Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Regarding Danny Ketch being in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Hi (BOZ) (talk), as I have posted numerous times but had my edits reverted, which I am really curious to why it's been unsourced and unreliable for the references given. In the Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance article, the character is named Danny Ketch and clicking on that leads to Ketch's page. Like the film depicts a child who is different to the comics version, but it seemingly is Ketch himself. While you may disagree, I would like to know much more further on this matter. (137.111.165.22) (talk)

Are these appropriate additions to the infobox?

User:Odinson878 basically doubled the length of the abilities in the infobox for Thor, noting the sources in the edit summaries but not in the article itself, and commented on my talk page that the sources for these abilities are already in the article. Even if the sources are not necessary to add to the infobox itself, are these appropriate additions to the infobox at all? BOZ (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the additions of superhuman agility, Anti force, Geo Blast, tracking of souls, and matter manipulation do not seem common/prominent enough to include at least. Also, somebody falsely inserted that Thor prevented the destruction of 1/5th of the multiverse rather than the local universe, which I corrected earlier. David A (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"but not in the article itself, and commented on my talk page that the sources for these abilities are already in the article. Even if the sources are not necessary to add to the infobox itself," I found these sources from the article It's literally found in the reference section. Why do we need to add it again When it's already present. Adding valid info from the same article doesn't seem wrong. Odinson878 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, I will leave it up to others to judge whether sections like this should be included. BOZ (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that they should definitely not be included, given that there is already a separate page for Thor's supporting characters. David A (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing that. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Reference878 has apparently picked up where the previous account left off, with the adding of information to the infobox and adding citations only in edit summaries and not actually in the article itself[1]. Can anyone comment on whether this behavior is appropriate? BOZ (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox comics character and title, the powers parameter should "include significant current and previous powers, and other notable abilities. This should be a short list, without description. Keep longer prose for the article text" (all bold as per the original description). The example used in the infobox has six powers listed, which seems like good number to strive for. I think that the list could be as short as: "Lightning/electricity manipulation, Invulnerability, Superhuman physical abilites, and further powers via Mjolnir, including Flight". The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, Odinson has been blocked as have his sock accounts. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bruce Wayne (DC Extended Universe)#Requested move 15 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics angels has been nominated for discussion

Category:Marvel Comics angels has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cambalachero (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Octopus would have been...

Just wondering largely because it's late here, but are any of the three additions here sourced appropriately for inclusion? BOZ (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, on this at Sandman? BOZ (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ugh, this guy again? No, the material should still be limited to Spider-Man in film. If we start listing all the films a character didn't appear in, what's the point? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Argento Surfer, yep, definitely that guy again: [2] and they added content to several other articles which may need review: [3] BOZ (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a clown and a troll with no life for trying to suggest that the IP user discuss this here. :) BOZ (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Did this come as a shock to you? We all thought you knew... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping there were still some people who didn't know me that well, but alas... BOZ (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the user, I don't see a problem with the Dr. Octopus entry. We are not listing "all the films a character didn't appear in", but just those where the character was considered to be included, things advanced a bit, and then they changed their minds, and there are references to confirm it: those aren't that much. Sandman, however, is another case: for what I read, the idea was to include a villain with sand-related powers but who would have another identity. Meaning, not sandman, someone else. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Long standing consensus has been to list characters only when they appear. Otherwise, you open the door to lists that include all the Easter egg references, name drops, and "his tentacles appeared but he didn't" occasions. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Doc Ock's can stay, as there isn't a particular issue with it, just that he was considered. Agreed with Cambalachero on Sandman. – SirDot (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't have an issue with Doctor Octopus' mechanical tentacles appears as one of the many different villain weaponry underneath Oscorp's Special Projects in The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Because that goes against long-standing consensus (see one, two three, and four). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Enough is enough with this person - after all the edit-warring and personal attacks in the edit summaries, I reported them today and they were rangeblocked for 31 hours:[4] and will report them again if they resume those same activities. BOZ (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For posterity, here's another example of a character considered for a film, but not included. I don't see how including this kind of information informs a reader about a character. There's no development, no event, no analysis. Just "this almost happened, but didn't." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it and it doesn't impose undue weight on the article? If this is correct, then I can see the Darkhawk example as valid, as James Gunn — being the director of the film— can be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Dr. Octopus example at least had some substance to it. Draft plot, actors considered, reason for ultimate removal... The Darkhawk example is just a passing by Twitter comment, which doesn't even make sense if read in isolation from the thread it belongs to. We know that Darkhawk "Was almost in Vol 2." and literally nothing else. Remember, just because something does not go against the rules does not mean we have to include it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(Forgot to mention: regardless of my personal opinion of the Dr. Octopus example, I didn't know that the issue had been discussed and that there was a consensus; I can see the logic behind it and I accept it) Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear friends: here on Wikipedia there are many articles of characters that do not appear but were planned, or mentioned either directly or indirectly. The Ghost is right; if that has its sources and references then it is worth it. BOZ stop the bullsh¡t and let the articles on those Marvel characters include the ones that were planned but didn't appear.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it You are mistaken. While Wikipedia should only contain content that first appeared in a reliable source, that does not mean a Wikipedia article should contain everything reliable sources have ever said about a subject. Our job as editors is to evaluate the available information and include only what is best for a given article. If a reader comes here to learn about Doctor Octopus, how does knowing he didn't appear in the first Spider-Man film helpful? Keep in mind the disputed information is available at Spider-Man in film, where discarded concepts are more relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That's the point. If you don't understand it's up to you.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for replying. I concur with you that Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on a subject, nor should it contain everything concerning certain aspects (for instance, I find that many comic-based articles frequently forget WP:NOTPLOT). I personally view verifiable non-appearances in a similar light as never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and directions that unfinished works would've gone — if the information can be verified, then it adds value to the behind-the-scenes information. I am curious, what are your feelings on information like the others I listed? For instance, I've recently been working on Dhampire: Stillborn to expand it beyond being a stub and I added a section on the never-produced sequels. Do you think this is not correct? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that kind of material is absolutely worth including in an article about a work. If you had written an article about Nicholas Gaunt, I would not feel the same. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, but I am confused. Why would it make a difference if the article was about a character? If the character is notable enough to have an article, then I believe it should encompass the same material (i.e., verifiable non-appearances, never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and planned directions that unfinished works). Assuming, of course, such material doesn't place undue weight on the article.

Returning to the Darkhawk example, I personally believe that the inclusion of a reliably-sourced non-appearance is one of the article's lesser problems. §Fictional character biography seems eggregiously long, to the point of defying WP:NOTPLOT. §Powers and abilities is similarly problematic in length, to the point that it is confusing to read. §Enemies is an unnecessary section that potentially defies WP:NOTDIRECTORY — though this could probably be incorporated into a §See also §§Notable foes or the sort. And there are a notable amount of uncited statements throughout the article.

I apologize for turning my reply into a "poor man's peer review", but my point is that — to me— there are bigger problems facing the article than a reliably-sourced non-appearance. Personally, I find that reliably-sourced non-appearance more worthy of inclusion than the minutiae of Darkhawk's fictional biography or powers. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

GAR

Ozy and Millie has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Comics-related request for Draft:Micro-Face, the Planet Money intellectual property superhero

See wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Import Micro-Face comics? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review sought for FCBD

Calling out if anyone would like to do the GA review for Free Comic Book Day. I am hoping to run it for DYK on May 7, the day of the 20th edition of the event. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hey everyone at WP Comics, There is a new Wikiproject proposal for 20th Century Studios. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/20th Century Studios) So if you are interested in joining please say so in the proposal, so we can see if there will be enough member to start a project. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it Firestar or Fire-Star?

I could be missing something, but I've never seen her name written as "Fire-Star". User:BarrySteakfries moved the page to Fire-Star and is arguing that this should be the spelling of her name in every instance in the article: [5]. How can we resolve this? BOZ (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• It wasn't hypenated in her solo series ([6]). Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky because it might've been hyphenated in Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends based on the title "A Fire-Star Is Born" (S02E2), though it might've only been wordplay there. But her first comic book appearance, Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends #1, does hyphenate the name (see the cover image though it is used like that throughout). Her first in-continuity appearance, Uncanny X-Men #193, uses the name as Firestar (which is also how it appears in her solo series, as @Argento Surfer pointed out, and from then-on within Marvel comics). As such, I think Firestar should be the accepted (more commonly known) name but labelling the name as Fire-Star for her earlier appearances is accurate. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a fair concession for her early appearances, so can we conclude that if her name has been consistently "Firestar" for just about every appearance in the last 37 years, that we should also be spelling it that way? User:BarrySteakfries, what do you say? BOZ (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted per this discussion - hopefully this newer user will discuss here rather than reverting, especially because I note a lot of their edits tend to get reverted[7] and not just by me. BOZ (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ: I think it looks (and reads) appropriately as it currently is. My congratulations to you on a good job! The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Valerian and Laureline

Hi. I recently salvaged Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics) and it is now at AfD, therefore I'd like someone with a good grasp of French to comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics).

Looking further, all of the valerian albums articles in {{Valérian_and_Laureline}} have notability tags. I'm thinking that WP:NBOOK#5 is met (The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable), since a google scholar search on Pierre Christin and Jean Claude Mézières yields lots of results. Any thought on that? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Comte0: While I am not fluent in French, I have looked at the page in question as well as the other pages concerning Valérian and Laureline collections. I may be incorrect, but it is my understanding that the notability of the author would protect the overview of the series (Valérian and Laureline) and not provide notability for each collection having an individual article, such as Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics). Unless all these individual articles for the collections are overhauled, I personally concur with the AfD for them — none of them discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of their specific volume, rather they are all overly-long synopsis of plots in direct defiance of WP:PLOT. As it stands, these pages should be deleted and the plot details on List of Valérian and Laureline books should be expanded to a paragraph per collection/storyline. I am sorry that I can not help you defend the keeping of this article, but I hope my explanation of why is helpful to you. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was helpful, thank you. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)