Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Comics: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:17, 13 November 2008 editAsgardian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,108 edits →Citations on "Other media" sections: added comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:16, 15 January 2025 edit undoCambalachero (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers54,029 edits →Spider-Man publications: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skiptotoctalk}} {{WPC}}
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 27 June 2011'''}}
{{comicsproj|class=NA|importance=NA}}
<!-- {{ComicsCollab}} --> <!-- begin TO-DO LIST -->
<!-- begin TO-DO LIST -->
<!-- Don't mess with the to-do list here; go back and click on the "edit this list" link. If you're looking for the actual talk page, just scroll down. -Leigh --> <!-- Don't mess with the to-do list here; go back and click on the "edit this list" link. If you're looking for the actual talk page, just scroll down. -Leigh -->
{{Todo|list=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Task template}}
{| style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 15px;"
|-
! rowspan="2" valign="top" |
! align="left" |
<big>] ] for ]</big>
| align="right" | <small> - </small>
|-
| colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#FFEFDF; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" |
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Task template}}
|}
<!-- end TO-DO LIST --> <!-- end TO-DO LIST -->
<!-- BEGIN MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Miszabot--> <!-- BEGIN HIGHINBCBOT ARCHIVAL CODE -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}<!-- END HIGHINBCBOT ARCHIVAL CODE -->
{{Archive box| bot= MiszaBot II | age= 20
|index= /Archives|
|<!-- Please add new archives in this main subpage, as the list gets quite long) -->
]|auto=yes
}}
<!-- BEGIN MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Miszabot-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 36 |counter = 55
|minthreadsleft = 2 |minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(20d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--END MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> }}<!--END MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-27/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=27|month=June|year=2011|small=yes}}
<!-- BEGIN HIGHINBCBOT ARCHIVAL CODE -->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiproject Comics/Archive contents|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}<!-- END HIGHINBCBOT ARCHIVAL CODE -->
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Sidebar}}
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | ]<br />]
----
|-
|
#<!-- Please add new archives in this main subpage, as the list gets quite long) -->
]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
__TOC__
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


== Wolverine's first solo story? ==
== List of current comic publications. ==
I had moved a note from the lead of the article to the publication history but the other editor restored it to the lead and started a discussion on the article's talk page at ] to discuss with this content is significant enough to be included in the lead. Also to be resolved, should we be saying it is his first solo story, or that it could have been his first solo story? If anyone has any input to add, please go contribute to that discussion. ] (]) 23:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
I've come across the following pages:
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
By their nature, these pages need constant updating, and it doesn't seem most of them get it. A couple of them have orphaned page notes, clean-up warnings, etc.
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Page moves by new user ==
I've also found these redirects:
* ]
* ]


New user ] made several major undiscussed page moves but was blocked temporarily by ]. We may need to review each of these, possibly discuss or revert some. ] (]) 23:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Obviously similar pages, with similar problems. Every page is different, of course, but I think that a consistent attitude and style where possible should be used.
: I have reverted all of them (except for the moves of pages that were already redirects, which are more easily retargeted. Longstanding titles for heavily edited articles such as these should '''''never''''' be moved by a novice editor without discussion. ] ] 23:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for your help. ] (]) 05:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Turns out they were yet another sock of a long-banned editor, so everything should have been reverted anyway. :) ] (]) 06:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], we have another new user moving pages around... ] (]) 22:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:: These seem to be qualitatively better moves, though. ] ] 00:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They did unilaterally move ] to ] (which goes about the ] norm) during an RM and are surely very opinionated on some decision-based discussions for such an apparent relatively new editor, which should almost never be done without discussion as some of them may not be uncontroversial (such as the Spot one). I would still push for an SPI to ] due to the similar nature of their edits. ] (]) 03:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::9 times out of 10, a heavily active new editor who knows their way around policies and makes a lot of controversial actions turns out to be a sock of a banned editor. I always hope for that 10% of the time, but it usually turns out that they are a sock. ] (]) 04:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] the fact that they ignored your warning on their talk page about doing page moves is also concerning. ] (]) 13:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And here we go again, they were a sock of the same blocked user as the last sock, blocked this time by @]. ] (]) 20:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you see new users doing making these edits you can report them at ].-- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] what would we do in the case of an IP making similar edits? ] (]) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You can drop a note on my talk page, or ping me, or report at the SPI I linked.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] the Jocasta article might need semi-protection for now since he is going to want to keep coming back with IPs and socks: ] (]) 22:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
So what do with think?
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 20:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete? Merge into complete publication list? Merge into complete list with some sort of indication that they are ongoing? Keep as separate lists as they are? Merge into a single "Current Comics" list covering all companies?


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Any other thoughts? ] (]) 08:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


==Merger discussion for ]==
:I have this vague recollection that the "current" publications lists were going to be merged into the "regular" publications lists. And merely have dates of publication noted. (Which, if in table format, allows the "current" publications to be noted.) - ] 09:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
] An article which may be of interest to members of this project&mdash;]&mdash;has been '''proposed for ]''' with ]. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 04:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:: That sounds like the way to go to me. As I say, those pages aren't getting the updates they need, making them, basically, useless. ] (]) 09:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::Indeed - I brought this up a while back and the plan is to split off the titles lists to their own separate pages and merge in any "current" publication lists. As you say they are not getting the updates they need and I am unsure if an encyclopaedia is the place to be monitoring this kind of thing "live." My targets for splitting include ], ], ] and ]. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of a response to my split proposal at ] so things slowed down a bit, but I'll take that to mean no one objects. Perhaps the simplest thing is to move the "current" lists removing the "current" and then drop the main articles lists in. If this seems like a generally good idea I'll just do the lot later. (] (]) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC))


This has been unreferenced for over 15 years. If it's notable, then find and add reliable sources. If not, then please do us all a favor and nominate it at ]. ] (]) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::. (] (]) 14:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC))


:FWIW, it looks like it could just go through ] rather than ]. Of course, turning up and adding sources would be the better option. ] (]) 20:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. As the person who started the tabulation of the ] page, and one of the people who did a lot of work on it, I may be bias, but I think that the DC page and its table is a good example what we should be aiming for. Obviously each company has its own needs that and there will need to be differences in the tables (for example, I think on the Vertigo page there was an interest in listing the writers and maybe artists, something that would be pretty much pointless on the DCU page.)
I do recall people thoughts on the DC tables previously, but nothing really came of it. So I suggest we look at it (and any alternatives) now as part of this process so we create/fix the new pages with the agreed upon format rather than have 5 separate discussions on 5 separate pages later.
A couple of the ideas we developed on the DC page that I think need to be discussed:
* Link only to articles about the actual comic, not to the character or team.
* Where possible relying on the Indicia rather than the cover logo.
Any other thoughts? ] (]) 01:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


== Spider-Man publications ==
:OK thoughts:
:* For the smaller companies main writers and artists seem a good idea
:* I don't see the problem with linking to teams/characters when there isn't a series article (it is better than nothing and often with the smaller companies the series often equivalent to the characters/teams)
:* Indicia wins over everything
: I think that is about it. (] (]) 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC))


The template {{tl|Spider-Man publications}} is about the comic publications, but the three new entries ("Eddie Brock: Carnage", "Miles Morales: Spider-Man" and "All-new Venom") are actually piped links that lead to character pages. Is that acceptable, or should it be only for pages about comic book publications? ] (]) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
===Creators column===
* Even bigger ones where there isn't an ongoing series with regular changes. Vertigo, for example, a couple of titles (Swamp Thing, Hellraiser) might need "various" or a note, but mostly they can have a writer/artist. But as I say, it's probably a case of whatever works for each article. Although working out some guidelines first wouldn't be bad (Separate columns for each, guess artists listed?, teams mentioned in relation to issues) ] (]) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
**For space reasons, I'm not a big fan of this. Most of the tables are tight as it is, adding another wide column will wind up further compressing things and creating taller rows. - ] (]) 10:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
*** It's a fair point. ] (]) 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
**I feel this is important, especially for companies that tend to do limited series. If there a lot a "Various" is fine. it is just I can see people nosing around for a title they vaguely know the name of that was written by a specific author and just having the title might not be the clinching factor in finding the one you are looking for. That said the creator's page ''should'' list the relevant titles they have worked on so if people are looking for something by author they'd start there (the problem is "should" doesn't mean they do - that said I may have argued myself out of supporting this). (] (]) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
*** OK, my thinking at this point is we set the tables up without creator columns, unless the consensus here changes, and leave it to later editors on individual pages to change if they wish. Sound fair? ] (]) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
****With regard to Emperor's point - I can see creators (writers and pencillers) list being relevant where the title is covered, just as a bibliography is a good idea in a bio. But in the over all "Title published by..." it can get messy fast. I'd prefer the default for those lists to ''not'' have the creators so that adding them becomes a case by case issue. - ] (]) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
**** Fair enough. If anyone wants to add them in we can kick the idea around (and they can sandbox it if need be). We might want to make sure the relevant information is listed on the creators article. (] (]) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

===Linking to Character===
* I mean I can see the case for linking every thing, and where like in smaller companies, or even in bigger ones, where a character appears only in a comic with his name on it, I can accept it if there isn't a comic article. But "often" isn't good enough a criteria and you get problems like Nightwing. ] and ] would be the obvious links, but neither is a really good one for the title, I'd accept ], which is my point. Mindless linking Nightwing or Dick Grayson isn't helpful, having a guideline that says we need to link to the series (even if it is a section) will get past that. The other problem I've found is licensed properties. Usually there is no comic book article and even if there is people just make the lazy, obvious link and don't go looking. ] vs say ] (not a good example, I know) ] (]) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
**The bottom line should be "Link to the article/section that deals with the title, period." ''Nightwing'' is a problem, but the ''general; logic would have a section on the comic at ] covering the pub history for the 2 volumes and general plot overviews. For more detailed plot the reader would be directed to the FCB at ]. - ] (]) 10:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
*** That's great for Nightwing, but there are other characters, say ] who don't have a section. Should we create one, leave it unlinked or just like to the article about the character and leave it like that? ] (]) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
****Personal opinion - Yes, the article should have ''something'' reffing the self-titled series. Emperor's suggestion is a fair 1/2 measure. A "<Foo> (comic book)" redirecting to the character/team provides a place to start an article or a ready made pointer to a new section.<br>And a side note... I'm not too thrilled about the potential for creating red links with this. It may be more work to back add the links if articles go up for the series, but we shouldn't be triggering "article needed" for minor series. - ] (]) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
**I think linking is better than not. What we might want to look into are creating redirect links (which themselves can be categorised) which makes it easier to target specific articles and when the actual article name isn't obvious like Star Wars then (as it isn't a bad idea to create a redirect following ], e.g. ]. It may not be perfect in all cases but if it really falls down that indicates we have a bigger problem than just not being able to find the right link - it means there is missing information. If a licensed property has no section for spin-off media then it needs to be started (and I have done quite a bit of this) again then you can set up a redirect which points to the right section. (] (]) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

===Indicia vs Cover===
* Indicia is the way to go. There's too much variation and confusion on covers, plus the indicia is more official. We did institute a method of covering major differences: mostly in the "Note" Column, and with a format for "see ..." when the cover, but only in limited cases (See New Years Evil on the DC list) ] (]) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
** No argument here. (] (]) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

===Subpages===
* On the DC list we separated out Imprints and things close to imprints (DC Focus, Tangent) but left anything that was main-company DC mixed in the the DC Universe. Marvel lists seem to split off Spider-man and X-Men stuff. This is obviously only an issue with the bigger pages, but which is a better system, or is a combination a good idea? ] (]) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
* Stuff that moves from company to company have been listed (Say Prize's Young Love moving to DC) on the two pages only listing the issues printed by that company. But what about the movement of an entire studio/line/imprint? Should there be a "List of Wildstorm publications at Image" and "List of Wildstorm... at DC" articles, separate sections, a column or note, or just mixed together? ] (]) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
*I was wondering about this as Image in particular has a lot of imprints and some have moved company (like Wildstorm). I think the best et is to have a separate section for things like "Top Cow publications" with an eye to either splitting it off or jumping a stage and splitting ] off to "List of Top Cow publications." I still think ] is problematic on this front as it has some of the old sections but also jams everything together into a table. I also don't feel this is necessary: ] and the collections are listed in the relevant articles and I don't see anyone really checking out such an article if they were looking for the trade belonging to a title. (] (]) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
:: What say we split the list at Wildstorm into "Image" and "DC" sections and see what happens then (if it's big enough for 2 pages, so be it, if not leave it like that, if it falls apart when we do that then we revert it back...
:: ] (]) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure it'd work as most of the big titles are published by both. I'd rather split them along the 'imprint' lines like the Wildstorm Universe, Cliffhanger, Homage, licensed titles, etc. We could always add a publisher field although I'm not sure how much of a big deal that would be to people, as e.g ] explains it (or should). (] (]) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

===Pages to be looked at===
These are a sampling of the pages in the "List of ... publications" and what I think needs to be done to them. I'm fine to do the bulk of this, but I'd rather run it by the group before I do too much so I don't commit to actions that will get reverted because I've gone off on the wrong track... so any input would be great. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

* ]
:: Too small a list to have own page, should stay as is. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

* ] & ]
:: Big list on page to be split off. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Created ''']''' and already have issues to discuss at ''']''', so any conversation on this one can go there. ] (]) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Added ''']'''] (]) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
* ] & ]
:: List of Current needs to be renamed and list on company page merged into it. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Now have ''']''' & ''']'''. Both need some sorting, etc. ] (]) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
* ]
::Needs some fixing of missing information. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

* ] & ''']'''
::Big list on company page, needs to be moved to list page. ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This has now been done don't be shy about casting an eye over it. (] (]) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
::::OK, most of the company page is still the "Published with..." section. What, exactly, does this mean? Is it crossover, special deals, etc. Should they be on a ] (although a better name is sure to exist) or even put of the pages of the various companies (or their publications lists). Or perhaps even a ] article?] (]) 02:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

* ] & ]
:: DC list is pretty much right as it stands. Current list to be "merged". ] (]) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

* ] & ]
::The article is being weighed down by the list and I have proposed a split. Best bet would be to move the current list and then drop the main articles titles into it. (] (]) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
::: Yeah, this one was on my list too, not sure why I didn't add it here. ] (]) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: We now have ''']''' feel free to pitch in. (] (]) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
** ]
::I'm happy with this one being on the company page at the moment... certainly too much to put on the ]. May be worth spliting off at a later date, there's not much too the page other than it so it may be holding the page back or stopping it being a stub.] (]) 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd quite like to split that to ''']''', if they are long enough there isn't a problem with having imprint lists (as with Vertigo and Wildstorm). (] (]) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
** Added ] and others. Need people with knowledge of Image Studios to sort comics into their various studios. ] (]) 13:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
* ] & ]
::Next on my to do list after Image Comis. Again move the list to "List of IDW Publishing publications" and then split out the list and drop it into the page. (] (]) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
::: Sounds good. ] (]) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
::::We now have: ''']''' (] (]) 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

* ] split off to its own list? (] (]) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
::Looks big enough. If I split it and Top Cow (and one or two of the other lists) off, can we pad out the original articles a little.] (])
:::Yes a lot of them could do with expanding. I'll go through them and tag the ones that really need work. (] (]) 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

* I started ''']''' looking through the Marvel imprints it looks like ] could also be split off into its own list. (] (]) 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

====Dicussion====
:Looking at a few of these a couple of thing come to mind:
:#A "Series" or "Volume" column is unneeded. The cover dates and issue numbers should suffice.
:#I'd like to see one or two "External links" or "External indexes" columns. A good chunk of these titles are indexed at the Grand Comics Database and the Comic Book DB. Ideally links to both can be provided.
:- ] (]) 10:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::# I can see the argument for removing the column and making it part of the title, but getting rid of it altogether? I'm not really in favour of that.
::# Interesting idea. Not sure how it would work, but worth thinking about. ] (]) 14:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I can see the reasoning in the first one but it does help reduce guess work, there can often be one-shots or a graphic novel and it would help flag the actual series. I don't think we need links to indexes as the article will/should have all the relevant links and information. I do think we need to source redlinks but I'd like to leave that open for the editors - usually when it is announced that will be an interview, conference report, etc. and it'd be easier to footnote it rather than have an extra column for it. (] (]) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

::::The database links do serve as sourcing, at least with the ''published'' series. And I'd prefer to see them in the table rather than wind up with a ref/footnote section that is as long as the table. - ] (]) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::The only concern is the one that people run into over IMDB/TV.com as you'd not want to be seen favouring one over the other (that said we could use both the GCDB and comic book DB, where they exist, and I could knock up something that would spit out a compact link based on just the ID). I suppose it ultimately comes down to the question of whether we should be adding sourcing to the list for published comics that we have articles for (as the sourcing will be on the articles, you'd hope). I suppose we should never rely on other articles to do the sourcing for another article as anything could happen there (it might not be sourced, it might get merged, vandalised, refocused, deleted, etc.) soooooooo again I might be arguing myself around to your point. One thing is that I have been linking to the publisher's database entries at the bottom of the lists page and if they cover the specific comic then the information will be in there (and with three you can almost always find two to cross-check against) which then begs the question on whether that is sufficient or do we need to source each item? I am flexible on this - it will be a lot of work but it would help beef up the lists which could be seen as being a little thin on sources. (] (]) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

:I've added a couple more - Image, IDW and Devil's Due were top of my list. Dark Horse is troubling as without the list it is pretty empty but I suspect the list is also holding the article back from expanding to its proper size (as one of the most important second tier comic publishers in the US it deserves a comprehensive article). All four have a current titles list which should be moved to "List of X publications" and the lists should be split off to be make the lists relatively comprehensive. See also ], which I mention above and might need its own article or to become a section of the Image one. (] (]) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

::Also note ] has a discussion on splitting the article up, including creating a publication page, we can kickstart the process by splitting out the titles so they can get a better idea of the pages size and shape. Obviously if you have any thoughts on the split then there is a discussion at ]. (] (]) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

:: Sounds good. The previous discussion here you linked to mentioned developing a standard openning paragraph. The one on the DC page has been worked on and improved over time but I've never been completely happy with it. Once again, of course, it may be a good starting point if nothing else. ] (]) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Sounds an idea - we can kick it around a bit and make a general one that can be adapted. We can then add specific elements like the parent companies, the imprints, and any relevant bits of history. (] (]) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

:I think it is worth flagging these:
:* ]
:* ]
:They are both up for merging and the latter has been for a long time. They both seem to fall afoul of ]. If we can merge/redirect them then we clear the category out (and presumably we will then have dealt with all of these lists) and we can delete the category. (] (]) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

:Also this might give you ideas:
:*]
:Although it might be the ideas it gives me are to split the thing (at the very least). (] (]) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

== And FairuseBot is back up... ==

And tagged for Oct 31st were:
*<s>]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]</s>
*] (I think this one is from the Transformers "Handbook"... Sent to IfD)
*<s>]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]</s>
*]
*<s>]</s>
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*<s>]</s>
Any and all help would be appreciated. - ] (]) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:I'll try to get up on some of these as soon as I can... :) ] (]) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

::It's gotten even more since then! ] (]) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I know... and here's the lists for:
:::''Nov 1''
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::''Nov 2''
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*<s>]</s>
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*<s>]</s>
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::*]
:::''Nov 2''
:::*]
:::*]
:::- ] (]) 03:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::::And now for...
::::''Nov 4''
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::*]
::::- ] (]) 09:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::And now for...
:::::''Nov 5''
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::*]
:::::- ] (]) 01:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

*Did I get ] OK? ] (]) 23:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::Same user has tagged ] and likely others. I'll try to get helping on this as soon as I can (not tonight), because it looks like they are getting deleted. :o ] (]) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

== Notability of ] ==

I've been having a bit of trouble with the editors of the ], the page doesn't specify why the subject is notable, yet the editors keep saying that it's very influential and popular (not a justification of notability btw). I realize that the page isn't tagged with the Wikiproject banner, but I figured since it talks about a comics website, this would be a good place to ask for help. If this is notable, can someone help me find some reliable third-party sources, and if it isn't I'd like to have some support in starting a deletion discussion. Thanks! --] (]) 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:I would have thought that something being popular & influential would make it notable. I'm surprised they can't fine a large number of citations of the notability of the page considering the way filmmakers have sucked up to Harry Knowles to get good reviews on the page.] (]) 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:Jeez, have you even tried? I've got 9 news results on Google News just recently. Multiple hits on search inside the book on Amazon. This can't be hard to source. ] (]) 06:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
::It's not a page I'm that interested in working on, so no, I haven't tried. I meant that I was surprised that the other contributors he talks about haven't tried.] (]) 09:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not particularly familiar with the subject, that's why I'm asking for help. The google search only seems to be bringing up references to this "fanboys" movie, only a couple of those hits appear to be reliable sources. And yes, I have tried. If I could have easily confirmed it's notability, I would have tagged the page in the first place. --] (]) 10:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
:::: has Belfast Telegraph, FOXNews, USAToday, New York Times, Denver Post, CNN, Christian Science Monitor, Miami Herald, Malaysia Star, Los Angeles Times, etc, etc... It's a site well known and often referenced by the news media. It's a site that's well known and feared by movie producers. It is notable. The real problem with the page is it isn't cited. Put citations needed on everything that needs citations and that should clear up the problem.] (]) 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

== Man-Thing ==

Can some editors or an admin come to ]. One editor has hijacked it for his own, and refuses to let other editors changed even a vague word like "highly" in the phrase saying the series was influential. --] (]) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:Can we get another editor to look the page over as concerns have been raised over the article. You can leave your comments at ]. (] (]) 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

== ] ==

Normally, we should not have any pages in the category comics, only in subcategories, apart from the article "comics". However, I can not find a good category for ], a new stub. Any idea where it belongs or what new category could be useful? ] (]) 14:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:I suggest that the article be deleted and merged into ]. ] (]) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:::''Comics in education'' is not the same thing as ''comics in higher education''. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::Why? You'll find plenty of sources to write an article on this, and the stub as it stands isn't even about higher education. ] (]) 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:: damn, you beat me to it! Yes, it's not about the study of comics but the use of comics as an educational tool - which is a legitimate subject for an article. There is a whole raft of areas that can be covered - how studies have shown comics are actually better than text books for recollection and retention, their use by the government to train soldiers etc etc. --] (]) 15:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:::So expand the article, then. Right now, there's almost nothing in it, and it looks like it just needs to be a sub-section of the main ] page, since it is just a tiny piece about another use of the medium. If so much material exists for a legitimate article, use some and ]. ] (]) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

:::: No problem but no today as I stayed up all night watching the elections, so I too knackered. I'll put together the academic literature over the next couple of days. --] (]) 15:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone for the original question? Categories? ] (]) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:Comics? Education? ] (]) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:: ;-) Correct, of course. I would prefer the comics category to be empty, and the education category claims the same (but does not quite achieve it is as throroughly as we do). I'll move the article to "educational materials", but will have to leave it in the main comics cat for now. ] (]) 13:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


I think that the subject could warrant its own article, but not as it stands now. It depends on how the article evolves. ] (]) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:I think that it should be find in the main comics category until such time as the article is comprehensive enough to warrant its own category. ] (]) 13:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:: Everyone now happy that the article demonstrate sufficient merit for further expansion? --] (]) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I have removed the merge temlates. It is clearly noteworthy on its own; I was wrong. ] (]) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

:::: Don't worry, you still get an invite to the Featured article party ;-) --] (]) 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

::::: I'll look forward to it. :-) ] (]) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Might be a while, turns out a friend has a complete collection of ''modern masters'' - since they run to about 140pg each and are chock full of creators explaining story,design and other choices, I might have my hands full for a bit! --] (]) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== comicdb.com ==

I am worried by the usage of comicdb.com as a reference in our articles. A quick check reveals that it is used in 100s of articles and yet it is an open wiki with (as far as I can see from editing it) no oversight or editorial control. Indeed, with many articles, either we have lifted content from them or they have lifted it from us... --] (]) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:It depends on what we use it for - as previously discussed we are rather pushed for paper-based sources but there are sites we can use as long as we are careful where and how they are used. As discussed at ] the databases draw on primary sources so, since the ultimate source for us is the comic, what they are basically doing is acting as a back-up to those (so we are verifying the verification - important as we can't hope to have every single comic to hand to check everything. Often also handy for a quick and dirty fact check). Where possible I have checked the facts and they are fairly solid and there are bound to be problems (which is why it is worth trying to add a number where possible - easier with Marvel) but I have also found problems with publishers details when checked against the comics, so it is ''always'' worth checking and if you spot a problem then hit the button to fire off a note about the problem (I've done that in various places and the response is usually pretty quick). I'd be very wary of using any database to source any specific statement because the ultimate source is the actual comic so you should be using that anyway. Equally inclusion in a database can't be used for notability purposes because, by their nature, they are going to aim to be as fine-grained as possible.

:The text is a separate issue - some keep it trimmed down but I have noticed occasions where it has clearly been lifted straight from here but if there are concerns you can check the contribution history (in another field/media I have dealt with someone flagging a copyright violation on an article when a comparison of the contribution histories showed they'd clearly lifted the text). I have checked around and there aren't any databases I've dealt with which flesh out the details (derived from primary sources) with text from Misplaced Pages and taking content from other sites, press releases/solicitations (or other publicity blurb). So this is a violation of their policy and if you see such a problem then hit the report button.

:Note: By database I mean those specifically configured for indexing comics (so it as fields for issue #, writer, etc. in their tables) and not things like the Marvel Database Projects which is a wiki. (] (]) 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

:: I'm a bit confused by what you are saying - the crux of your point seems to be - it's not reliable because you need to check what it's saying. It's an open wiki with no editorial control or oversight - aren't they explicitly prohibited as sources? Why would we make an exception for this site just because it makes life easier for us? any project could claim the same about wikis that they like, what's the difference? --] (]) 11:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Well what I'm saying is you should check every source (as even the publishers can make mistakes) and that the ultimate source should be the comics.
:::Also it isn't an open wiki. (] (]) 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

:::: Yes it is - I open an account yesterday and added information within seconds - there was no editorial oversight <s>(you can't even track your ''own'' edits let along anyone else's)</s> and added to two articles. Regards of the underlying software, it fits perfectly our description of an open wiki. It's explicitly mentioned as such on the home page ''ComicBookDB.com is '''built by anyone''' and everyone who wants to help. Fans, creators, publishers, anyone who has information that is useful is welcome to register a free account and start contributing.'' --] (]) 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::The bottom line is though that it ''isn't'' an open wiki. An open wiki runs (by definition) on wiki software and can be edited by members of the public ''without registering an account''.
:::::I do agree that it isn't ideal but I wonder if the solution wouldn't be to engage them and suggest they implement a system of editor approval for changes. As you've noted with the strike out, you can identify changes (as I mentioned above it allows you to spot when the content is added) and some things do already require authorisation (like character image addition). There is an editor around who knows more about the comicbook db (they pitched in last time we discussed this) and it may be they can raise such suggestions (although I notice there is a "request feature" button I'm not sure what it does and it might need to be something raised at the community level). (] (]) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

:I'd say avoid using as a source whenever possible. Find a better, more reliable source that conveys the same information. ] (]) 07:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed - we should always be looking for those. The problem is that I've yet to find something that allows direct linking to author and character, Places like the Grand Comics Database wouldn't, for example, allow us to differentiate between the Matthew Smiths in comics, for example (a situation that was a pain to tease out here), or characters with the same or similar names (last time this came up someone who knew the GCD better suggested they were working on something more specific, which would be helpful). (] (]) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

::''I'd say avoid using as a source whenever possible. Find a better, more reliable source that conveys the same information.'' ]
Easier said than done. I've looked and everything collapses back into the primary sources. This is being discussed at ], but I'm thinking at this point that the whole "must have secondary sources" tag should not apply to comic-related articles. The logic that claims that any article lacking said SS should be deleted is flawed when considering said articles as at least 90% would be deleted, a proposition that was soundly defeated when proposed on two occasions by a past user. This may have to go higher up the foodchain as I'm thinking a revision of the Misplaced Pages guideline is necessary. ] (]) 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:::If there's no secondary sources, then the character isn't as notable as you think it is, and should be merged to a character list or deleted. However some secondary sources might exist, but might be hard to find (think comic book magazine back issues). In that case, be prepared to do lots of digging and possibly spend a bit of money to gather sufficient sources. ] (]) 03:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh, they are out there, a la Comics Interview and Comics Journal, but are somewhat limited in scope. The only way I can see anyone cracking this nut is to produce an independent encyclopdeia with images, quotes, interviews etc. for every character. A staggering task. ] (]) 10:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'd say that comicdb.com is not a reliable ''reference'', but as an external link it can be useful. ] (]) 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, it's something someone ''should'' do, but since it doesn't exist, we don't have adequate sources. ] (]) 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

:::And as I say over there - just because an article doesn't have secondary sources doesn't mean it doesn't need them. You are still talking about deletion but that isn't what we are discussing - we are discussing the fact it needs better sources. (] (]) 10:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

== Image:BaronBlitzkrieg.jpg ==

*]
This is an image from Who's Who. - ] 16:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

::Up for IfD... - ] (]) 23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I thought you would know the ins and outs better than I would : ) - ] 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

What year was this company established? I assumed it was 2001 since the context of the article said so, but now I am not so sure. One site says 2005 , so did the infobox before I edited it . Thoughts? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

== Citations on "Other media" sections ==

I've been trying to get people to put citations throughout the articles by adding cite tags. It's been more effective than expected; I've placed the {{tl|issue}} tag in numerous places, and about half of the time so far someone has actually dug up the issues in question to reference them. :) Even when someone removes the tag and I explain that we need an issue citation, the tag will usually either be left alone or resolved. So, I see no reason to stop with that...

However, when I place the {{tl|cn}} fact tag in the "Other media" section, editors will often remove it without citing, or modify the entry and remove the tag but not place a citation. I had assumed that we do need a reference pointing to "so-and-so had an appearance in this TV show/movie/novel/video game", but am I wrong? It might be more difficult to obtain a citation such as that, as opposed to finding an issue where something occured, but I ''have'' seen plenty of places where such appearances had been sourced correctly. Am I going about this the wrong way, or am I the one doing the right thing? ] (]) 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

:Some recent examples... Issue tags get resolved: , , , , , ; Fact tags in "other media" get removed: , , . ] (]) 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::I think it's worth chasing citation in Other Media. Some stuff it obvious, so finding cites will be easy (Spiderman appeared in Spiderman 2? I think he did.) However, there are a lot of cameos, references and speculation in other media (The guy in the trenchcoat in the background of the crowd scene was John Constantine). So, yes, keep up the adding of CNs and don't let them be edited out without reason. ] (]) 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

::I think it is something that should be pursued as quite a few sections (like this and Powers and abilities) are just assumed because it is 'obvious' but they do need... something. The problem is the source is surely something like the credits and is that acceptable? I'm assuming IMDB and TV.com can't be used for direct sourcing and I know of nowhere which offers similar credits that is half as comprehensive. So perhaps add primary sources and drop the IMDB character link into the external links? So I'm not sure if there is a neat solution but it still needs chasing and tagging. (] (]) 10:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
:::Interviews or respectable comics sites might be a source, they're more likely to have a confirmation of or expert speculation about cameo appearences. ] (]) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::To be honest, I don't care ''how'' it is souced, just that it gets done. :) We can always look for a better source elsewhere, but getting an inadequate source is better than no source at all (if you can't find a source, you can post damn near anything). So, I'm going to take this as an edorsement that asking for a source is the right thing to do, and when anyone reverts it I will point them here. ] (]) 15:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Here's a good example. On the ] article, there are actual cites for the whole "film" section, but the TV and games sections are unsourced. ] (]) 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a format that can be used for citing television episodes, at ]. ] (]) 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:By the way, Asgardian keeps reverting those TV/VG cites on ], but I explained how he can source them using that format. ] (]) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

: Because you present no ratified case. You want the sources, you find and add them. Just tagging is lazy, because you expect someone else to do the work. I've got enough on my plate. ] (]) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

== Help selecting an appropriate image for an artist's style ==

First off, I realise that ] is something more of a concept artist than a comic book artist, but he cites comic book artists as inspirations, so I figure that you guys might be able to help me out. I'd really like to get an image that properly displays Metzen's artistic style as he describes it: "heavily influenced by ]'s and ]'s pencilling styles for form" while preferring the "costuming, themes and general feel of ] and ]'s fantasy paintings". However, I've not got a clue any of these people's work, but I'm hoping that some people on this project might. I'm rather unconvinced that ] really meets that description. Could I request some help from people who know at least one of the comic book artists Metzen cites as influences to pick an image from that reflects the description I've provided? One url would provide a lot of help ensuring the best image available is used to display this artist's style. -- ] (]) 21:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

:Have you considered writing Metzen and asking for such a url? So far, I've almost never had a creator fail to answer an email. They love to talk about their craft and they love to promote their work. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

:I have wanted to get in contact with him for past bits (namely a picture of himself, had to get a less than ideal one from elsewhere), but I couldn't find a contact address. The gallery that hosts his work is run by a fellow Blizzard Entertainment employee, and they very much restrict the amount of communication allowed through them. Contacting him through Blizzard Entertainment isn't possible either, the whole system is geared towards product support. He doesn't have a personal site. I wouldn't be surprised if he was open to talking about his stuff, but unless I bump into him on the street (unlikely, he's in the States, I'm in Britain), I just can't get to him. That's why I was hoping you guys might be able to help pick out an appropriate image that meets the described inspirations, my own artistic scrutiny is rather poor. -- ] (]) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

::Reading over your original thoughts again, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to include copies of any of their work in the Metzen article when you don't know which specific works of theirs influenced him. The article doesn't even have his own art in it. Linked text which can direct people to their articles should suffice. ] <sub>]</sub> 09:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmm, ok. I only included the artwork as it was recommended by a ] assessment, but you're right, the article doesn't cover his work that well (perhaps not as well as it should) so an image is arguably not needed. -- ] (]) 13:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi!

I've made a potentially controversial proposal on ]: I'd like to revert a section back to how it was in April 2006 (when the article was a Good Article nominee). I'd appreciate any thoughts, complaints, etc.

Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

:I've left my comments over there but a slightly broader issue I want to flag (and which might need some other editors to look it to confirm this) is that neither version comes close to making the B-class criteria (with the themes, in particular, looking like original research). So I think the article has bigger problems. (] (]) 11:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

== Marvel Universe ==

Anyone know if there is a way to view the contribution history for the Marvel Universe pages? Someone has posted a claim for copyright violation at ] but it is unclear when the version they have went live. Feel free to leave any thoughts over on ] (] (]) 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

== Notice Board broken? ==

I just added a new deletion discussion link to the notice board, but it doesn't show up in the list even after I forced the webpage to refresh. I don't see any errant "noincludes", so I'm not sure what's going on. Can someone please take a look at it? Thanks! (The article I added was ].) --] (]) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:Seems to be working now. (] (]) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

::Really? You can see The Green Goblin's Last Stand in the list of current deletion discussions? How bizarre - I still can't. :-( Maybe it's just me. --] (]) 00:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Yep it is sitting there waving at me right now. Perhaps you are looking at a cached version - CTRL + F5 will give you a hard refresh. (] (]) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

::::Yeah, I tried that a couple of times. Still get nothing. That's so weird. But, since it's just me, I won't worry about it. Maybe tomorrow (after I've rebooted) it will show up. --] (]) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

== Less to assess ==

As of this moment, there are less than 3,000 articles in ]. Woo hoo! Not bad considering we have some 15,000 total. --] (]) 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

:I added ] and ] recently. :) ] (]) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:16, 15 January 2025

WikiProject Comics

Home Assessments Cleanup Discussion Improvements Notice board Help Popular pages Workgroups
Article alerts · Copyright · Getting Involved · Manual of Style · Naming conventions · Recognized content · References · Statistics · Templates · Userbox
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 27 June 2011

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-04-18

Current activity →

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(1 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(4 more...)

Articles for creation

New articles → This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-01-21 20:17 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

  • Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
  • Request Constructive Feedback: Lee Harris Artist for DC Comics 1940's, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Paper Girls
  • General: Remove OHOTMU/Who's Who material from character pages, provide fair use rationales for images.
  • Biographies: Check recent edits to biographies of living comics creators for changes contrary to policy. Click here for recent changes. Add citations to Unreferenced BLPs.
  • Article requests: Fenwick (comics), Khimaera (comics), Mutant Underground Support Engine, Bruce J. Hawker, Marc Dacier, Hultrasson, Frankenstein Comics, Dead of Night (comics) (redirects to MAX the Marvel imprint), Paco Medina, Mars et Avril (comics), Heart of Hush (now it is redirecting to Batman R.I.P.), Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper, Masters of American Comics, Robbi Rodriguez. more
  • Image requests: Andrea Di Vito, more
  • Expand: Arzach, Caspar Milquetoast, Clay Mann, Claypool Comics, Comics Britannia, Instant Piano, John Ney Reiber, Juan Jose Ryp, Mile High Comics, Natacha, No-Name, Ric Hochet, Richard Piers Rayner, Robert Loren Fleming, Ruins (comics), Scrooge's Quest, Sonic Disruptors, The Crusades (comics), Weird Western Tales, WonderCon, Super-Villain Team-Up, Tom Peyer, Kelley Puckett, X-Men Forever, Clan Chosen, Canardo, Kirby: King of Comics, Girl Comics, Le Vieux Nick et Barbe-Noire, M. Rex, Guillotine (comics), Renée Witterstaetter, Hal Jordan , more
  • Condense: Magneto (comics), Super-Soldier, Witchblade, Captain Britain, Mar-Vell, Tabitha Smith, W.I.T.C.H., Storm (Marvel Comics), Captain America, Deadpool, Man-Thing, Jamie Madrox (FCB section), Dial H
  • Update: Linear Men, Cable & Deadpool, Civil War: Front Line, Black Tarantula, Batman: Streets of Gotham
  • Clean Up: Comic Book, Darkseid, Iron Fist, Joker (character), Kingdom Come (comics), Raven (comics), Xavier's Security Enforcers, Spaceknights, Cerebro, more
  • Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
    • For proposed deletions and mergers, disputes, and recently created articles, check the WikiProject Comics Notice board.
    Archiving icon
    Archives

    Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55


    This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

    WikiProject Comics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 27 June 2011.
    WikiProject Comics
    Information
    Archives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, Contents
    Threads older than 20 days may
    be archived by MiszaBot II.
    Departments
    Project organization
    Resources
    Task forces
    Comics Portal

    Good article reassessment for Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth

    Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

    Wolverine's first solo story?

    I had moved a note from the lead of the article to the publication history but the other editor restored it to the lead and started a discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Wolverine (character)#First solo story. to discuss with this content is significant enough to be included in the lead. Also to be resolved, should we be saying it is his first solo story, or that it could have been his first solo story? If anyone has any input to add, please go contribute to that discussion. BOZ (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Mac Gargan#Requested move 27 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mac Gargan#Requested move 27 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Batman in film

    Batman in film has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    Page moves by new user

    New user User:Saladinger made several major undiscussed page moves but was blocked temporarily by User:BD2412. We may need to review each of these, possibly discuss or revert some. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    I have reverted all of them (except for the moves of pages that were already redirects, which are more easily retargeted. Longstanding titles for heavily edited articles such as these should never be moved by a novice editor without discussion. BD2412 T 23:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your help. David A (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Turns out they were yet another sock of a long-banned editor, so everything should have been reverted anyway. :) BOZ (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    @BD2412, we have another new user moving pages around... BOZ (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    These seem to be qualitatively better moves, though. BD2412 T 00:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    They did unilaterally move Spot (character) to The Spot (character) (which goes about the WP:NCC norm) during an RM and are surely very opinionated on some decision-based discussions for such an apparent relatively new editor, which should almost never be done without discussion as some of them may not be uncontroversial (such as the Spot one). I would still push for an SPI to WP:CHECK due to the similar nature of their edits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    9 times out of 10, a heavily active new editor who knows their way around policies and makes a lot of controversial actions turns out to be a sock of a banned editor. I always hope for that 10% of the time, but it usually turns out that they are a sock. BOZ (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Trailblazer101 the fact that they ignored your warning on their talk page about doing page moves is also concerning. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    And here we go again, they were a sock of the same blocked user as the last sock, blocked this time by @Ponyo. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you see new users doing making these edits you can report them at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24.-- Ponyo 20:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Ponyo what would we do in the case of an IP making similar edits? BOZ (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    You can drop a note on my talk page, or ping me, or report at the SPI I linked.-- Ponyo 23:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Ponyo the Jocasta article might need semi-protection for now since he is going to want to keep coming back with IPs and socks: BOZ (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Spot (character)#Requested move 1 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spot (character)#Requested move 1 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Fantastic Four in film

    Fantastic Four in film has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Merger discussion for West Coast Avengers (comic book)

    An article which may be of interest to members of this project—West Coast Avengers (comic book)—has been proposed for merging with West Coast Avengers. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for Spider-Man: One More Day

    Spider-Man: One More Day has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Classics from the Comics

    This has been unreferenced for over 15 years. If it's notable, then find and add reliable sources. If not, then please do us all a favor and nominate it at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    FWIW, it looks like it could just go through WP:Proposed Deletion rather than WP:AFD. Of course, turning up and adding sources would be the better option. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Spider-Man publications

    The template {{Spider-Man publications}} is about the comic publications, but the three new entries ("Eddie Brock: Carnage", "Miles Morales: Spider-Man" and "All-new Venom") are actually piped links that lead to character pages. Is that acceptable, or should it be only for pages about comic book publications? Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics: Difference between revisions Add topic