Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 27 June 2011

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, 56

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 20 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

WikiProject Comics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 27 June 2011.

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mister Terrific (character)#Requested move 20 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wolverine belong in Category:Marvel Comics superhuman speedsters? User:Kalel456 seems to believe so: [1] despite the fact that he does not appear to have any of the attributes discussed at Speedster (fiction). In fact, it looks like the only character in that category who actually has the powers of a speedster is Quicksilver, and a category with only one article doesn't really serve much purpose. BOZ (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah of course I'm pretty sure I mean because of the way he moved when he runs and/or fights other characters (either villains and/or other heroes or both) Kalel456 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After inadvertently involving myself an edit war, I was prompted to create this discussion to talk about the topic at hand: what qualifies to call a Marvel character a superhero, a supervillain, or to just have a more neutral term? On a personal level, I think it's more based on their overall portrayals in their stories, moral dichotomies/nuances and more. It's why you have people like Spider-Man (obvious good guy) & Wolverine (though more morally grey, is never portrayed as an outright villain) classified as heroes, Magneto (iconically a supervillain, but is one of the most morally intricate characters in Marvel) and Doc Ock (normally a supervillain, but the "Superior Spider-Man storyline blurred the lines for him as well) classified with more ambiguous connotations, to outright supervillains like Doctor Doom (though not entirely a clean fit as a supervillain, has more iconic storylines as the big bad and more) and Thanos (a despicable nihilist with a metaphorical and physical lusting for death). Obviously, there are more articles that I feel have these character classifications not match the characters themselves, and want to see (if any interest) what you all think on the matter. CJ765 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The most reasonable thing to do would be to classify all as "character" or "fictional character" in the lead sentence, and then use reliable sources to note in a following sentence that they are usually depicted as a superhero, supervillain, antihero, or whatever the sources say. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of Jessica Abel and have disclosed per WP:COI.

I've left six sourced suggestions on the article's Talk page covering awards, publication history, citation fixes, and a new section on creative productivity writing, all with wikitext ready to paste.

The "edit COI" template is active on the Talk page. It has been there since March 11 with no response yet. I'd be grateful if a project member could take a look.

Talk:Jessica_Abel Jccabel (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-standing subject I've been meaning to address, but across the comic book project there are thousands of character articles, and while yes many of these certainly do meet notability guidelines, the vast majority of others don't even attempt to show it either through WP:SIGCOV (many relying on lists that say little if that) or secondary sourcing. This creates a significant problem, where various areas such as WP:VG, WP:POKE, and WP:ANIME require notability to be established first and generally such articles that don't receive scorn, many of the articles in this scope are entirely built on primary sources.

There's definitely a case to encourage a cleanup start, to go through the project and ascertain what should be merged even if for now, and what has notability established. We actually did this on the video game end and it had great results, and I feel this same sort of momentum bleeding into other projects can help inform our readers better and bring things into a more encyclopedic context. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man this is a long-running issue. Hundreds of articles have been redirected to the Marvel/DC character lists and hundreds more will be.

I'd usually suggest just WP:BEBOLD but, if you are going to be doing a lot, it might annoy some editors. So it may be best to demonstrate due dilligence - list a batch here to get a second set of eyes on them (you can ping me to get at least one) and take it from there.

Does that sound like a plan? Emperor (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving this a nudge, is there anyone active still reading this part of the site?

A friend involved with Z2 Comics has asked for my help correcting the page. I've raised the first issue at Talk:Z2 Comics#Removing Modern Prometheus. Could someone please give it a look and address it if you agree it's an appropriate change? Thanks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With no objections, I've now made this an official requested edit... but there's a big backlog for that. Might some comics-interested person go review the request and make the edit if appropriate? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like this is a sensible thing to do. Does anyone else agree? There's plenty of sources for Kelly specifically, not just the Sickos meme.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/sarah-larson/brilliantly-terrible-the-political-cartoons-of-the-onions-stan-kelly

https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/alt-cartoonist-stan-kelly/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2017/08/10/why-the-onions-kelly-is-the-best-bad-cartoonist-in-america/

https://www.avclub.com/news-sdcc-2025-the-simpsons

https://boingboing.net/2024/10/04/ward-suttons-faux-conservative-cartoonist-kelly-goes-highbrow-in-la.html

https://www.startribune.com/review-kelly-the-cartoonist-america-turns-to-edited-by-ward-sutton/404129396

https://editorialcartoonists.com/stan-kelley-and-ward-sutton-swing-by-springfield-on-the-simpsons/

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/10/the-onions-cartoonist-finds-welcome-absurdity-after-moving-to-colorado/ Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with what is being discussed here, cartoonist Ward Sutton does work under the name Stan Kelly for The Onion, including one panel, "Sickos", which he and others have reworked and played with in varying ways.

Having said that, I'm not sure that a Stan Kelly page would need to replace the Sickos page. It is quite possible at this point to see that as a single installment worth of its own page, much as we have pages on cow tools, I say it's spinach, and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog separate from any discussion of a larger body of work, but can still have articles on the individual creators or series invoved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been going through and trying to tidy up the television/film versions of comic characters, specifically labeling those articles that are, and creating appropriate diffusion categories. In Category:Marvel Comics television characters, there are 4 Daredevil TV series related articles. So it goes to reason to create a category. Looking at the naming, both Category:Daredevil (TV series) and Category: Daredevil: Born Again have the parent of Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) television series. So I created Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) television characters to follow the naming.

User:Gonnym drew issue with this, reverting the changing and arguing it was "removing valid categories". I pointed out that it was a child of those categories, thus under them, and they reverted again. I even attempted a compromise by putting it just under the Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters and the main Marvel television characters category, and Gonnym reverted it again. Now while I may not be the most eloquent person on here, I'm pretty certain if someone is actively trying to discuss the matter, actively engaging the user would have been better than blind reverting and thus emptying the category, especially as I have a concern this may be done as a way to bypass the WP:CFD process and outside discussion stepping in (as emptied categories are deleted after 7 days).

I could really use some input on this. Gonnym has also argued the naming as "Daredevil (Marvel Comics" implies the film version can also fall under there, which clearly is not the case? Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now while I may not be the most eloquent person on here, I'm pretty certain if someone is actively trying to discuss the matter, actively engaging the user would have been better than blind reverting and thus emptying the category - no. What would be better, is once you are reverted to stop reapplying what you want. That is basic WP:BRD. Gonnym (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an aside, this might be the least related page you could find to open a discussion on this matter. Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Comics project, which covers these articles. And I did try to engage you; you emptied the category however, and my initial assumption was it was a mistake. I engaged you again after, trying to find a middle ground.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, the Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) television characters is just unnecessary and redundant for just 4 articles. There already in the series' categories, better to just leave it that way. Vestrian24Bio 13:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty run-of-the mill diffusion category done to help reduce clutter in parent categories and make it easier for the reader. There's also a precedent of similar categorization done with those under Category:DC Comics television characters or those under the video game project, as it allows organization by series also.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One films#Requested move 22 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I found this The Hollywood Reporter source regarding Ghost Rider lifetime comic sales (by 2005, was buried there) [2]

I'm not sure where to put the info though. Ghost Rider or Ghost Rider (comic book)? Was wondering if someone could help implement this source. Timur9008 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]