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

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WikiProject Comics
Information
Main page Discussion Cleanup listing Getting Involved Notice Board Outstanding content Popular pages Recognized content
Archives 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, Contents Threads older than 20 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.
Departments Assessments ⇒ B-Class FAQ Peer review Outreach
Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Improvements Participants Project banner Project category Stubs To-do list
Resources Copyright Manual of Style Naming conventions References Maintenance Templates
Task forces British talk Batman talk Canadian talk Comic book films talk Strips talk Creators talk DC Comics talk European talk Marvel talk Spider-Man talk Superman talk United States talk Webcomics talk World comics talk
Comics Portal
v t e

Hi (BOZ) (talk), as I have posted numerous times but had my edits reverted, which I am really curious to why it's been unsourced and unreliable for the references given. In the Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance article, the character is named Danny Ketch and clicking on that leads to Ketch's page. Like the film depicts a child who is different to the comics version, but it seemingly is Ketch himself. While you may disagree, I would like to know much more further on this matter. (137.111.165.22) (talk)

Just wondering largely because it's late here, but are any of the three additions here sourced appropriately for inclusion? BOZ (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, on this at Sandman? BOZ (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh, this guy again? No, the material should still be limited to Spider-Man in film. If we start listing all the films a character didn't appear in, what's the point? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Argento Surfer, yep, definitely that guy again: [1] and they added content to several other articles which may need review: [2] BOZ (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm a clown and a troll with no life for trying to suggest that the IP user discuss this here. :) BOZ (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did this come as a shock to you? We all thought you knew...^[FBDB] Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping there were still some people who didn't know me that well, but alas... BOZ (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the user, I don't see a problem with the Dr. Octopus entry. We are not listing "all the films a character didn't appear in", but just those where the character was considered to be included, things advanced a bit, and then they changed their minds, and there are references to confirm it: those aren't that much. Sandman, however, is another case: for what I read, the idea was to include a villain with sand-related powers but who would have another identity. Meaning, not sandman, someone else. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing consensus has been to list characters only when they appear. Otherwise, you open the door to lists that include all the Easter egg references, name drops, and "his tentacles appeared but he didn't" occasions. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Ock's can stay, as there isn't a particular issue with it, just that he was considered. Agreed with Cambalachero on Sandman. – SirDot (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have an issue with Doctor Octopus' mechanical tentacles appears as one of the many different villain weaponry underneath Oscorp's Special Projects in The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Because that goes against long-standing consensus (see one, two three, and four). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough with this person - after all the edit-warring and personal attacks in the edit summaries, I reported them today and they were rangeblocked for 31 hours:[3] and will report them again if they resume those same activities. BOZ (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, here's another example of a character considered for a film, but not included. I don't see how including this kind of information informs a reader about a character. There's no development, no event, no analysis. Just "this almost happened, but didn't." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it and it doesn't impose undue weight on the article? If this is correct, then I can see the Darkhawk example as valid, as James Gunn — being the director of the film— can be "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dr. Octopus example at least had some substance to it. Draft plot, actors considered, reason for ultimate removal... The Darkhawk example is just a passing by Twitter comment, which doesn't even make sense if read in isolation from the thread it belongs to. We know that Darkhawk "Was almost in Vol 2." and literally nothing else. Remember, just because something does not go against the rules does not mean we have to include it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgot to mention: regardless of my personal opinion of the Dr. Octopus example, I didn't know that the issue had been discussed and that there was a consensus; I can see the logic behind it and I accept it) Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends: here on Wikipedia there are many articles of characters that do not appear but were planned, or mentioned either directly or indirectly. The Ghost is right; if that has its sources and references then it is worth it. BOZ stop the bullsh¡t and let the articles on those Marvel characters include the ones that were planned but didn't appear.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not generally accepted that non-appearances are worthy of inclusion as long as a reliable source confirms it You are mistaken. While Wikipedia should only contain content that first appeared in a reliable source, that does not mean a Wikipedia article should contain everything reliable sources have ever said about a subject. Our job as editors is to evaluate the available information and include only what is best for a given article. If a reader comes here to learn about Doctor Octopus, how does knowing he didn't appear in the first Spider-Man film helpful? Keep in mind the disputed information is available at Spider-Man in film, where discarded concepts are more relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. If you don't understand it's up to you.--2800:484:7393:A52E:A432:46EF:8E46:E87B (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for replying. I concur with you that Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on a subject, nor should it contain everything concerning certain aspects (for instance, I find that many comic-based articles frequently forget WP:NOTPLOT). I personally view verifiable non-appearances in a similar light as never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and directions that unfinished works would've gone — if the information can be verified, then it adds value to the behind-the-scenes information. I am curious, what are your feelings on information like the others I listed? For instance, I've recently been working on Dhampire: Stillborn to expand it beyond being a stub and I added a section on the never-produced sequels. Do you think this is not correct? The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that kind of material is absolutely worth including in an article about a work. If you had written an article about Nicholas Gaunt, I would not feel the same. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for the continued discussion, but I am confused. Why would it make a difference if the article was about a character? If the character is notable enough to have an article, then I believe it should encompass the same material (i.e., verifiable non-appearances, never-released storylines, unpublished/unproduced sequels, and planned directions that unfinished works). Assuming, of course, such material doesn't place undue weight on the article.

Returning to the Darkhawk example, I personally believe that the inclusion of a reliably-sourced non-appearance is one of the article's lesser problems. §Fictional character biography seems eggregiously long, to the point of defying WP:NOTPLOT. §Powers and abilities is similarly problematic in length, to the point that it is confusing to read. §Enemies is an unnecessary section that potentially defies WP:NOTDIRECTORY — though this could probably be incorporated into a §See also §§Notable foes or the sort. And there are a notable amount of uncited statements throughout the article.

I apologize for turning my reply into a "poor man's peer review", but my point is that — to me— there are bigger problems facing the article than a reliably-sourced non-appearance. Personally, I find that reliably-sourced non-appearance more worthy of inclusion than the minutiae of Darkhawk's fictional biography or powers. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have again reported the IP editor:[4] BOZ (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they are blocked for a week this time:[5] BOZ (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reported them once again: [6] and this time they are blocked for a month. BOZ (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly that same IP user socking: [7] BOZ (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And another IP: [8] BOZ (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they may be back, so filed another AIV report: [9] BOZ (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that IP range blocked: [10] BOZ (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reported again: [11] BOZ (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution at Carnage is particularly bad. "He would not have been in this movie that wasn't made." Jeez. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The unending battle against an IP who really, really, really, really wants us to talk about film non-appearances. Poor guy. :( BOZ (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea that we had consensus previously on not including this information in the Scarlet Witch article, but an IP user has been edit warring with me to include it. I also removed this from the Quicksilver article and they did not restore it. It looks like they have been edit warring on other articles as well, so there may need to be some admin intervention unless I am off base. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of these seem trivial, so probably report the IP at WP:ANEW. — SirDot (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did so. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the range is blocked: [12] BOZ (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing drafts of Draft:Captain Britain and Draft:Brian Braddock, which will split the current Captain Britain article into two articles. Are there comments on the split? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated this split request. For superhero monikers that have been used in publication for multiple characters (such as Robin, Batgirl, Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel), there are generally separate articles for the moniker itself and each individual character. Considering that, in modern publication, the title no longer refers to the character of Brian Braddock, it does not make sense for the Captain Britain page to primarily be about that character. Does anybody disagree with this? Pibbs (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.★Trekker (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long have other characters been associated with the name Captain Britain, and how unlikely is it that Brian Braddock will resume use of the name? BOZ (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BOZ The official Marvel line is that this will be a permanent change (as with Captain Marvel). I would understand skepticism if this split were proposed sooner after the change happened, however, at this point it's been three years and it doesn't seem like there's any reason to doubt that this is permanent. My inclination is to believe Marvel's official statements, and while I have my reasons (Much as Mar-Vell was never nearly as popular as Carol Danvers, Brian has never been nearly as popular as Betsy; Betsy's books as Captain Britain have been a cornerstone of the franchise since the DoX relaunch; additionally, Kwannon as the new Pyslocke has been a breakout hit in her own right given the success of Hellions, so Betsy seems unlikely to take that name back), I'd hesitate to base decisions on speculation one way or the other. Pibbs (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it appears neater to split the Captain Britain name away from Brian Braddock as Betsy seems to have the been given the name for the forseeable future. 167.203.2.38 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, is there any update on your review of this split? Pibbs (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pibbs, User:BOZ - There hasn't been as much discussion as I would have liked, but there hasn't been any objection to the split, and there has been support for the split. So I expect to be accepting the two drafts within one to three days unless there is any contrary input. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a split is necessary, but I will defer to people with a better understanding of policy in this case than me. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BOZ - It was and is my opinion that the previous article was one article on two topics, a fictional person and a fictional persona that has been adopted by other fictional persons. The split appeared to me to resolve ambiguity. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pibbs and others:

I have accepted the previous drafts of Captain Britain and Brian Braddock, so as to split the article into two articles. The former article is now at Draft:Captain Britain. Please check the articles to verify that the split has been done cleanly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most source content going into this split came from the original article. Because the Draft space was used to demonstrate what the end result would look like, I'm going to swap them back and reverse the content in order to better preserve the original attribution history. -2pou (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

72.220.73.191 (talk · contribs) may be knowledgeable on the subjects, and hasn't bothered sourcing copious additions of content across the Barks bio, Disney comics and Donald Duck articles. A lot of it looks like WP:OR. Would someone here like to review and begin the task of deletion, or is there a preference to open a thread at ANI? Today they were reverted here [13], and I reverted this inappropriate section [14]. Tip of the iceberg, I'm afraid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer remember why MegaCon is on my watchlist, and I am not familiar with either this specific con or WP standards for con articles, so I'm asking here if there is a standard for what details to include in the list of events, such as MegaCon#Dates and guests. Dates, guests, and random special notes seem reasonable. But "Building" seems an excessive level of detail for an encyclopedia unless there is something citeably special to say about it every time. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stoshmaster:, who works in this area a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that venue is a useful bit of data, but I agree with DMacks that "building" seems a bit too granular. I'm not sure what archival value there is to that... -- stoshmaster (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up I think a couple of years ago, but I wanted to try to figure out a better formatting structure for the larger Marvel and DC character lists. I tried out what I had saved on List of Marvel Comics characters: M for a couple characters, looking for any ideas. For characters with differing names or identities, I was thinking it could just be a blank section that lists the lesser used name and points it to either the character article or the list entry using their most common/current name. TTN (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revising the list to a table will break a lot of redirects... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a concern, but won't bots be able to help somewhat with that?★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This type of restructuring will affect the redirects and the sections for those who have media appearances. @Indagate: had to add a visible anchor to M-11's part of the page in question as part of the concerns mentioned by @Argento Surfer and @StarTrekker. Rtkat3 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry got distracted but yeah a template like Template:visible anchor means the redirects won't be effected, can also use Template:Anchor for another anchor. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, glad to know. I suck at tables. Since that's not a concern, I would suggest merging the "Introduction date" and "series" columns into one formatted similar to "Title #1 (mon YY)." We also need a column (or solution) to retain the other media appearances. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As in links to other media appearances like the following? Or something else?

Codename	Real name	Introduction	Creator(s)	Description	Other appearances
Codename	Real name	Menace #11 (May 1954)	Creator	Description	Show 1 Show 2 Movie Alternate version

For sorting, should it be done by strictly real name, strictly code name, or strictly common name? If real name, should it be "first, last" or "last, first"? These pages are a roundabout mess of links, so this is certain to be a very long process just getting what's there into shape. The ability to put multiple anchors in place can help for redirecting. TTN (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prioritize sorting by the name the character's most notable under. That is, if we were to split the entry out as its own article, would we call it "Hank McCoy" or "Beast"? If it's the former, we'd put it under M, of course. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When it came to adding entries, I would place their subsection in the List of DC Comics characters pages under their last name like I had to do with Kamala Khan's family as they are just supporting characters like J. Jonah Jameson or Dorothy Walker. Putting entries down by their last name in those pages is what I recall to also have been done by @Jhenderson777: and presumably @BOZ: when putting pages like these together. Let's hear their opinion of this discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sort by last name in those cases. BOZ (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to respond with tag despite my inactivity. Yeah I agree with BOZ. That should work fine. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Cartoonist, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#RfC on Sequel section regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eerie (Avon) 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Eric July has a number of problems which I brought up on the talk page but were left unanswered. the individual in question is described as a lot of things, such as musician, political commentator and comic book author... but almost exclusively by right wing media that's pushing him as an alternative to "leftist controlled" and "woke" mainstream media. Just to illustrate how bad it is, the article is listed as being in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, but the only thing that connects him to comics (aside from him making youtube videos where he's whining about "tokenization" in comics) is that he's the creator of a new comic series that according to him is going to kickstart a new shared comics universe called the Rippaverse. Problem is, the comic in question, despite being alegedly complete and ready for distribution, isn't even out yet, and all that's been seen of it so far is July and his followers constantly bragging about how much money he made off kickstarter, while posting stock images of loaded warehouses he took off a google image search. It's quite dubious for wikipedia to call someone a comic book writer, when there isn't any evidence of his comic book even existing. Other claims have similar issues, and as always, all information is traced back to non neutral sources. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Cool isn't a biased source, at least the kind of biased that would favor July. And seeing as how reliable sources have recently described him as a comic creator, it would be inappropriate for us to decide he isn't. Should the kickstarter comic fail to be delivered, I'm sure BC will cover that too, at which time the article can be updated to describe him as a failed comic publisher. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One mention in Bleeding Cool isn't enough to meet wikipedia's standards for notability. Especially when the other sources are Reason, Fox, NYP and the guy's own website. July is part of a circle of entertainers who have been rejected by mainstream publishers and are using republican-owned media to market their mediocrity as part of the right's culture war. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting this. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]