Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Wonder Man

Supposedly Wonder Man is going to appear in the second Guardians of the Galaxy movie. However, I am concerned that the sources people have been using for this information are not reliable sources. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed at this time. Added hidden notes too. See Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 for more info regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sunday strip and Sunday comics

For all practical purposes, these seem to be identical topics, and should be selectively merged into one article discussing the Sunday comic supplement, which is composed of strips (many of which are also printed daily without color). Any objections? See Talk:Sunday_comics#Proposed_merge_with_Sunday_strip. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Having had a look at them both, they do seem to cover the same topic from only slightly different angles. Neither looks too long to justify splitting them, so unless there's likely to be a substantial expansion of either in the near future, I'd say support. Killer Moff (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tweenage characters in comics up for deletion

See here, input appreciated. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

1945 DC Comics Christmas party photo

I wanted to call attention to a picture which Todd Klein posted on his website. It's a photo of DC Comics' 1945 Christmas party. This could be a goldmine of source material of cropped photos for articles which currently lack photos of various Golden Age creators.

• Klein, Todd (January 19, 2016). "DC Comics' 1945 Christmas Party". Kleinletters.com. Archived from the original on April 23, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Avengers (comics) split

The Avengers (comic book) was recently split from Avengers (comics). The problem is that most of the article's WP:Real-world information left with the split, leaving a mostly WP:PLOTONLY article. Should these articles be re-merged?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure they need to be merged, but they weren't split right anyway. The section on collected editions should be with the publication history. If the split is kept, then Avengers (comics) should be a DAB and the content currently there should be renamed (I have no suggestions). Both pages should have a more explicit link to the other, as well. I've alerted the IP who did the split to this conversation. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Argento Surfer. Thank you also for bringing this to discussion, TriiipleThreat. Also thank you to Favre1fan93 for doing a bit of cleanup. I think that the Avengers comic title has some legs to stand on its own separate from the titular characters, much like The Amazing Spider-Man or The Incredible Hulk (comic book) and other such long-running titles. The sources are there for both. Anything I did wrong with the split can be fixed. Avengers (comics) looked like this a day ago so any parts that need to be reverted can be done so. I tried to focus the content on the comic title article using as little in-universe text as possible to get the point across. I did remove some of the language from the "fictional biography" section that had more to do with who was writing the books and what issues the stories took place in, but I left anything referring to the fact that it was a story including the names of storylines. The Fictional biography section was written kind of strangely anyway. About 25-30% of it was "This writer wrote this storyline using his favorite story as inspiration, while this artist brought dynamic perspective to the artwork", and the rest of it was purely in-universe for a few sentences in a row, as much as you see on almost any comics character article. My feeling is that the article on the team should focus on the characters and story details (using as much out-of-universe description as possible) and the article on the comic title should focus on the creators and publication details. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the split was warranted, though I don't feel the need to make Avengers (comics) a dab. I think a hatnote would be sufficient, something I'll boldly add, along with moving the collected edition info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"My feeling is that the article on the team should focus on the characters and story details" in other words a WP:PLOTONLY description. I think the article's should be re-merged and you should work to ensure that the remaining article can stand on it own before attempting to resplit it. Unfortunately, you left a problematic article in even worse condition.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterization of my viewpoint. My thinking was that the comic book title article has the potential to look something like The Amazing Spider-Man while the team article has the potential to look something like Spider-Man. Certainly the Avengers, as characters and a publication - both together and as separate entities, have enough history and commentary and a legacy that they can be treated well. So if this is still a discussion as to whether a split is warranted, then I maintain that it is warranted (and I think I have some agreement here).

As to whether I handled it well, of course that is up for debate. All articles are works in progress, so this is no exception. Following my own example of the Spider-Man article, notice how it focuses on the characterization and storylines without being a plot-only in-universe mess. I think we can do the same here. But not immediately. If you go back to what it looked like before the split (see the link in my reply above), you will see that the "Fictional biography" section was probably a good one-half to two-thirds in-universe. Undoing the split will not help that, but careful editing will. Still, especially after looking at my own example, I can see where I can put some of the words back to make the section less in-universe, and I will make an attempt at clean-up. Maybe I can do even a little better than that. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If we deleted Avengers (comics), renamed the Avengers (comic book) page to that name, expanded the publication history section to discuss storyline decisions (also appeasing WP:PLOT fiends) and then added some real-world commentary about the characters/themes/history of the series, we end up with a fairly good article.Zythe (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Zythe. I really think we need to focus on creating one good article first and we shouldn't be in the business of creating a bunch of new articles simply because other stuff exists.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Presence

The same anonymous IP editor as before is back adding the same inaccurate claims, instead of taking it to the talk section: [1] David A (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Here he is again: [2] David A (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Hopeless

I created the page Dennis Hopeless and would like it added to your list of pages to be assessed. Not sure if there's an easier way to do this as I'm new to editing/creation. Please let me know if there's any categorization or banners I need to add as well. Thanks. Offensivename (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. I marked it as a "no" for coverage and accuracy because there's very little about him outside of his comic work. What's his birthday? He's "from" Kansas City, but was he born there, or does he still live there? Maybe both? Did he attend a college, or receive any formal training? Is he married and/or a father? Has he ever named his influences? Is "comic writer" the only job he's had? I think the article needs some questions like this to be answered before it's a B level article. They don't have to be these specific questions, just basic biography information. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been unable to find his birthday or any more detailed information about his past. I know he's married, so I'll be sure to add that. Gets kinda' tricky with someone who's notable enough to have a page, but not notable enough to have a biography much anywhere else but here. I figured the bibliography stuff was the most important to get up and correct, but I'll see what else I can dig up. Thanks for the constructive feedback. Offensivename (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

His Marvel work won't help, but do the collections of his indie books have author bios? There might be some useful information there. There may also be some personal information on his blog, but I can't access that from my work computer. Interviews with him, especially from early in his career and/or about his creator owned work may have some good details, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishop

Is this edit to the lead sentence appropriate? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching that get reverted for a while. I think "Bishop" is the common name - it's the name of the article, after all. I'm not a big X-Men reader, and I was unaware he had a first name until that edit. "Lucas Bishop" should be in parenthesis. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted, so hopefully HÊÚL. will come here to discuss the edit. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Zythe just did a similar revert on Spider-Man, with a different editor. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We should introduce characters by the common name, whichever way is best for that particular article, introduce their secret identity in context. I would champion any format which disrupts people from reading (and editing) these articles as though they were "biographies".Zythe (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree but Bishop does not have a "secret identity". He is a cop from the future and therefore often uses his surname. It is a completely different thing from Superman (Clark Kent) ou Spider-Men (Peter Parker). The character name is Lucas Bishop. HÊÚL. (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ellen Ripley supports this argument. Ravage 2099 does not, but it's poorly written. I'm drawing a blank on other non-codename heroes at the moment. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Elektra (comics) suggests something similar. May I propose something along the lines of "Lucas Bishop (commonly referred to as Bishop)"Killer Moff (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On Elektra article we do not have "Elektra Natchios (commonly referred to as Elektra)". HÊÚL. (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

First Appearance vs Cameo

This has come up before, but User:Arionapollo has brought this up on my talk page and I thought I'd invite more voices to the table since this could apply to other characters as well.

Basically, the Adam Warlock publication history currently says "The character debuted in Fantastic Four #66-67 ... [and had] a second appearance as "Him" in Thor #165-166" Arionapollo, citing CGC and Overstreet, wants to note the Fantastic Four issues are a cameo, and specify the character's "first full appearance" as the Thor issues. However,

• The FF issues present his origin in full.
• Old Wizard magazines note that FF 66 is a cameo, and FF67 is the first appearance.
• Marvel says his first appearance was FF 66.
• There was a 2 year gap between the FF and Thor stories.

I think the current wording is sufficiently generic, and avoids making a judgment on what's a cameo and what's a true first appearance. Google provides some additional support for the Thor books, but all the top hits are from sites promoting the book for its sale value.

Venom (comics) gives his first appearance as ASM #300, and specifies in the publication history he appeared in cameo on the last page of #299. Apocalypse (comics) gives his first appearance as X-Factor #5 in the lead, and the infobox specifies #5 was "in shadow" and #6 was "first full appearance". The lead and PH of Wolverine (character) mentions Hulk 180 as his "first appearance" and Hulk 181 as his "first full appearance". The infobox has Hulk 180 listed as a cameo.

1. Should the publication history section or infobox distinguish between cameos and first appearances?
2. Is this disagreement significant enough to discuss within the article?

Argento Surfer (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think its worth agreeing a formal definition for First Appearance, Cameo and First Full Appearance. They sound similar and in many cases may have been used synonymously with each other. A formal definition would remove the ambiguous use for each one in hundreds of articles and introduce some consistency on future edits.

I propose...

• First Appearance: The first issue that the character can be clearly seen in the form/costume recognised by an average comic reader. Not in shadow, invisible or disguised as someone else. Venom in ASM #299.
• Cameo: [Discuss]
• First Full appearance: The first issue they take part in a story in a meaningful way or feature in a sizable portion of it. Venom in ASM #300.

YourGloriousLeader (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2016 (GMT)

While both articles are lacking on sources, cameo specifically notes it's a brief appearance by a known character, like Stan Lee in Marvel movies, as opposed to minor roles by actors before they became stars. First appearance is "the first occurrence to feature a fictional character." First full appearance doesn't exist. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Argento Surfer. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"First full appearance" sounds inherently subjective, so I don't think we should be using that. For the others, the definitions provided by Argento Surfer seem reasonable. BOZ (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm here because I saw the request on the RfC Noticeboard. Although I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject matter here, the basic question is one that shows up in most topics on Wikipedia -- what to do when reliable sources disagree on something. My view is that the preferable approach is to address the discrepancies in the article itself. The alternative is to try to find some agreement as to what the reliable sources should have said. But even if you succeed in reaching some consensus on the "truth" of the matter, that success will only be temporary. Inevitably, some future editor is going to decide that you got it wrong. And so, I suggest that Argento's option 2 (discuss the differing reliable opinions within the article) is the approach that will best lead to a stable article. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an RfC

WikiProject Comics editors are invited to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Essex in X-Men: Apocalypse

Is this a trivial non-appearance, or do we need to include this information in the article? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The point of the scene is to namedrop Sinister, so it can hardly be called trivial. The briefcase slamming closed, dramatically revealing the name "Essex," is the final shot of the entire movie. That is why it exists. (Well, that and to obviously set up X-23.) - Chris McFeely (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

But he doesn't actually appear in the film, does he? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

When Amazing Spider-Man 2 came out, editors wanted to add a notes to Doctor Octopus and Vulture (comics) saying their equipment appeared in the film. The consensus was that these Easter eggs were not notable unless something developed from them. Are there confirmed plans for another X film with Sinister announced as a villain? If not, this is a trivial non-appearance of the character and shouldn't be mentioned on the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Argento Surfer, that's what I figured. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but those are easter eggs in a scene that's about something else (setting up the Rhino for the final scene - and the tentacles are mentioned on Ock's page). In this case, establishing Sinister is the sole reason the scene exists - and it's a post-credits stinger designed for maximum drama and excitement. This isn't like the list of name on a computer screen in X2 or something. This is "Sinister will be in future films" territory, just like Thanos showing up in a stinger in Avengers. To not mention that a scene in a major motion picture is dedicated to establishing the character's existence seems silly. - 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Except that Thanos actually appeared in Avengers. This is just a name, and we've had this discussion before. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That, and "will appear in future films" is pure WP:CRYSTAL, especially if we don't have a source saying that he actually will appear in future films. How many times have we seen hints at something that is supposed to appear in a future film but neve comes to fruition? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether he'll appear in future films or not. He's directly referenced anyway. If there are moments in other Marvel films in which a character's name appears (in a list with names, for example) and the page regarding this character includes this information, why should it be any different in this case? - Jmcalil (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for spoiling this for me, guys. Since I haven't seen the film, I don't know how significant this is. Seriously, though, as Klaus Janson used to say......Bastards. Nightscream (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Nightscream. Wikipedia is a bad place to be when you don't want spoilers!  :) 65.126.152.254 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think there might be a middle ground, in that we can state what's onscreen — something like, "a briefcase bearing the name Essex" — and not imply or interpret anything about it.

This means no wikilink from "Essex," since the link would be from personal knowledge about the comics character, which might or might not be the same as in the movie (as, indeed, the Silver Samurai in The Wolverine was a different person from the one in the comics).

While I'm here, let me throw in another reminder that we could use you veteran editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)