Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Nomination of Spider-Man (set index) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spider-Man (set index) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man (set index) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GAR notification

Calvin and Hobbes, an article that you or your project may be interested in, 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.

Category: Marvel Comics characters for Transformers, GI Joe and others

I had added some tags into Transformers characters articles calking them "Marvel Comics characters", just the ones who appeared in actual Marvel comics. Another editor has been removing these tags under the argument that all Transformers characters are tagged as "comic characters", therefore tagging them as "Marvel Comics characters" is redundant. I don't think this is legitimate because not all Transformers characters specifically appeared in Marvel comics. The reader of a wikipedia page of a Transformers character won't know if that character appeared in a Marvel Comics from the categories unless you specially call him a "Marvel Comics" character. Some newer Transformers characters appeared in Dreamwave Productions comics, or IDW Publishing comics. So I planned to list the specific comic companies. A broad "Comics character" does not inform the reader if the character was Marvel, Dreamwave, IDW or whatever. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Mathewignash (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because certain Transformers characters appeared in the The Transformers (Marvel Comics) comic book, does not mean that they belong in Category:Marvel Comics characters. And besides, all Transformers characters are already included as a subcategory of Category:Comics characters, so including them in another subcategory is indeed redundant. I understand where you're coming from, but per WP:BRD you should have waited for the results of this discussion, before edit warring to make a point [1]. Hopefully we can come to a consensus as to whether these characters are actually considered "Marvel" characters. I for one, do not believe that they are. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I see two possible points against the inclusion of the category for TF and GI Joe characters as I understand it. One is that they don't belong to the "Marvel Comics character" category because they are already listed as comics characters. I don't agree with this simply because its not specific enough. The second is that these characters may have appeared in Marvel Comics, but they are not specifically Marvel Comics characters, just toy character licensed to Marvel for comics. To this I would argue that the first Transformers biographies were written for Hasbro by Marvel Comics writers, and they very first appearance of many of the Transformers characters in ANY fiction was in the Marvel Comics. Transformers #1 by Marvel Comics predates the Transformers TV series, books and movies. The original Transformers are Marvel characters before anything else. The "Category:Marvel Comics characters" specifically states "This is a catch-all category for all fictional characters originating in Marvel Comics" Optimus Prime's first appearance in any fiction was in a Marvel comic book. Mathewignash (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I see where you're coming from, but your logic is flawed. The Transformers and G.I. Joe characters did not originate in Marvel Comics, they are as you stated just toy characters licensed to Marvel. And, if Category:Marvel Comics characters is a "catch-all" category, then it should not be used to mark specific Transformers who have appeared in Marvel Comics anyway. The best solution to this would be to add the specific categories to Category:Transformers characters, rather than add them redundantly to character articles already in that category. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just going by what other wikipedia article have done, look at Rom the Spaceknight. He's a Parker Brothers toy who is listed in the Category Marvel Super Heroes. Just because he's a licensed toy doesn't exclude him from a Marvel category. Same could be said of any of the Micronauts heroes, who originated as Mego toys. Mathewignash (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Rom and the Micronauts are not good examples, because those articles specifically state that those characters are in the Marvel Universe. They are not like Transformers or G.I. Joe, which both have hundreds of characters, many with their own articles, some of whom appeared in Marvel publications. I understand that you would like to tag those characters specifically, but it is simply unnecessary, when they are already tagged with subcategories of Category:Comics characters that are much more specific. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the examples of Rom and the Micronauts, as they have the same toy origins. I would argue that "Transformers characters" should NOT be place in the category "Comics characters" as not all Transformers characters have appeared in comics. Most of them have appeared in some comic book at one time, but not all of them. So my correction would be to remove the Comics characters category from the Transformers characters page. This would be more technically accurate. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, I moved Category:Transformers characters to Category:Marvel Comics characters, and added categories for the other companies that have published Transformers comics, similar to what was done with Category:G.I. Joe characters. But this still means that adding those categories to specific Transformers character articles is redundant, because they already have specific Transformer categories on their articles. The category "Marvel Comics characters" specifically states that it is for characters that are not already covered by one of the subcategories. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your solution doesn't really address the flaw. Looking at the way it's organized now it looks like every Transformers character is a character of Marvel Comics and IDW comics, and Dreamwave comics, etc! which is inaccurate. Is there is there any reason why you are against all the Transformers characters who appeared in Marvel comics as "Category:Marvel Comics characters"? It seems the most accurate way of doing things. The ones who appeared in Marvel Comics get that category, and those who did not don't get that category.Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we get any disinterested third parties to comment on this? The two ways that seem to be possible is: 1. Just list all the Transformers as generic comics characters, which is simple, but inaccurate, or 2. List each one if they appeared in comic brand, which is a bit longer, but much accurate. Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathewignash, with all due respect, you are trying to create a problem that doesn't need to be solved. More than one reason has already been shown, as to why it is unnecessary to place Transformers character articles in specific comic categories. You even state that you "see two possible points against the inclusion of the category for TF and GI Joe characters", but your argument is that you just don't agree with it. The fact is, that these characters are not "Marvel" characters, and apparently no one else thinks that it is necessary to mark which characters were published by certain companies. That is simply overcategorization, which is redundant and unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm being any trouble. I simply saw a category that seemed appropriate to an article, and you removed it based on the idea that it was redundant because all Transformers are listed as Marvel characters. I'd argue that this is inaccurate, and simply want to be more specific. I have not really heard a good argument from you as to why being specific with each character (as opposed to painting all the Transformers articles with a broad brush) is a bad thing. Mathewignash (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Transformers characters have appeared in Marvel Comics, but they are not Marvel Comics characters, because Marvel does not own (most of) the fictional elements from the comics. That's why Dreamwave, IDW, and Fun Publications could use ideas from the Mavel books without crediting Bob Budanski or anyone else, but cannot use Circuit Breaker, Death's Head, or any of the human characters. On the other hand, they do own virtually everything in the ROM books except for the likeness and name of the title character. Since there's only one page for the character and the series, and because the character was much more involved in the larger Marvel U, it has a stronger claim to the category.

Here's another way to think about it - Do you think this tag should be added to the Barack Obama article? He appeared in an issue of Spider-man. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree but would say that's a poor example, because the obvious issues with Barack Obama are that he is a real person, not a character, and his fictional representation in comics is limited to a couple of non-notable appearances. Neither of those issues are the case with the Transformers cast. A better example would be whether the category should be added to Luke Skywalker.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Barak Obama is a bad example because he's a real world person, however, The article Ronald Reagan in fiction does have the tag of "Marvel Comics character", since Ronald Reagan's fictional likeness has appeared in Marvel comics. I would point AGAIN to characters like Rom or the Micronauts, who were licensed character based on toys who Marvel wrote comics for. They are listed on Wikipedia as Marvel heroes. So if they qualify, is there ANY reason why Transformers would not? Anyways, to be honest the debate between myself and Forddj33 is NOT whether Transformers should be considered Marvel character, as he also has them listed as Marvel characters as a group, but lists EVERY Transformer as a Marvel character. I'm the one suggesting limiting it to only Transformers who appeared in Marvel comics as Marvel characters.Mathewignash (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathewignash, you said on my talk page to "please feel free to add your input, and I'll abide by the project's decision". Two other editors have now given reasons why it is not appropriate to place Category:Marvel Comics characters on specific articles for Transformers characters. Yes, I added the category to Category:Transformers characters, because just like Category:G.I. Joe characters and Category:Gargoyles characters, they were at one time published by Marvel. But at that point, those subcategories are sufficient enough to differentiate those characters from others, so marking certain characters as "Marvel Comics characters" is inaccurate and completely unnecessary. I'm sorry if you cannot understand why, but I feel like we are going around in circles, because it has already been explained to you more than once. Please consider dropping the stick and moving on. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to list some of the TF characters as Marvel characters individually. You want to list ALL the TF characters as Marvel characters as a group. The two other editors have said that they don't think that the TF characters should be listed as Marvel characters AT ALL. So those two other editors did not pick your solution or mine. Their decision is actually closer to mine than yours since they don't think any TFs should be listed as Marvel, and I only think SOME should be listed as Marvel. So technically they sided closer to me me. Are you willing to concede or do you want to wait for more input? Mathewignash (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...Again, you are misunderstanding the reason why I added that category to Category:Transformers characters. It does not mean that I "consider ALL the TF characters as Marvel characters". I understand that you think some of those characters should be marked specifically, but I have already given you two different reasons as to why that is unnecessary. But, I waited until there was additional input, and User:Argento Surfer stated that "they are not Marvel Comics characters", and User:NukeofEarl stated that "Neither of those issues are the case with the Transformers cast". I do not see how this means that they sided closer to you. The fact is, that Category:Marvel Comics characters simply does not apply to Transformers characters the same way that it does to other licensed properties that have appeared in Marvel Comics. Again, I'm sorry if you disagree, but please stop trying to push your POV, when it is clear that you don't have a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fortdj33, with all due respect, I really don't see how POV is involved here. This is strictly a matter of sorting things.

I haven't actually voiced my stance on the core topic yet, so I might as well do that now. I think the chief concern here is overcategorization. If we tag individual Transformers character articles, it makes things more complicated for those navigating through the Marvel Comics characters category. There's also considerable upkeep involved and the human error that goes with it. Mathewignash, I understand your concern with accuracy in categorization, but I think tagging the character articles individually would ultimately lead to things being less accurate, as editors can overlook appearances made by individual characters, and characters who haven't yet appeared in Marvel comics may yet do so. You refer to Rom and Micronauts. I know very little about the Micronauts so I won't presume to speak on them, but with Rom, in addition to the other points Argento Silver pointed out, the difference is that Rom is an individual character with no parent category, so there's only one article on which to place the category tag. So it's not overcategorization in the way that tagging every Transformer who appears in the comics is.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

NukeofEarl, thank you for that clarification. The only reason I mentioned POV, is because Mathewignash is having trouble looking at this objectively, regardless of how it is explained to him. I agree that it is a matter of overcategorization, which I already pointed out above. Hopefully your explanation will be enough to make him understand. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I lack objectivity, I just disagree with your position on a category detail. I have opened this up to hear other opinions, and I stopped adding the category while the discussion has gone on, so please let the process continue. There is no rush to conclude this discussion.Mathewignash (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, there is no need to continue this discussion. More than one editor has given reasons why Transformers characters are not considers "Marvel" characters, and why including specific characters in Category:Marvel Comics characters would be overcategorization (see WP:OVERCAT for more info). Creating a new category for the same purpose, would be unnecessary for the same reasons! Mathewignash, you and I are both members of {{WikiProject Transformers}}, and I know that you have done a lot of good work in that regard. But in this case, you really need to stop beating the dead horse. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

NukeofEarl, I am unaware of rules concerning "over categorization". Not trying to sound glib here, but that sounds like advocating that we should remove categories from articles because too many articles share a category. I will admit, tagging every TF who appeared in a Marvel comic could possibly double the number of articles in that category as there are many TF characters. Do you think that's a problem? If a category is too large, should it be split to be more specific? Perhaps something like "Fictional characters licensed to Marvel Comics?" as a sub category of "Marvel Comics characters" where TFs, Micronauts and Rom could reside seperate from the one Marvel made on its own? Mathewignash (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that subcategory could be a good idea, but it would get enourmous fast and require subcategories of its own. In addition to transformers (either singly or as a group), there would also be characters from Star Wars, The Dark Tower, Dexter, Ender's Game, countless movie adaptations they've printed, the old Classics Illustrated books. Not to mention a case for all the DC characters who appeared in JLA / Avengers. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but this just further proves that such a category would be overcategorization. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, especially when you differeniate between characters licenesed to Marvel and characters formerly licensed to Marvel. And Star Wars would be both! I think this was a good suggestion but is ultimately impractical. How would you (Fortdj33) feel about the OP making a list page instead? Then the information could be included in Wikipedia, but not clutter character pages with more categories. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Accidental ping

My apologies to everyone on this page who received a notification ("echo" or "ping", the numbers to the right of your name at the right hand side top of the screen). We are experimenting with Flow, a new talk page system, and it has some serious bugs. Feel free to join the tests at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page or to leave your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Flow. I'll try not to repeat the accidental mass-pinging, but accidents can happen... Fram (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure what that was about. :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Same. No worries. However, my will not let me clear it. Is there some way to do this without clicking the notification box? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. If you have this issue, go to preferences, notification, then uncheck the new notification option for Flow (the web one). That will clear it. Reenable if you wish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. The devs deployed some fixes for this. The problematic notification from the large Flow post is still there, it's just being hidden in Special:Notifications (please confirm!), so your Echo notification counter may stick at [1]. They're working on that too, and offer these comments:

To fix it, you can either: 1) Temporarily uncheck the Flow notifications (web) in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo (as Favre1fan93 explains above); or 2) Ignore the [1] for 9 days (a week from Thursday) when we'll get the next version of mediawiki code deployed to Enwiki;

or 3) Copy & paste this code to Special:MyPage/common.js:

importScript('User:Mlitn/MarkAllRead.js');

press 'save', and a dialog will pop-up asking if you want to mark all Notifications as read. Accept that, and it will be fixed. You can then remove the line of code from your common.js again.

Every found and fixed bug is a step closer to happiness!

Sorry again for the confusion and distraction. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Super hero's and villains should fall under several categories when applicable

I think Superhero's who possess a professional skill should be listed as that profession even if it is not their job. I've been adding categories to super hero's such as sole survivor and roboticist to Superman. Superman is clearly quite good at making his Superman duplicate robots. Some of the best known runs of Batman address that he has a split personality issue. Batman comics are psychological fiction even if Batman doesn't count as a psychologist; which according to checkmate he is treated is. Martson run Wonder Woman is the most familiar to feminist theorists, the version of Wonder Woman with telepathy and electro kinesis. The original Spiderman invented web shooters which he could augment for different situations or give to people. I think the policy of using only the best known aspects of the character instead of the comics canon version tends to ignore a lot of their more memorable dark and edgy aspects that would never make it to a film, cartoon or even video game. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The applicable guideline here is Wikipedia:Categories#Articles. Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define Batman as a chemist? No? Then do not categorize Batman as a fictional chemist. If you disagree with the guideline, work to achieve a consensus to change it. Otherwise, please follow it. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with SummerPhD; otherwise Superman would fit under most occupation categories that exist (He can crush coal into diamonds - he's an alchemist! He flies through space - he's an astronaut! He holds up falling airplanes - he's a pilot! He rebuilds collapsing buildings and bridges - he's an engineer and architect!) and Batman would fit under at least as many. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Character articles already heavily overuse categories, and the last thing we need to do is add every conceivable category that a character could fall into. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Superman doesn't know how to invest robots, he has the data crystal in his Fortress of Solitude telling him how to do things, and the robots do all the work for him anyway. Batman is well known as a fictional detective and fictional orphan, that what he is known for, his tragic backstory repeated often enough. Batman is currently listed as a category:Fictional aviators, for flying the Batplane, and I don't think that's something that really matters, since its not a key feature of the character. He is in the categories DC Comics martial artists, Fictional judoka, Fictional karateka, and Fictional martial artists. Perhaps just the first one would be enough for that. He is listed as a fictional inventor also, he known for his gadgets, just as Spider-Man is known for his inventions. Spider-Man didn't just invest the web shooters and various types of web fluid, but he invented things to fight villains all the time. The Amazing Spider-Man #2 in 1963 had him encounter the Vulture for the first time, and use an invention he created to defeat him. It is a rather common thing to see him invent something to take someone out, so I think he should be listed as a fictional inventor. Dream Focus 12:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have somewhat relevant question to this discussion. Article in question is Green Arrow. I'd like to make a short review of some categories that I find troubling and would like to remove. First is "DC Comics limited series", probably should be used only for articles about particular limited series, not for character pages. Next is whole bunch of "comic debuts", it seams that someone put category for each time GA's new series was launched, is it really needed? With, for example, Marvel relaunching books yearly it feels like we'd drown in these categories. I'd say that only "introduced in 1941" should be left. "DC comics titles", same as with limited series I'd say, if article is general purpose about character and his publication then there is no need to categorize it as title. Following that we have it listed as "Black Canary character" which feels completely missleading, GA is not supporting character of hers and shouldn't be listed in this category, otherwise we might as well put "Superman character" in every article about DC character. And for the last one we have Fictional X, things that could be removed: martial artist (while good fighter it is not his defining feature), mayor (was mayor for very short period of time), swordsman (same as with martial artist), from california (I actually can't even find if he is supposed to be from California or not at some continuity). Basically I'd like to get confirmation (or rebutall) for removal of my mentioned categories since I don't really like to do such things without consulting first. If my understanding on whats relevant in this case is correct I'll apply it further for other character articles that I'm watching. BlisterD (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The "comic debuts" category should be used for characters at the year of their debut (that is, when the character was first created). Relaunchs and alternate versions do not count, only the comic books should be categorized. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Real name

The IPs 108.34.176.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.38.188.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have added the phrase "real name" in the lead of numerous comics character articles. Do we want the lead sentence to read "Smith Man (John Smith) is a..." or "Smith Man (real name John Smith) is a..." as the IP user(s) have been doing? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Both are a bit too biographical and not really appropriate for writing about fiction. "Real name" is the worse of the two. It should be Best Known By This Name Man in the first sentence of the Lead, and if it at all relevant you can mention John Smith in a subsequent paragraph - for Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Diana of Themiscyra, Tony Stark, Peter Parker and other well-developed characters. But in many cases it's stupid - Squirrel Girl's real name is not an important fact for her lead section, nor is e.g. Invisible Kid's. However, it can handily be deployed in the infobox and the Publication history.Zythe (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point - common practice is to include the character's "real name" in the first sentence or two of the lead, but we can discuss whether it is appropriate to have the alter ego only in the infobox. BOZ (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there at all unless necessary, few characters are known notably by their uncostumed name and where they are this is discussed in prose ala Spider-Man, Batman, etc. Looking at the IP's history and the edit made, it makes it read like a fan artice/fictional biography, which is not the intent of Wikipedia, and picking a random name from the IP's edit history, no-one knows who Bloodshed (comics) is, let alone who Wyndell Dichinson is. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So then, while it's debatable whether the alter ego name should be in the lead sentence at all, there does at least seem to be some support that the "real name" phrase is definitely unnecessary. So would it be a good idea to revert all of those additions, and point the IP user back here if they are inclined to revert war instead of accepting the change? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think undoing them is the right thing to do in this case, at least the edits I saw on that particular IPs edit history. There are only the really big name characters whose alter egos are equally as famous as the superhero name, Batman/Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man/Peter Parker, etc. and in those cases it is mentioned out of universe, where here it is being presented like a case file biography. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - I will revert them all now and point the user to this thread. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Warlord vs The Warlord

Would anyone mind terribly if Warlord (DC Thomson) was moved to Warlord (comics), and that one went to The Warlord (comics)? The American comic is titled with "The", and (apparently) so is the character. Would make for more natural disambiguators, and be more accurate. See WP:THE. I'm not familiar with either, though, so there might be something I'm overlooking. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that that's not a good enough disambiguation given how similar they are. Can't Warlord (comics) be a dab page for Warlord (DC Thompson) and Warlord (DC Comics)/The Warlord (DC Comics)?Zythe (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zythe. "Warlord (comics)" is too ambiguous, so it should be a dab page for Warlord (DC Thomson) and The Warlord (DC Comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It could. But then a searcher would have to click twice to get to whichever Warlord comic they wanted (possibly after already clicking through The Warlord page). And adding "DC" just makes them look more similar, while confusingly meaning different things. Best to leave a "For the other comic, see the other article" hatnote on both, rather than create more hassle.InedibleHulk (talk) 13:33, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I decided to be bold and move the article to The Warlord (comics). "Warlord (comics)" still redirects there, but it could easily be made into a dab page if necessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just give it to the comic titled "Warlord"? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Because "Warlord (comics)" could apply to more than one publication, it is too ambiguous, therefore a disambiguation page would be more appropriate. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be a page with only two links. With a hatnote, those who were looking for the other one are a click away, while those in the right place are happy. With a disambig, everybody comes to the wrong place first. Not bad for that the way it redirects now, just a bit backwards.

I'd prefer that to forcing doubleclicks on innocent people, but whatever works for your Wikiproject works for me. I haven't even read a comic since the mid-nineties. It was a Ghostbusters, with a witch and a crippled ghost boy. Good times, I guess.InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I see there's a Chinese Warlord, too. I guess there could be a disambiguation page, but I think it might be at The Warlord with the others. Having a disambiguation page link to another causes tripleclicking, and that's surely not healthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a little uncomfortable with much being made of the The. See Thing (comics) for The Thing.Zythe (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That seemed wrong at first glance, but Google eased my mind. Marvel's site and ComicBookResources (is that a good site?) call Ben Grimm "the Thing". But CBR and MikeGrell.com call Travis Morgan "The Warlord".

Aside from that, there's also another comic called The Thing!. The exclamation point is much subtler than an extra syllable. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

A very similar discussion was held at Talk:The Wolverine (film)#The Wolverine redirection. Opinions there would probably be relevant here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Not even The Joker is safe. I feel like the guy who alarmed the President about bodysnatchers, only to have him remove his mask. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Not implying anyone here is (or isn't) an alien, by the way, just meant I get the sense that this "goes all the way to the top". And that's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Current and former members of a superhero team

Do we want to have a list that separates current and former members of a team like this? 2601:D:9400:3CD:BA:66E2:920E:EEB5 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what we do with musical groups. Of course, that's because Template:Infobox musical artist includes fields for "current members" and "past members". So I guess the real question is, should we change Template:Infobox comics organization and Template:Infobox comics team and title to include such fields? My concern is that comics team articles tend to be not as well maintained as musical group articles. I just now discovered that Defenders (comics) still listed as "current members" the incarnation of the group which broke up over a year ago. I've never seen the membership for a musical group article get anywhere near that outdated.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't fictional characters who can fly a category?

This seems a very defining characteristic which is incredibly common in comic books; yet this is not a category. It's one of the top three most common super powers behind super strength and speed probably. I guess Nth metal would count as a technology and people using technology to fly like Iron Man should be left out. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find exceptions to the rule while proposing it, others will surely find others. What about those who got their power from radiation, or an alien beam or some magic crystal? Isn't that technology, too? What about Lucy Lawless (as she appears in The Simpsons, not to be confused with Xena)? I bet a lot of people consider Iron Man a flyer, and bet that's part of why not.

But, as a guy who doesn't work here, I give my approval. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Its too common, but not often an ability thats exploited. So unless an article out there exists on the ability to fly as something relevant to all superheroes, then maybe we can make it into a category.Lucia Black (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with flight is that it's so common that it isn't a defining character trait anymore. Besides flight (either as a superpower or through other means), many characters do not "fly" but do things that get very close to the idea, such as Batman or Spider-Man using ropes to hang around, Hulk and his giant jumps, Thor when he throws his hammers and grabs it, the Invisible woman standing over a forcefield, etc. If we count all the cases toguether in a liberal way, the exceptions are really the earth-bound characters, not the other way. And, by the way, the most common super power (even more than flight) is another... Cambalachero (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So...[[Category:Perky superheroes]]? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

The Comics Journal #267 & A Contract with God

Does anyone have access to The Comics Journal #267 (April/May 2005, the Will Eisner obituary issue). I'd like to see if there's anything significant in it that could be added to the artcle for A Contract with God before I take it to FAC. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Carl Barks comics, again

Reading over past (and recent) history, Doduf has asserted that Carl Barks' notability confers notability on the articles in question that it's not hurting anyone, and that the article demonstrates notability internally.

• I don't recall leaning on either of those last two arguments. Doduf (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

All three of these arguments are explicitly spelled out on WP:AADD as invalid, specifically WP:INHERITED,WP:NOHARM and WP:ADDSVALUE. None of these were raised during the AFDs, PRODs or discussion here.

• WP:AADD is not policy. It's opinion, an essay, and many things in this essay fly against WP's established policy and guidelines. At the head of the WP:AADD article we are warned that: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Doduf (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

None of the articles that I have seen contain any demonstration of NOTE. The refs point to the work itself, or collections. I can't find any examples (admittedly I only looked at 4) of independent 3rd party mentions, and my google-fu has failed to turn up anything interesting.

• WP policy and guidelines do not require a "demonstration of NOTE" for any article to be published. Doduf (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)).

I'd suggest a mass AfD unless someone has some independent sources to throw into the mix. As another editor noted, the obvious counterexample would be the asteroid one.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Carl Barks is a major American satirist of the 20th century and one of the most respected comics artists and authors. Notability has been established with secondary sources for all of Barks' comics stories and gags articles on WP. WP asks for only one secondary source, not multiple sources, but I invite anyone to expand these articles with other sources. Additionally, these literary works are notable because their author is notable per WP:NBOOKS No. 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." If an unknown play by Shakespeare was discovered in a dusty trunk, that play would be "notable" because its author is notable. There's no reason for a mass AfD. Each and every WP requirement has been met. Doduf (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

• Carl Barks is notable, but notability is not inherited. The independent notability of the individual stories has to be established with appropriate sources.

• This has been done. Doduf (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be easy for at least the major Duck stories—a lot of ink has been spilled on Barks' work. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Notability has been established for the Barks stories and gag pages thru secondary sources per policy and guidelines. Doduf (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions re: info and nav boxes

I just created a page for the new Batman character Bluebird, my first comic book character entry. I notice that it has a number of tags about depreciated parameters in the infobox I took from the old Marvel Bluebird page, as well as something called the "comic navigational boxes purge." It seems like ditching the older "supersupportingbox" in favor of the broader one for all comic book characters would fix the first problem, but I can't find anything on the style page about navboxes. From the name of the category, it seems like there is a push to delete all of them, which seems a shame. Is there a place I can find more information on these problems?

Thanks! TI. Gracchus (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comic-Con Panel ideas discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Comic-Con Panel. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Harvey Kurtzman & Will Elder's Goodman Beaver: Featured Article candidate

I've nominated the Goodman Beaver article up as a Featured Article candidate, and would appreciate any and all reviews and feedback. You can take part at the nomination here. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Joker

I'm trying to improve the Joker article and have been doing so over the last 5 months, but I am struggling to find information on his real world impact in terms of merchandising, popular culture references, etc. If anyone could provide me info on these it would be very appreciated. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as pop culture goes, I do know Heath Ledger's Joker stars in the fairly popular "Do X and no one bats an eye; do Y and everyone loses their mind meme" - it's seen quite a lot of circulation, but getting a good source on it might be trick.