This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
I'm not sure which part you're questioning, but yes. Countless panties will be bunched if you do not specify the characters are fictional, and the Marvel Comics Universe (aka 616) does not include all the characters published by Marvel Comics. Consistency is also important, since most visits to this page are probably from redirects, and the page title may not be immediately clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
One is about the character's in-movie history, the other is about the actor's stunts. I'd be fine with including both of those bits in this list, but I don't think either shows enough notability to carry an article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Merge. The film take on the Deadpool character is notable but that's about it. All the Pantheons belong on the list article. ComicsAlliance ranking him as a top Deadpool villains is the only source that isn't about the character in film so far. Jhenderson77717:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - The one that the X-Men fight is not the only Abyss in comics. Perhaps it can be spared to list the other characters named Abyss. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't mean that they can't go here. How related are these characters that have the same name? Also can notability be proven with them? Jhenderson77702:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
When multiple characters use the same codename, the entries on this list separate them with their "real" name as subheading. See the Abominable Snowman entry for an example. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Voicebox64 and Argento Surfer:, I'm still of the opinion that most of these entries simply should not be here. This is not a list. It's a collection of non-notable articles. If it were just the names, then yes, that's a list. As it is, this has way too much info on many characters.
Rant over, here's a proposal for a notability guideline - The company made an attempt at notability. By that I mean they promoted the character outside of the comic, whether by an entry in the OHOTMU or similar (Who's Who for DC), they had a toy developed and/or sold, they appeared in another media (live action, animation, etc). Heck, if they have a trading card. That should be open enough to cover most of these characters whilst leaving out the truly non notable. Pastor Liam, I'm looking at you. --Killer Moff (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
That sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure it will be easy to enforce. Not everyone has access to OHOTMU or trading cards, and since they're both off-line sources it will be hard to verify either way.
Since the intent of this list was to provide information on characters who are linked from multiple articles - thereby avoiding duplicating introductory information - perhaps we could base it on the number of incoming links from a redirect? Say, if 5 articles reference a character with a link (excluding templates), then that character qualifies for the list. If there are less than 5 (or if there's no redirect), the entry should be removed. That would require some work, because several articles link directly to sections of these lists, but it's not impossible. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I took a look at all the articles listed here and these are the articles that stood out as either/or not notable or too minor/obscure to have as an article. I am here to merge request all of them unless notability is proven.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Okay, I'm trying to punch this into some sort of shape but I'm going to ask before I barrel too far down the wrong alley. What is the logic with merged entries for different characters? It makes sense if it's a legacy identity, like - say - Crimson Dynamo, where there's a lineage. But smashing two completely different people who share nothing but a codename together is dumb, IMHO, especially as it makes sections jump around - e.g. Aftershock, which is about the MC2 character, then the MU one, then the MC2 one in the Other Media. Bundling two completely different characters that share nothing but a name and publisher together is clumsy and unencyclopedic IMHO, implying more connection than there actually is. At the same time I'm aware that "different characters" is a subjective call.
My inclination is towards disambiguating the headings as I've done with Abyss and Aegis as we would for standalone articles, but before I mess up any further I thought I'd check for consensus.
It's tricky, because a lot of the Marvel material on Wikipedia is... a) not so good due to poor sourcing, constant shifts between fiction and metafiction and a general air of arrogance and fandumb, and b) semi-abandoned. Given the previous mania for every single damn character being given their own page before a lot have been merged it's difficult to tell what's a sensible policy and what's been merged blindly by someone who doesn't know or care much about the material for policy reasons. Which given the shitty state of a lot of the entries is fair enough, but we need to build back up from a solid, consistent base. But yeah, we could do with deciding what that base is before I break anything else. Especially as there are probably going to be a fair few further pages merged into these lists as there are probably a hundred-plus that don't have the notability to support standalone articles. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Does every article really need to say "Character X is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics." We get that. This is a list of fictional characters appearing in American comic books published by Marvel comics. There could be an introduction at the top of the page covering ever character mentioned and a load of repeated waffle scrubbed.Nickpheas (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)