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)

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)

First - no argument from me about other issues with Darkhawk or other character articles. I completely agree there's a lot of room for improvement.

As to the difference between an article about a comic book and an article about a comic character, it comes back to the question I posed above. The point of a character article is to tell a reader about the character. What does a reader learn about the character from knowing he was considered for, but not used in, a film? That he's less important than the villain(s) who did appear? That's he's possibly more important than other villains who weren't confirmed to have been considered? Unless it appears on screen, it isn't canon, and therefore doesn't impact the character in any way.

To expand on that last part, most of the consensus built around excluding non-appearances from character articles came from editors adding extremely minor things, like the appearance of mechanical tentacles in Amazing Spider-Man 2, Gambit's name appearing in a list on a computer screen in X2, even Easter egg-type allusions to characters that are "obvious" to fans. Allowing that kind of trivia in character articles leads to the same kind of overloaded, unsourced minutia in the film section that you bring up as a current problem in the fictional biography sections.

An article about a comic book, on the other hand, should include sourced material on canceled plans, since that can give a reader more context about the work. Information about an unmade sequel give insight into a creator's plans and a nice segue into why it wasn't made. Sales failure? Creator illness? Publisher disinterest? Or perhaps it's still a potential future project? Whatever the answer, I don't feel those are questions that can be asked about a character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your reply. I now believe that I understand your reasoning, though I respectfully disagree with some of it. You say that the "point of a character article is to tell a reader about the character", but — while a small difference— I think that the "point of a character article is to tell a reader about the history of a character". As per WP:NOTPLOT, the emphasis of articles should be on "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the article's topic. And while a "concise" summary of a character's fictional biography and powers is also essential, limiting an article to canonical information isn't ideal — there is a lot of non-canonical information that deserves to be included.

I agree that this can be overdone, such as the "Easter egg-type allusions" you mention, but I do not think this is a simple black-and-white, binary matter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of Darkhawk, for instance, knowing he was considered for inclusion in Guardians 2 adds to the character's significance. Or, at least, it does in my mind.

I apologize for hijacking this discussion and re-opening a can of worms, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respectfully discuss the merits (or lack thereof) on this topic. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest an article on a character should only tell a reader about the canonical, fictional information - your description of what it should cover is correct. I still don't see how being considered for a film fits with "development, design, reception, significance, [or] influence." Not appearing in a film means there is no development, there are no designs or reception, nor any influence. I'd even go so far as to say that being considered for inclusion but not selected is a strike against a character's significance.

I wouldn't oppose opening this up as an RfC. It would get more eyes on it from outside the regulars on this board. It will need to be boiled down to a very specific, simple question though. Which example of a non-appearance do you feel has the strongest sources supporting it? We'll use that for the test case. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, it is very much appreciated. You mention how a character being considered but "not selected [for a film] is a strike against a character's significance", which it certainly can be, but that does mean it affects significance. A negative impact is still an impact.

I appreciate your offer to open an RfC on the matter, but I do not feel qualified to select a specific example to bring to wider discussion. If you wished to bring the Darkhawk example to RfC, I believe that would be fair. It seems like a solid "middle ground" example of mentioning reliably-sourced "didn't happen" instances in an article. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I for one think an RFC on the topic of, say, "Should articles about fictional characters include non-appearances in other media?" would be a great idea. Make sure to include links to as many previous discussions about the topic as can be found. It would also be useful to figure out when exceptions can be made. This may also be worth expanding beyond comics characters, as this can also be a phenomenon occurring in characters adapted from other forms of media (i.e., was Tom Bombadil considered for including in Jackson's LoTR films?) so I support an RFC to give us a more solid consensus. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@BOZ and The Ghost of Art Toys Past: I have opened the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which seemed like the best spot. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for taking the time to elicit this discussion. I have added my thoughts to it. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@SirDot and Cambalachero: you might be interested in the RfC too. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have again reported the IP editor:[5] BOZ (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And they are blocked for a week this time:[6] BOZ (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported them once again: [7] and this time they are blocked for a month. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly that same IP user socking: [8] BOZ (talk) 02:30, 20 May 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: [9]. How can we resolve this? BOZ (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• It wasn't hypenated in her solo series ([10]). 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[11] 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)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding new categories for webcomics

We have categories for when webcomics debut and we have one for when they end, but many if not most webcomics exist in a state of limbo where the creators haven't made an official announcement on them ending the comic, or have even voiced an intent on continuing the comic, but then nothing happens for years. On a few occasions while cleaning up the main Webcomics category the official website wasn't even online anymore. I'd like to add Category:Webcomics on hiatus for these comics that never had an official end. It provides a source of closure for me as an editor, and having a category for these comics also makes it easier to find these comics and check on if there's been any recent activity. By that same token I'd like to add Category:Ongoing webcomics for comics that are still regularly being updated for much the same reason. ReneeWrites (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Thank you for contributing. I see no reason that webcomics shouldn't have their own equivalent to Category:Unfinished comics, but it should be consistent with that established naming… so, perhaps, Category:Unfinished webcomics. As for having a category to denote ongoing status, there is no current convention for doing such. Comic books in general, for instance, have no such category to denote that they are ongoing; their ongoing status is simply denoted in the infobox. I believe any ongoing series category would require a proper discussion, though I personally feel it is an unnecessary categorization. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've made the Unfinished webcomics category and added a few titles to it, I'll work on it more later. I'll put the information about a webcomic's ongoing status in the infobox like you said. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Thank you for taking the initiative. I know very little about webcomics, but in looking at the three you have categorized thusly I do have a remark/question. Both Demon-cratic Singapore and Thinking Ape Blues, upon my cursory examination, appear to be more single-panel/page gag strips than ongoing stories. Is this accurate? If so, they aren't really unfinished so much as they are simply ended or presumed ended (perhaps, in either case, without announcement). Platinum Grit, on the other hand, appears to be truly unfinished, the final installment not resolving an ongoing story.

Also, I would advise adding a little text to the Publication History (or whatever) section/s that identifies the webcomic's unfinished nature. Something akin to As of 25 May 2022, new Blah Blah Blah work has not been published since Whatever-month 2XXX, leaving the ongoing storyline unfinished. (and please remember to use the {{As of}} template at that sentence's start). Thank you again. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)