Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup

Articles needing attention

Spawn: Godslayer - written in a fanboyish tone †Bloodpack† 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smart Alec (comics) - Article on the Alpha Flight character, reduced to stub due to copyvio --GentlemanGhost 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dondi it's just a stub and barely one at that. It was once a very popular strip. An image of Dondi would be nice too. Lisapollison 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draco (power records) - This simply needs to be seen to believed. Details at Talk:Draco (power records)~~ -- Tenebrae 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yukon Jack - this article, covering the Alpha Flight character, has been reverted to a Sep 2006 stub due to copyvio~~ --Mrph 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Centennial (comics) - this article, covering the Alpha Flight character, has been reverted to an Aug 2006 stub due to copyvio --Mrph 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Marvel Zombies - seventeen cover pictures, some very tangled sections and too much trivia~~ --Mrph 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ace (comics) - Written in in-universe style, covers multiple characters with same name, doesn't even reference when this character was introduced in the comics
Enigma (comics) - article suggests fan character to be canon.

All of the Articles in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles category are written to center around the canon of The TMNT 2003 TV Series. For instance the section on the Triceratons on the races page immediately begins with the canon of the new series giving only a brief mention of the original comics. It would be better if someone could balance the canons. --The reverend 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only link that you have provided is to an article about the TMNT 2003 TV Series, which, logically, should provide information about the TMNT 2003 TV Series. Did you leave out something?--Drvanthorp 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For some reason the one link I did try to add did not show up. I cannot find the error so I am reverting it back to basic text instead of a link. These following links badly need reworking to focus on the original source instead of derivatives:

1) Professor Honeycutt - I believe Honeycutt as well as his alter-ego the Fugitoid were given their own title for a while. This should certainly take precedence over the one-shot character from the television series.

2) The Triceratons - As mentioned above, this article is severely lacking.

3) City at War - The only mention of this cartoon episode's namesake is a little statement under "miscellanea". The story arc should have its own article, as it was a one-year effort of masterful storytelling and character development.

There are more if you poke around long enough in the articles regarding TMNT characters, settings, or mythos. --The reverend 09:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin story - it's positively shameful :-) that this is such a bare little stub given how important the topic is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until the story finishes, then give it some more attention.Richard75 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even see the Origin story article, it is about the idea of an origin story for any character.Phoenix741 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be deleted. It is an important aspect of comics but still without adequate basic, articles shouldn't be allowed to exist like that. Zuracech lordum 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix741: Sorry, I assumed the link referred to Origins (Judge Dredd story) (which I have just updated). Zuracech lordum: I agree that Origin story is a completely pointless article at present, but Wikipedia thrives by expanding stub articles, not deleting them because they are stubs. Richard75 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then any idea where information can be obtained to expand it? Zuracech lordum 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest finding other articles about origin stories for particular characters, adding links to them from the "origin story" page, and then people can use their content to expand the origin story article. I have added a couple to the one that was already there. Richard75 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! This is the noticeboard, not the place for this discussion. Doczilla 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardener It looks as if someone had simply typed out the Gardener's entry in the Official Hand book to the Marvel Universe and cut and pasted it right into what someone else had already written about the guy. I don't have the relevant handbook issue so I cannot confirm this... Lots42 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Adaptoid - Boy, does this page ever need some editing. It is in-universe, has awful typos and gigantic paragraphs, and generally looks like a forum post rather than a wikipedia article. Not to mention it has next-to-no links to explain what it's talking about. If I thought I was qualified I'd clean it up myself, but I'm totally unfamiliar with the character except for the most recent New Avengers appearance. Universaladdress 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn (comics) - This article is in pretty sad shape. Any help would be appreciated. I've posted some proposed improvements on the article's discussion page. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 09:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karima Shapandar - The article is written like a story. The tenses are -all- out of sorts. There's even a trivia section for goodness sake. Plus, there's something real weird going on in the talk page. Lots42 09:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H., along with its animated counterpart, looks messy, unprofessional and fancruft. -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 12:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do

Might be worth starting he ball rolling but I thought it worth dropping in thoughts as they occur to me. The big one is that quite a bit of Category:Comics terminology could be merged into Comics vocabulary (although the latter does need more sources) as things like Panel (comics) are only ever going to be quite thin and difficult to justify their being standalone articles when they aren' much more than a definition and some unsourced speculation, like Metacomic (although I think with the latter I suggested it should be merged into Fourth wall to start an "in comics" section where you could look at Grant Morrison's Animal Man, etc.). (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]