headlining their own titles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying a list that features them, but a list that is specifically labeled as part of the Green Lantern series. I'm not so sure how to handle it because Comic book "issues" are placed at higher value than other forms of Comics that im familiar with. But still, it would be a benefit to make a list-article for that. And no, cameo's or guest appearance isn't what i'm talking about. Perhaps the softcover/hardcover compiled volumes can help make it easier to organize. Lucia Black (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
An example of what i was considering is more closer to Batgirl. A list of publications for Green Lantern could be good by dividing it up to "All-American Comics" and "DC". Lucia Black (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. I'd suggest proposing in on the Green Lantern page you're wanting to alter to get opinions on the best divisions, or be bold and do what you think is best. I'm not familiar enough with GL's history to offer much. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify. What i'm proposing is a "List of (insert comic book series) issues/chapters/volumes" article. For every series out there. So if there is a Spider-man comic book article, we make a separate, individual, List of Spider-Man comic book issues or volumes, or chapters. That way we can organize story-related content based on how the comics (or the collected volumes) are done. Rather than being organized by the fan completely. i only mentoined green lantern as an example. Lucia Black (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Batman live-action actors
Editors, please weigh in on which actors should or should not be listed as portraying Batman on screen. You can do so here. Basically, the chid actor who plays Bruce Wayne on the TV show Gotham is being listed as playing Batman. It's argued by an editor in the edit history that Bruce and Batman are one and the same, so he should be listed in the lead paragraphs as playing him. However, I do not believe it's the same thing, since Batman is the costumed superhero who the article is about. This child actor does not appear as Batman in costume on this TV show. If we're to list child actors who play Bruce and not Batman, then we should list all the child actors who played Bruce Wayne on film. I don't think we should be listing these child actors who have appeared only as young Bruce Waynes and never as Batman the costumed superhero. DrRNC (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
fansite used for reference in 40 articles
I reverted an IP address who added this to an article, and then searched and found it used in 40 other places. [6] Their FAQ on their website says they are not connected to Marvel and do not have any access to any access to information other than what they read on news sites. Its used as a reference in many articles right now. Any bot that could remove these all at once? DreamFocus03:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've started removing a few of them that were just added as an external link. It's used to source a claim on Louise Simonson. The site's filtered on my work computer, so I can't evaluate if it's reliable enough to leave in. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with wiki's guidelines for notable podcasts. Would someone who is mind to review Uncanny X-Cast? It's a rather long article filled with inappropriate content, and I'm not sure if it should be trimmed and salvaged or just nominated for deletion... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
A couple years back, i recommended re-organizing the templates by splitting up media-related articles from in-universe related into their navboxes. I didn't get a lot of traction on it, but this time i took the liberty to re-organizing template:Green Lantern navbox by separating media and in=universe into two sections without splitting the navbox. I believe we should take this format as an example for all the other navboxes.
The navbox is designed to help readers (and editors) navigate through articles. If they get too convoluted, it wont be easy to navigate to, and prioritize. What do you all think about this new format? Is it better?04:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Lucia Black (talk)
I think it's a good idea. My only quibble is whether the headings "Media" and "Universe" can be understood by the average reader. I know that if I were stumble upon those headings in a navbox without being given prior explanation, I wouldn't know what to make of them.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
A novella is shorter than a novel. I guess comic books might be considered that, although 30 pages an issue and story arcs usually last enough issues to have enough pages to be considered a novel. "graphic novella" gets 38,700 Google search results and "graphic novel" gets 13,500,000. DreamFocus18:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to graphic novel. That's the more common term, and the article for the term even makes clear how nebulous it's meaning is. Short stories, novellas, novelettes, and novels are typically distinguished by word count. Comic books and graphic novels are typically distinguished by binding. I think this is just a case of someone using a mixed metaphor. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I would argue with the claim that it's "typically distinguished by binding", as it most typically is used to describe content, not format. Maus is described as "a graphic novel" whether we're discussing the original magazine serialization, the two-volume book release, the single-volume book release, or an e-book edition (and before anyone checks, no, it doesn't look like there's a current e-book edition, but it was available as a CD-ROM at one point, if memory serves.) It is certainly also used to describe binding in some instances, but within comics specialty there still seems to be a willingness to separate the square-bound anthology from the graphic novel. (Of course, comics terminology is a mess.) But I think that "graphic novella" is a term that can be understood contextually well without being precise. "Novella" itself is a term that suggests length but does not have a standard limit - or rather, has a range of standards used in different contexts. If we have a reliable source using the term "graphic novella" to describe the work, we should not be afraid to use it; while it may not be precise, it does give more description. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Word_count#In_fiction explains the situation well. Different people use a different word count to define things as a novel, novella, novelette, or short story. Since graphic novel is commonly used for any form of comic book, as the article for it clearly indicates at Graphic_novel#Definition, we should just stick with it. DreamFocus03:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I had a pretty good grasp of what a "novella" was, but "graphic novella" was confusing me, since while I have seen "graphic novel" used to refer to comic books of a particular length (or that were published as one-off, complete stories of longer length than a standard single issue of a monthly comic book), this definition couldn't be extended to "graphic novella", and if we were going by a content-based definition, then the distinction between "novel" and "novella" would seem to be too vague as to be extended to comics. Either way, even if a reliable source does describe the work that way (likely, as it seems a bit far-fetched for a Wikipedian to have invented the phrase out of whole cloth), it's probably to vague and problematic a term for us to be using in a disambiguation page for a book that doesn't have its own article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I was going to add some information from the Stan Lee interview in Alter Ego to the "publication history" section of Green Goblin, but I immediately hit a snag. The info concerns the unveiling of the Green Goblin's identity, and the existing info on that subject uses WP: Weasel words: "According to one theory, Lee always wanted him to be someone Peter Parker knew, while Ditko wanted him to be a stranger, feeling this was closer to real life." The use of weasel words is perplexing, since the statement is sourced. Unfortunately, without knowing who this "one theory" comes from (it might be the reference's author, but it might not), I can't properly integrate my new info with the existing info. The same statement also appears in Norman Osborn, with the same reference and the same weasel words. Is there anyone here who has access to the cited source and can tell me who this "one theory" originates from?--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've read that 'theory' outside of Wikipedia before... maybe in a Wizard? I'm 70% sure it was a Lee interview. Does it contradict the new info you want to add? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! No, the interview I found supports that 'theory', which is why I want to be sure of the source... If the existing reference is also based on a Stan Lee interview, then I'm not really adding anything new to the article.
Looking over the three sources you have linked plus the Alter Ego interview, it seems that the "Steve Ditko wanted the Green Goblin to be a previously unseen character" version is based on statements from Stan Lee and John Romita, Sr. (though I think Ditko's established modus operandi also strongly supports this version), whereas the "Steve Ditko wanted the Green Goblin to be Norman Osborn, or at any rate some character the readers were familiar with" version is based on statements from Steve Ditko. So, since apparently no one here has access to the article's existing source to check, I'm going to assume that it too cites Lee and/or Romita and will edit in the new sources based on that assumption.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Help with Complete Peanuts
Folks, I could use a little help. At this point, both the pages Peanuts and The Complete Peanuts talk about the book series The Complete Peanuts as being 25 volumes. That was the original plan, but the series has been extended to a 26th volume. I cannot edit that information myself because I have a strong COI here, as I've got an editing position on volume 26. I've left requests on both talk pages that this be updated, including links to a Fantagraphics catalog announcement of the 26th volume - both that link and an Amazon search for a new volume should confirm to you this is true. It's drivin' me up the wall seeing that misinformation there and not wanting to sully it with my COI fingers, so if anyone else could tackle the changes, I'd appreciate it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Iron max 3 has been adding many navbox templates to character pages with seemingly little justification in many cases. Just figured that might be good to discuss it here. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a stab in the dark and say that Iron max 3 and User:Iron max 2 are one and the same, though I'm at a loss as to why he has two accounts with almost identical names. He's still using both accounts, so it's not like he forgot his password or anything. He does seem to have a fixation with expanding navboxes; a month or so ago I found he had added an "enemies" section in Template: Power Pack filled to the brim with characters who had only encountered Power Pack in a single issue each. Clearly acting in good faith but just not very well-versed in Wikipedia standards.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"Trade paperback (comics)"
Can we finally get rid of Trade paperback (comics)? The ridiculous "graphic novel vs trade paperback vs graphic album" thing belongs to a dead era. The article is almost entirely unsourced and will almost certainly remain unsourceable; regardless, the term "graphic novel" has long since completely absorbed the US comics-specific definition of "trade paperback". The article should be merged into graphic novel, or obliterated entirely (honestly, I question whether it even deserves a footnote). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!11:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to be rid of it; it as a term that was used and is still used, and the development of the TPB as a standard part of the comics scene was significant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would it be more than a footnote in the history of the graphic novel? Especially given how difficult it is to source. The article as it is is pure OR for a term that's obsolete jargon. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!
Because the trade paperbacking of comics - the collection of material previous published in serials into squarebound paperbacks - had its own major impact on the field of comics, in creating new opportunities for publishers and creators to exploit their existing body of material, in creating opportunity for more involved serials to bring readers onboard by keeping earlier stories available (strong cases for Cerebus and Sandman), in damaging the back issue market by making the older material available at affordable prices, etc. This is separate from, if at times overlapping with, the effect of the creation of longer work meant to be seen as a single unit, the graphic novel. If the terms have been fuzzy at times, that's the nature of language, but a quick look at this month's Previews order list and its 430 entries listed as "TP" (in contrast to less than half of that listed as "GN") should suggest that it's not obsolete. We have articles on formats of things like 8-track tapes, limited series (comics), etc., where there is some significance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, I have been heavily active in the field of webcomics lately. However, I have very little interest in comics generally. Therefore, I'm wondering if there are people interested in reviving the Webcomics Taskforce. Regardless of whether you guys have much interest in working on webcomics, I will be posting questions and discussions on its talk page in weeks to come, so feel free to watch the page and respond if you want. ~Mable (chat) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a comic expert so don't know how to advise this guy on finding valid Reliable Sources, but since this comic is talked-about enough that even I as a non-reader have heard it mentioned, I figure this is something y'all might want to help him get published. Enjoy! MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149 and I appear to be having a disagreement on the talk page over whether the character was created for the TV show having been loosely inspired by a different character with a different name in a single earlier comic, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show. The sources don't agree, but most of the sources can be reasonably interpreted as supporting either one of these options, as any detailed history of the character will mention both. After the TV show either created or popularized the character, he was apparently introduced back into the comics, and the earlier appearance was retconned as being the same character going by a different pseudonym (or something like that). This makes it very difficult to analyze most of the less-detailed sources, as they just say the character's first appearance was in 1959. More input, preferably with more sources that explicitly address the issue, would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"X is a fictional character appearing in American comic books..."
Not sure if this has come up before, but do comics produced (not just reprinted) by Marvel UK technically count as "American comic books"? I don't know how big a problem it is, if at all, but I'm pretty sure some of their books are (were?) in continuity with the mainstream Marvel universe and featured cameos by major characters originating in more "purely American" fare. I was just looking our Peggy Carter article and noticed this in the lead, and thought it might be an issue that wasn't addressed whenever it was decided to specify "American". Obviously one solution would be to say, for example, "first appearimg in American comic books", as that is something we can actually quantify quite easily, but implying they have only appeared in American comic books when we don't necessarily know that seems problematic.
(FTR, I don't know if this problem even applies to the Peggy Carter article, or even if the character in the original comics was British, although my gut tells me that if the latter is true the former is more likely to be true than otherwise. It's peripheral to my main concern either way.)
OK. I figured as much, but my iPad's screen settings there was a line break in that particular article between "American" and "comic", so I didn't notice that there was a single wikilink to the "American comic book" article. I still don't much like using wikilinks to substitute for unambiguous prose, but it's not so much of a problem. A bigger issue is that virtually every character notable enough to have a Wikipedia article has also "appeared" in other media, and in some cases includes other comic media. Early superheroes very notably appeared in comic strips, which as far as I know is not covered by "American comic books". Peter Parker's wedding to Mary Jane is a notable incident that apparentky originated in the Spider-Man Sunday comic strip, which while still American is not really covered by the "distinct style of comics developed in America" you mention. Wouldn't "originating in" still be better as it is more easily verifiable/falsifiable? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is that the current standard encourages somewhat dubious descriptions like on Harley Quinn or Mr. Freeze which either underplay or outright deny the characters' origins in other media. Phil Coulson is barely notable for his comic book appearances at the moment so that article is fine, but once Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. finishes its run and the movies continue to not reintegrate him, you can bet that after a certain amount of time has passed someone is going to rewrite that article's lead...
But this is all way outside the original scope of this thread...
Hijiri88, I generally agree with about using wikilinks as a substitute for unambiguous prose, and must say that this is the first I've heard of "American comic books" being used in this sense. I'm wondering now if it would be best to eliminate that phrase from places (like the lead) which making clear the distinction between "American comic books" and "comic books from America" is impractical. Alternatively, "originating in" sounds fine to me as well.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I honestly think that per WP:NOTJOURNAL, we are under no obligation to use the technical term "American comic books", when "comic books" would suffice. The above-mentioned example of manga is almost never called "comic books" or "Japanese comic books", and "manga" is unambiguous and widely-recognized. "American comic books", on the other hand, would as far as I can tell be unrecognizable to the majority of our readers as meaning something different from "comic books from America", and in common general-audience English prose (the register in which Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written) the term appears to be almost synonymous with "comic books".
And for the record, I'm pretty sure it is technically inaccurate to call most Japanese manga "comic books", as they were neither originally published as, or later reprinted in the form of, "books"; they appeared in anthology magazines first and were later reprinted as collections of individual chapters, but the "volumes" the latter appear as are almost never referred to as "comic books". This same logic applies to western "comic strips", even those that are later collected in the form of books, and probably even those that are later collected in the form of books with a single overarching story. And both of these media have historically had varying degrees of crossover with the American comic book super hero, which is another reason "originating in" is probably preferable.
So ... "Peggy Carter is a fictional character originating in American comic books published by Marvel Comics" with no wikilink on "American"?
Sorry. The "for the record" is to indicate that as far as I can tell there is no need to disambiguate "American comic books" from "Japanese comic books", as the Japanese comics in question are not books. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know... to me at least "American-style comic books" looks like comic books in the American style that aren't actually American, when most if not all of the books in question actually are American. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, interviews are always credible - unless there's some reason to think they're fabricated. Just be thoughtful with how you phrase the information you're using. If it's an opinion, make sure you mention who it belongs to in the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently tried to deleted the "In other media" section from the Superman article and merge its contents with the "Publication" section near the top. Tenebrae took issue with this and reverted, so now I want to present my case.
Firstly, the "In other media" section was under "Cultural Impact", which makes no sense because the franchising of Superman is not a cultural effect. Secondly, it makes no sense to me to discuss the comic books and the movies and TV shows apart. The TV shows and movies have a much bigger audience than the comic books. For most people, Superman is someone they see in cartoons or in the cinemas. Development-wise, there is a lot of cross-pollination between the comic books and the TV shows and movies. The radio serial gave us kryptonite. The Fleischer cartoons made Superman fly. The 1978 movie gave us the messianic overtones. Lois & Clark married Superman and Lois.
I feel that most superhero articles were written by comic book geeks for other comic book geeks rather than the general audience, and they have the bizarre notion that the TV shows and movies are a minor aspect of the Superman mythos, and that the current "mainstream" comic continuity is the "definitive" version of Superman. Superman is not strictly a comic book character. He is a fictional character who merely got his start in comics, but then quickly expanded to a wide variety of media. Just a few years after Action Comics #1, Superman was on the radio drawing over four million listeners, which is a bigger audience than the comic books have EVER had.
So I want, in the Publication history section of the Superman article, to discuss the radio serials, TV shows, and movies alongside the comic books. It just makes sense. BaronBifford (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The IOM paragraph should be it's own section, not a subheading under cultural impact. That's weird.
The IOM material should not be mixed with publication history. That's partly because radio/TV/Film isn't really "published", and partly because I don't believe the material can be presented together in a coherent fashion. It's either presented completely separate anyway (which is what it looks like you were trying to do - tack all the new material on at the bottom), or it's presented chronologically (which would be hard to keep straight, especially if you want to discuss how and when ideas from one media mix together). Yes, the other media had a larger audience, but I've never met anyone over 7 who was unaware Superman is a comic character.
>>"I feel that most superhero articles were written by comic book geeks for other comic book geeks rather than the general audience" This is true, and removing fancruft and recentism is a constant battle. At a glance, though, the Superman article seems pretty well balanced across the character's history. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I don't think the way I tried to do it was incoherent. Tacking it at the bottom was not detrimental to the section. And if TV/movies aren't "publishing" then I'll just rename the section to "Publishing and franchising".BaronBifford (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean putting it at the bottom made it incoherent, I meant showing it chronologically would be incoherent. But if it's going to be separated by medium anyway, why not put the information in a separate section? I don't see the point of combining the sections if you're not really combining the content. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been doing a whole lot of research for this article, and I've come to see the comic books, the movies, and TV shows as part of an organic whole. Yeah, I could create and "In other media section" in the Publication history section but I don't see the point since it would only be one or two paragraphs. BaronBifford (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Is your research in a format that's easy to share? It may help me to understand if I'm looking at the same material. Or is there a previous edit that included everything you're wanting to add? Depending on how much you have and what all it includes, it may be worth considering renaming the current article to "Superman (comic character)" and creating a new "Superman (character)" article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think so too, but it's the only option if you want to mix media to represent an "organic whole". Otherwise, you'll have to deal with the article be primarily about the comic and other media relegated to a section and/or a separate article. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not terrible. It is disjointed and seems out of place. The article, as a whole, is about the comic. Skimming through the FCB, it doesn't mention anything outside of the comics.
If readers visit the Superman page wanting to learn about his films, or the origin of Krypotonite, or whatever, the links are there for them to follow. Having those links clearly set out in an "in other media" section would get them there quickest. Burying them at the bottom of a section titled "Publication" (or "Publication and...") presents an unnecessary block.
You say you want to show Superman developed as an organic whole across several media at once, but including the other media in the publication history doesn't really do that. Do you have plans/sources to update the rest of the article as well? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Readers come here to get a general overview of Superman. They don't come here to read some nerd's pedantic synopsis of every comic book adventure Superman has had. From the general linking to the specific - that's how you should organize information in an electronic encyclopedia.
Yeah, I will go about rewriting the FCB section eventually. In for a penny, in for a pound. I hate it how comics-centric all the superhero articles are. It reeks of snobbery. BaronBifford (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I would have to respectfully disagree about "snobbery." It's simply good, logical, coherent organization with a character originating in comic books to cover spinoff media separately. Conversely, when a character originates in a book series or a TV series, for example, we don't lump that character's comic-book appearances in a heap with the originating media; in such cases, comics are part of "In other media." So that's the opposite of snobbery. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
And I and I think most WikiProject Comics editors would find it poor organization to lump "Publishing and franchising" together. I noticed that's your tack on your Sandbox page today, so before investing a lot of time and work into that, it might be beneficial to see whether there's a consensus that considers that a good idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you think the current article is a pedantic synopsis of every comic book Superman's been in? It's not that at all. It's also not snobbery for an article about a character originating in comics to focus on the comic aspect of the character. You may want to give Batman a look - it's layout is similar to Superman, and it's been rated as a Featured Article. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No, just because a character got his start in comics it does not necessarily follow that we must write mainly about his comics and consider everything else a footnote. The Superman article is, or should be, about the character in general. The title is "Superman", not "Superman in comics". This article should have links to articles that are dedicated to his history in comics, movies, TV shows, etc. BaronBifford (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You've made it pretty clear that's what you think a Superman article should be, but that's not what most people think. Let me give a few reasons why it is about the comic, not the general character.
As stated, Batman is a featured article, which means it's a good template for similar pages. It has the same layout as Superman. So does Spider-Man, which is a GA article. If you look at high-rated character articles, they're all about the comic first, with other media in a section or separate page.
This is not limited to comic articles. Other franchises that have crossed media, such as James Bond, focus on the original medium and the non-disambiguated title. It doesn't matter that more people have seen the movies than read Fleming's books, and it doesn't matter that the first movie adaptation came out one year after the first book.
You may be right that some readers will visit the Superman page wanting to find out more about the new movie, but those readers won't be surprised to find information about the comic first - they know it's a comic character. They'll also be able to find a link to their desired page easily from the article or the template.
Even if you did find a consensus because this character is well known enough outside of comics to have a general article about the character, it would set a dangerous precedent. Deadpool just got a big popularity boost from the recent movie. Should his article be re-written to give both versions equal weight? What about Kestrel (Marvel Comics)? Should that article give equal weight to the 24 year old comic character and the supporting role he played in X-Men Origins: Wolverine? Where do you draw the line, and who would enforce this line? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
You're appealing to tradition rather than actually analyzing the merits of the status quo. I find this really frustrating. BaronBifford (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Or perhaps I analyzed the merits of the status quo, and I find it worth supporting? It's not like I'm not using all caps and saying "this is just how we do it" repeatedly. I'm presenting a list of reasons along with explanations and links. But if you'd like to focus on merits, then let's turn this around:
You said earlier your research indicated the character developed across different media as an organic whole. I asked about this research, and you never responded to the request. You directed me to your sandbox to see your proposed changes, but that proposal included no new sources or facts - it just moved the other media material higher on the page. Despite that deficiency, I've given your proposal a thoughtful consideration, presented alternatives and suggestions, and explained my concerns with your suggestions. You, on the other hand, started this conversation with loaded words like "geeks", "nerds", and "snobbery", and you mischaracterized the Superman article as a pedantic synopsis of his every appearance. Articleslike thatdefinitelyexist, but Superman is not among them. Even if it were, mixing other media with the publication history wouldn't fix it. When confronted with a list of reasons why I don't support your proposal, you didn't offer any counter reasons - you dismissed them with one sentence.
Indeed. I'm not sure I agree that the character's history in his original medium needs to be separated from his history in all other media, but Argento has certainly provided reasons for why it should. If you can't counter those reasons, then arguing further is rather a waste. And if your goal is to make comics articles written for a general rather than niche audience, there are over a thousand articles which need help in that regard much more desperately than Superman.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Featured articles on superheroes are not judged according to how much attention is given to the comics. All Featured articles are judged according to a common standard. If the Batman article got Featured, it was NOT because it downplayed the Batman movies and TV shows, so I don't see why this should be a binding precedent.
I think Superman is different from James Bond because, unlike with James Bond, there is a lot of cross-pollination between the Superman books and the TV shows and movies. Discussing them together feels logical.
"they know it's a comic character ergo they won't be surprised to see comic book info first ergo it's OK to downplay all the other media" is not a sensible argument
"Dangerous" precedent? What sort of "danger" is there to talk about? Whoever works on the Deadpool article can make his own judgment on what that article needs. What I do with Superman is not necessarily binding with Deadpool.BaronBifford (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that if the Batman FA ever went up for WP:FAR (which it should) it is so full of problems it would inevitably be delisted. It's not a good idea to look at older FAs, as the standards used to be pretty low. The idea that a character article should focus on the character in its original medium is something that should be determined by sources. Take a look at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which does not focus on the comics and shunt everything into an "Other media" subsection. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
True, featured articles aren't judged by how much attention is given to comics. They are judged, among other things, for completeness and style. They're also specifically described as being examples for other articles. It may not be a binding precedent, but it is evidence that an article with that layout was considered to be sufficient coverage of the topic.
The Bond movies actually had a large impact on the novels post-Fleming. It may not be a perfect comparison, but again - your proposed change doesn't discuss the comics and other media together. It just makes the segregation less obvious. "Discussing them together" would actually require integrating the material.
I'm not suggesting we downplay the other media. I'm pointing out the article is about the comic book character. Until you're ready to revamp the FCB to cover comics and other media equally, I don't see the point it having the article organized by "comic publication - other media appearances - comic biography - comic related information - other superman information" It may not be named "Superman in comics", but that's what it effectively is at this time. I suggested a rename like that earlier paired with something like the TMNT article linked above, and you called it an "awful idea."
The Batman article, as has been pointed out, got FA status a long time ago and has accumulated so many problems since then that it is no longer fit to serve as an example for others. The last time the Superman article achieve FA status was 12 years ago, so it might as well never have been. This is not a great article. Am I making it any worse? Am I downgrading it to Shit Article status or something? The edits I've made to the Publication history section have received warm praise, so I think I'm actually pushing this article in the right direction. There were serious problems in that section and I think there are serious problems with the FCB section too. This article has stagnated for a long time because editors are either too lazy or too timid or too conservative to give it the improvements. I certainly don't see your name showing up a lot in this article's revision history. You're just another bureaucrat throwing roadblocks, not a serious researcher who is out to make improvements. If I get chased away, this article is going to stagnate again because nobody else is going to pick it up, and everyone who bickered with me here with such energy will forget about it again. BaronBifford (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Argento Surfer: The current standards at FA date back to c. 2007; the Batman FA long predates this—it was promoted in 2003 (!) and reviewed in 2006. Check out the nomination for laffs. Its FA status can't be taken seriously—it really needs to go to WP:FAR (I suggested as much a while ago on the talk page). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!09:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
All it takes is putting it up at WP:FAR. I haven't done it myself, because it would feel like I'd have to take responsibility for it, and I don't want to (no interest in superheroes—check out today's Featured Article on the mainpage to see what comics I'm into). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!11:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I went to do this, but the first step is to try correcting the article and/or raising issues on the talk page. I'll add this to my to-do list. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to rewrite the Fictional character biography section of the Superman article, but another editor keeps reverting me. BaronBifford (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer and Tenebrae: "The IOM material should not be mixed with publication history. That's partly because radio/TV/Film isn't really "published"
This is just a matter of semantics. "Publication", according to Wikipedia's own article on the matter, is making content available to to public. Broadcasting a radio show or selling a DVD is technically publication, particularly under US and international copyright law. And if it isn't, I can solve this by changing the title. This a weak argument.
"and partly because I don't believe the material can be presented together in a coherent fashion"
You don't believe. I think you've never tried. I have, so I think I can speak with authority on this matter. Take a look at my Sandbox where I have drafted a new Publication and Fictional character biography section. In the latter, I discuss the common, enduring elements of the Superman mythos, like when he got his name or when kryptonite was introduced. A lot of this stuff comes from media other than comic books. Kryptonite appeared in the radio show. Superman's first team-up with Batman was in the radio show. Superman gained the ability to fly in the animated serial because flying looked better on film than leaping. The 1978 movie decided that Smallville was in Kansas, and also gave Superman the messianic overtones that still show up in stories today. It's rather absurd to think that the radio show, cartoons and movies have had little impact on the books. Their audience are much larger. Many current and past writers at DC Comics fell in love with Superman through watching the cartoons.
"I'm not suggesting we downplay the other media. I'm pointing out the article is about the comic book character. Until you're ready to revamp the FCB to cover comics and other media equally,"
I'm absolutely ready and willing to rewrite the whole article.
Now let me discuss the FCB section in its current state. Firstly it refers stories that have left no permanent mark on the character, such as Superman being killed by Doomsday and the New Krypton storyline and the Kents passing away. These have been retconned out. There's also a lot of recentism, like mentioning Superman's T-shirt and jeans combo which is a change that certainly won't endure. There are also some useless lines, like "His origin is again revisited in 2004." Superman's origin has been revisited so many times that fans get annoyed by it.
The Fictional character biography section was built piecemeal over years by multiple editors each with partial knowledge, rather than one researcher who has fully studied the whole matter. Someone needs to take a flamethrower to the whole thing and rewrite it.
Another issue is that this article is not just comics-centric, but "mainstream"-centric. That is, somehow this community decided that what DC Comics calls the "mainstream" DC Universe is the definitive version of Superman, which is strange to me and something only comic geeks do. And I think it's bad practice because it prevents the article from presenting a broad picture - and a broad picture is what the main Superman article should be about. You begin with the general and link to articles focusing on the specific. The article on Physics gives a broad description of all the branches of physics across history and the influences they have had on each other, and it provides links to more focused articles like quantum physics or fluid dynamics. Why don't superhero articles follow this sensible logic? BaronBifford (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
First, LOL at calling me a bureaucrat. I'm working to improve articles too. If you think I'm putting up roadblocks by politely discussing the topic you raised, then you probably haven't interacted with many other users here.
Second, let's try to find ground we can agree on. Would you agree that the Superman character in comics is notable enough to have his own article? And that such a "Superman in comics" article would have a section (or subsection) lumping all "other media" together?
@Argento Surfer: What would a "Superman in comics" article contain? Is it going to be a synopsis of every comic story arc? Would you perhaps discuss the various writers and artists who have worked on the character? I don't mind doing such an article. We already have a Superman (Earth-Two) and Superman (Earth-One) article.
If we did have a "Superman in comics" article there would be no need for it to have an In other media section. The general Superman article should give an overview of Superman across all media, then provide links to the Superman (franchise) and your proposed "Superman in comics" article. That would be going from the general to the specific. BaronBifford (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, when I called you a "bureacrat", I meant that you're the kind of editor who mostly does maintenance work, like reverting vandalism or fixing references, and does little in the way of creating content. BaronBifford (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of my edits are maintenance-based, but I like to think I've created my fair share of articles. :)
I would say a "superman in comics" article should contain the following:
A publication history with more emphasis on actual publications, similar to Adam Warlock or Thanos, mentioning spin-off series and membership in the JLA or other teams. Obviously this would not be all-inclusive.
A biography section covering major events across the years - deaths, origin revamps, new powers, marriages, that kind of thing. Not every story, but covering the basics. Maybe break it up like Ego the Living Planet, although I'm not sure decade chunks are the best route. Maybe from crisis to crisis?
A reception section covering Superman's popularity over the years, sales numbers, fan reaction to major changes.
Maybe a collected editions section? I don't know how feasible that is. The list would probably be large enough to be its own thing. (Actually, it is: List of Superman comics)
There are all off the cuff. If the article is created, some of the content from the current Superman article could probably be moved over there. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This I can do. See with Tenebrae, he will vouch for me that I can step up. I can't do it overnight, of course. And I wouldn't mind making this a joint project with you. BaronBifford (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I looked through some of your edits, I have no doubt you're up for the task. As long as we retain a page about the comic character, I'm cool with a more general Superman article. I'll keep an eye on the page(s) and help where I can, but Superman is outside my area of expertise. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Take a good look at it then. Tell me what you think is lacking in that article and I may get around to fixing it. Or redoing it in the Superman in comics article, which I already started. In the meantime, may I now replace the FCB section with my own version? BaronBifford (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
For lack of a better comic was created on the 11th, and was then nominated for deletion on the 12th. Based on a google search, I think there could be notability here, but I'm not familiar with this comic or what's usually expected for a webcomic article. Is there anyone out there who could help improve it, or confirm non-notability? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be prejudiced against edits because of grammar and formatting; that's something that can easily be fixed in the overwhelming majority of cases. That said, I found the grammar and formatting to be more than "a bit off", since in more than one case I couldn't even make sense of what the added parts are saying. Also, some time ago David A reported that BeyonderGod had been making problem edits for years (see archived topic), and these edits continue the pattern David A described to a "t". The edits are clearly in good faith, but the incomprehensible grammar and excessive fixation on omnipotence and the term "Omniverse" doesn't help the article.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh nothing is wrong with the edits i already gave sources and as for grammar and etc i have to rush things but you don't have to keep undoing all my edits because of small errors and as for David A now he also doesn't have perfect grammar if i can show you his own errors you will see that perfect grammar doesn't exist anywhere and that its just a tool for people who think they are above others now if you want to chat then don't undo all my edits just fixed the problems. Beyonder (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
If you're too rushed to edit correctly, you're too rushed to edit. Nothing in your edits required immediate attention - just wait until you have more time. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, completely. There is absolutely no need to rush your edits, and if you can only rush then you need to find a better time to do your editing. It doesn't matter if David A or any other user is imperfect, because we were discussing you. No one should have to fix your problems for you; there is no excuse for laziness, so please fix your own errors. Since BeyonderGod was reverting again and adding more of the same as before, I reverted again, asking him to not revert unless the discussion results in consensus in support of his changes. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
We were also discussing "David A" direct comments at me which are wrong so no we aren't talking about ME because mentioning other people isn't talking about a single person which is ME.
Pretty sure fixing one error is the point of "Wikipedia" on pages so you know edit to make it better? so that comment is vastly contradictory because you basically stating those who make small errors are lazy which is based on your opinion.
No one making an excuse i can ADMIT my errors so again don't try to state "its your fault" game on me sir.
I will revert back because the discussion WAS before so we will wait UNTIL after the decision because the edit i made are directly from the source I credited and which YOU couldn't do.
Well, is it okay if I offer a few brief observations, or would that go against our deal of non-interference with each other? Anyway, I hope that this does not make you angry, as I am extremely worried about the world at large nowadays, and don't have a problem with you anymore.
Basically, lots of Marvel characters have been stated to be omnipotent over the years, even though they have been proven not to be, even Odin.
Given that the Beyonders had to gradually destroy the Marvel multiverse, not all at once, and were killed by an explosion that destroyed a few thousand universes, calling them omnipotent seems like a bit of hyperbole.
Also, the scan above seems to mix up the terms multiverse and omniverse. The omniverse is supposed to be everything within fiction and reality, not just Marvel, so I think that the writer meant multiverse, without knowing the full implications of what omniverse means.
I also cannot seem to access the handbook scan. The link just shows a Superman image.
That is all. I hope that this does not cause any problems. I am overworked and stressed out enough as it is. David A (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I already posted a direct Handbook from marvel stating that they are infact "All-Powerful" a Hyperbole would be Goku Vs Beerus with the "Universe" being destroyed when it truly wasn't the beyonders being killed and etc was PIS something that shouldn't be taken seriously in fiction when most of comics have PIS/CIS/Outlier examples and you forget i directly asked Tom Brevoort IF Dr.Doom was Omnipotent correct? since he did obtain the power through molecule man right? and Tom's direct words were "Yes but not omniscient." here is the scan to this as well Tom Confirming Doom is Omnipotent not Omniscient where did he obtain omnipotence?? from the Beyonders due to the plot of the Secret Wars Event.
I already know you and VSbattles have a No "omniverse" and instead use cyberspace terms like Hyperverse/Metaverse but sorry this is what Marvel Dictates with their coined term not what us fans state and also.....Omniverse="All things within the respected series" you are taking the whole "The omniverse is supposed to be everything within fiction and reality." is implied here out of context as this Handbook from the 2006 the Living tribunal handbook supports my statements Omniverse In Handbooks so i am not stating Marvel/DC controls all of fiction in any way shape or form because for years Marvel has had DIFFERENT series as they mentioned under the title from Transformers,Star Wars, and to even Godzilla all of which were included IN their Megaverse which is within the Omniverse. Beyonder (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
I am having a real hard time making sense of your run-on sentences, BeyonderGod. I also don't see what you hope to gain by posting arguments on my personal talk page, since my involvement with this issue has thus far been limited to posting in this thread.
It's not at all clear that the linked text you provided contradicts the definition of "omniverse" cited by David A. Indeed, the lines "The Omniverse is the collection of every single universe, dimension, etc. Everything is in the Omniverse, and there is only one Omniverse.", if interpreted at face value, support that definition.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like BeyonderGod has posted a list of excuses, but offers no solutions to his own errors. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Those are OLD the one i posted is basically of THIS era aka 2006 its not hard to see the differences between the old and the new. Beyonder (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
Well, I still think that it will be confusing for Wikipedia visitors if we start to deviate from the original definition.
I think either one effectively conveys that the Beyonders are powerful dudes. I suspect any visitors who wish to split the hairs will already be familiar with the topic. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the issue is not that they are powerful. It is that the Beyonders were only shown to be able to gradually destroy a multiverse, and were killed by a few thousand universes blowing up. It seems like hyperbole to describe them as completely all-powerful, and to transcend all of fiction and reality combined. Or that is my impression anyway. David A (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted again; BeyonderGod has repeatedly reverted, and here so far has only offered excuses rather than solutions to the issues that have been brought up. Hopefully he can find some time to fix these errors rather than re-insert them again. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I gave the issues already and i fixed the errors i made to the article page so your revert has been Rollback. Beyonder (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod
Does everyone else agree that the errors have been fixed, or are we just going to leave this one alone? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I would also appreciate some input regarding what the rest of you think that we should do about this problem? David A (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please? WP:AN/I or something else? When you let difficult users have their way that only encourages them. I won't edit war with him anymore; I shouldn't have in the first place. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Argento Surfer. I would also note that I see he has been approaching JamesBWatson on his talk page to try to get the Beyonders page protected (to keep me from reverting him, no doubt), but the admin warned him about his own edit-warring instead. If BeyonderGod goes back to reverting, he may need to be blocked. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
BeyonderGod's persistent disruptive editing has continued, most recently in the form of continuing a slow long-term edit-war at Living Tribunal, which has been going on since June 2014. I have blocked BeyonderGod for a month. I hope that will get the message across to BeyonderGod, so that he/she will at last start to take notice of concerns of other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that it came to that, but hopefully you are right. Thanks! 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It was caused by the debut mo/debut yr section of the infobox. I'm not sure why it was broken, but taking that part out seems to have fixed it. Argento Surfer (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Subtle IP vandal
I'd appreciate some aid in dealing with an IP sock vandal. This person loves removing the word "fictional" from articles about fictional characters. Even though the editor is not inserting meaningless profanity into articles, this behavior is still vandalism. I am often the only one around to ever revert this person on the spot and it's tiring. Attempts to talk to the vandal are pointless as they have never actually said anything at all (no edit summaries, no talk page posts etc.). Aquaman has been protected twice because of these edits; since Aquaman is currently protected, the IP has branched out to other comic book character articles and is more actively making the edits. The person has used around ten different IPs total. By "aid" I mean help in reverting these edits so I'm not the only editor doing so. I suppose this section's true purpose is to raise awareness: If you see these edits, revert them. If you see that an article about a fictional character is missing the word "fictional" from the opening sentence, add it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not clear on why you're labeling these editors as vandals or assuming that they are sockpuppets. Removing the word "fictional" under the belief that it can be assumed that a man who shoots lazer beams from his eyes is fictional is a common newcomer mistake. Likewise, newcomers are often not immediately familiar with things such as edit summaries and talk pages, so the fact that they don't use them is hardly evidence of bad faith.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Essentially everything they have done is indicating bad faith. Nearly every edit these IPs have made has something to do with removing the word fictional from an article. I haven't linked to everything here that could be linked to so I suppose unless you've seen everything, you don't have the 'complete' story. One thing is that all attempts to communicate have been futile. There is no chance at all that they have not seen my attempts at communication because once they even edited their talk page right after I posted one of my comments, clearly indicating that they are aware that somebody is asking them to stop making the disruptive edits. There's also notifications that they get from people reverting them and the fact that in order the remove the word from an article again moments after I have reverted them for the previous time, they will have seen that somebody has reverted them. It's incredibly obvious that it's the same person and I'm not just assuming things. There's a section on my talk page for information on that. Nobody else makes these edits so it's definitely not common. The only similar edits are people replacing the whole sentence with profanity. (So changing "is a fictional superhero" to "is a potato".) They're not a newcomer anymore as they've been making these edits since early 2015. As explained, the fact they don't communicate at all isn't the only evidence of them being a sock or vandal. Even if they turned out to not be acting in bad faith, which is highly unlikely, the edits are still destructive. Make no mistake, this editor knows what they are doing. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Infobox Alliances
I think we should the info boxes as is and add the alliance if they joined them.100.40.54.158 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Then if they join the avengers let's say. Just put avengers there, not secret avengers or avengers academy or west coast avengers. 100.40.54.158 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes need to be treated with all the same standards of writing about fiction as the articles themselves, and they bear the same weight of scrutiny as these articles' lead sections. They need to make no assumptions that the reader is knowledgeable about comics, they need to not assert a fictional character's "present" state of being, and they must always be mindful of the character's fictionality. They should aim to summarise key salient facts at a glance. Anything contentious, ambiguous, subject to many retcons, over-long, or needlessly fancrufty, can simply be omitted, as clearly these are not meant for the infobox. When describing a character's "alliances", we need not list every team or organisation they've ever fictionally been involved with; the only useful purpose of such a field is to briefly flesh out that character and their role in stories with a few well chosen details. For example, it's important to know that Wolverine is an X-Man; that he is an Avenger; that he was a member of the first Canandian superhero team; and that his origin is a product of Weapon X. Attempting to sketch out his full biography in copious lists of teams is absurd and not what infoboxes are for, and to go a step further, completely goes against the point of Wikipedia's comics articles. They're not for fans; there are fan Wikis if you enjoy compiling that level of detail (I enjoy those too! Marvel and DC Database are great resources).Zythe (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not how we write articles on Wikipedia. We're not trying to exhaustively recount the character's exploits and relationships; we're attempting to summarise them and emphasise their real-world significance to a mass audience.Zythe (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae, Zythe, and Argento Surfer:
How big should an infobox be allowed to be? I don't think an infobox should jut beyond the table of contents and into the main body of the article, as is currently the case in the Superman article. It's causing me formatting headaches, all to include some minor trivia. BaronBifford (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's an agreed upon limit, but I'm in close agreement with you. I always try to keep them short enough that a user using a standard monitor won't have to scroll to read the whole thing. I think the box on Blue Beetle is too long (it includes all the info for every series), but I'm not sure the Justice League model is any better (there are several infoboxes scattered down the page). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's OK with you, I would like to trim the fictional information in the Superman infobox down to "Alter Ego" and "Abilities", which are all most people want to know about a superhero at a glance. An infobox is not a good place to map out Superman's myriad relationships. This will allow me to properly align the images in the Publication history section. BaronBifford (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting, but I nonetheless see little point in sticking all that trivia in an infobox anyway, which in principle should be even more concise than the introduction. Readers can on the appropriate link in the table of contents to jump to paragraphs that deal with things like Superman's relationships. BaronBifford (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We do in the myriad articles we have on Superman and his supporting cast. The infobox should only hold the barest essentials. BaronBifford (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The infobox is designed to be a concise overview of the characters most defining aspects. It's there so readers don't have to read the prose for basic information. While I understand minor relationships should not be included, major relationships like Batman and Robin should be included. I see you also removed species/homeworld/team affiliations. These are all things that define Superman. At quick glance someone with no knowledge of Superman may think he is just a isolated human with powers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Concur with TriiipleThreat. Also, should we remove from the infobox Superman's birth name Kal-El? That seems like basic information that should be there along with Clark Kent. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't care as long as the infobox doesn't penetrate the main body of the article. That's what's important. I hate staggered images!
When one is asked to give a short summary of a superhero's core characteristics, it's usually alter ego, origin, and powers. Ie Spiderman is Peter Parker, a human mutated by a radioactive spider bite which gave him wall-crawling and spider-sense. Things like supporting cast and relationships with other DC properties are less important and in fact vary a lot from one continuity to the other.
Also I don't think Batman is part of Superman's core supporting cast. Outside of team books like JLA, Batman's guest appearances in Superman books are actually pretty rare. BaronBifford (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A layout concern ("I don't care as long as the infobox doesn't penetrate the main body of the article.") is in no way a good reason to eliminate pertinent information — especially since articles have leads of different lengths. Saying that we must have two infobox standards what to include, one for articles with short leads and one for articles without leads, is not a good nor practical ideas. Also, major changes to infobox style and content is also a much bigger discussion that we can have on this page, but rather on the infoboxes' pages. Finally, many people read Wikipedia on mobile devices, where the infobox appears on its own, self-contained, and there's no main body for it to penetrate. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, one's personal opinions about staggered images aside, staggering images is just basic graphic design. It's like continued stories in a newspaper — it's just basic good design to have the headlines and first parts of the story on the front page and not on the second or third page. It's that basic.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned Batman and Robin in relation to each other not to Superman but you raise a good point. Generally, if a character's only relationship with another superhero is through their team affiliation, then I don't think you should list them individually. Batman however is a little trickier. He did star with Superman in World's Finest Comics and Superman/Batman.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
(Completely agree on this point, but I found it was hard trying to fight other editors to keep Batman's partners down to Batman characters. Even Green Arrow has wormed his way in there, and they barely ever costar. You might make a good case for Hal Jordan and Green Arrow, however.Zythe (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC))
They're superhero partners. 100.40.54.158 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Although there are a lot of articles that has one and more infobox which each character of a legacy. When one infobox would do. I would say having Wayne Enterprises be added to Batmans alliance in the infobox, because it's part of the story.100.40.54.158 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the information removed from infoboxes from @Zythe, I do see where he is coming from. Especially where abilities are concerned, the infoboxes tend to be stuffed with over-detailed and often unsourced information, which makes many of them much longer than they need to be. What we need to ask ourselves is this: what is notable?
For example, Dick Grayson has been a key member of the Titans for decades. Should that be included in his infobox? Absolutely. But lets hypothetically say that he joins the Justice League for one comic issue, then quits. Should it be included in the infobox? Probably not. As for abilities, I think that only a character's key abilities should be in the infobox. I don't see why "speeding reading" is notable enough to be in The Flash's infobox (believe or not, users have attempted to add that). Does anyone see where I'm coming from with this? DarkKnight214901:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Preach! Perhaps the Wikiproject could put together some guidance? I'd happily work on it. People seem to not understand the infobox's implicit purpose; they're swept up in the fun of including all the information, rather than appreciating how a box like that works.Zythe (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem to forget that Dick Grayson is on the List of Justice League members. What's next were going to remove the list of members for superheroes or super villains that joined them too? 100.40.54.158 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That is a list. It's intended to be a list. The infobox is for a brief snapshot of a character which summarises them usefully, at a glance, to the uninitiated. Whether JL is that for Dick or not is borderline; I would argue it's not a defining fact about him. I think this discussion has shown clear consensus borne out of Wiki policy. I don't see coherent objections.Zythe (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that dick Grayson joined the justice league and it should be there. It was during his time as Batman that he again joined the justice league. With Donna Troy, star fire, cyborg, and others.100.40.54.158 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Which points? The only thing I would agree with is getting rid of various avengers teams. That I agree with. Like Hank Pym. Do we need avengers ai there?100.40.54.158 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there consensus?100.40.54.158 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Considering you haven't provided an argument besides "I want this" and "I want that", it would appear so. DarkKnight214922:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC notice: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads
It doesn't really matter if that source is reliable, as what it's covering is trivia. That someone wants to pitch Marvel on a show is too many large steps from anything actually happening to make it worth including. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
All the worthy content Spider-Gwen the article could be moved to the publication history of Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy). I'd then make sure the nickname Spider-Gwen is in bold in the lead of that article. Reception section could be transferred as it is to the character article, as the two are so inextricably linked.Zythe (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that Gwen Stacy is a women, but is it really necessary to point the obvious in a title of an article: Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy). Would it not be better just to merge the article with Spider-Gwen, since obviously Spider Gwen is based off of Gwen Stacy only. Both articles cover the same thing and nothing much in difference. Spider-Woman is her own character just like Spider Gewn, Spider Girl though there are two different girls that take of the title Spider Girl, their articles aren't exactly called Spider Woman (Identity of hero etc.) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue then would be an article named for a comic book discussing the lead character of said book, even if they don't go by that name. An alternative would be Gwen Stacy (Spider-Gwen), i.e. Gwen Stacy disambiguated for the book in which she appears. But that's not the most common naming practice for comics.Zythe (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I oppose the idea of a merge. She has a whole bundle of sources to prove notability than needs to be used up. Also enough sources and info for a spilt of main Gwen Stacy article (where if merged belongs there). If anything the comic book would have been the better choice to merge since she appears in more than one comic book than her own. For example: Spider-Verse and Web Warriors. She already has alternate takes of herself too. She's practically the second most familiar Spider-Woman and one of the most cosplayed there is currently. The problem with Spider-Gwen as the title is it's not an official name of hers. Just the official title of her comic book and is an official fan name of hers. Jhenderson77719:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have strong thoughts about the character article but I am opposed to merging the comic book with the character, the two are not interchangeable, it'd be like merging The Amazing Spider-Man into Spider-Man.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Merging ASM with Spider-Man would be perfectly valid if it were the only main Spider-Man series and not very old or if they lacked independent notability from each other.Zythe (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought that was my suggestion? Even though I am still against it. The article doesn't prove it but she has had enough coverage to stand out on her own from the Gwen Stacy article if you do your own web research IMO. You can do a consensus on it of course since you do seem desperate for it to merge. Henderson77711:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
No, besides it reads as if the MCU is something other than live action or animation. Just state that it's part of the MCU in the prose--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I’m a blogger: and have managed to come up with a well received post about Batman’s first appearance, which I’d initially thought was in March, 1939. After all, it WAS mentioned in the relevant day of the year entry. (For 30th March)
My of my regular readers, however, found THIS link: on DC’s own site, that stated the original release date was 17th May!
Oh, I know what’s caused the confusion, Argento. Even so, that 17th May date still comes from DC’s own site. The news announcement the MTV article cites has no ongoing links to either DC’s announcement: or too the relevant entry at the relevant copyright authority’s site. Can that be dig up? Cuddy2977 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
In addition, the Grand Comics Database entry for Detective Comics #27 uses the date of March 30, 1939 with the notation "The on-sale date is the publication date reported in the U. S. Copyright Office filing."
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:San Diego Comic-Con International#Poster. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
