Edge Rewrite
restyle Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal
Shortcuts

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list

[edit]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles

[edit]
Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles

[edit]
New articles by topic — New articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

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) | Deleted articles| Last updated: 2026-07-27 19:18 (UTC)

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


Article alerts

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(13 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

(2 more...)

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(7 more...)

Articles for creation

(9 more...)

Deletion discussions

[edit]
To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Kroloteans

[edit]
Kroloteans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable fictional race found on the List of alien races in DC Comics. There are no viable sources in the article currently - outside of the issues of comics they appeared in, there is only trivial coverage in sources of dubious reliability. Searches are turning up no significant coverage in non-official DC sources, just minor plot summaries on user generated fan wikis and non-reliable sources. The topic fails the WP:GNG and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources makes preserving via a merge inappropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

15 (software engineer)

[edit]
15 (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cable

[edit]
Matthew Cable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. There are 2 (or more) equally valid merge targets, so I don't believe that redirecting or merging the character anywhere specific would help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chirpy

[edit]
Chirpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It lacks significant coverage from secondary sources. One of the sources does not work and I could not find any significant secondary coverage online. Jonah080 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Queen (DC Comics)

[edit]
Insect Queen (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE as an article. Half the article overlaps entirely with Lana Lang, while the other version of Insect Queen doesn't appear notable and is just primary sourced. I cannot see the need for a standalone page here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lana Lang - The version of the character that actually has decent sourcing is the original Lana version, who already has an article. The other, non-notable version is not only connected directly to Lana narratively, but also “was” her for a time. As both versions are already fully covered on the main Lana Lang article, there is no reason for a duplicative split. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Gabby's Dollhouse

[edit]
Lego Gabby's Dollhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much content here. I suggest a redirect and selective merge to Gabby's Dollhouse. NewAccount7295 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lego DC Super Hero Girls

[edit]
Lego DC Super Hero Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose a redirect or WP:SMERGE to DC Super Hero Girls#Toys because the content can be covered there (a lot of it already is when counting plot details). That article needs cleanup though. It could be discussed in Lego Super Heroes as well. (I proposed splitting the latter article though as it is already quite long and covers more than one product line). NewAccount7295 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cathexis (comics)

[edit]
Cathexis (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While going through the List of alien races in DC Comics during the concurrent AFD to see which entries actually have articles, I found several that don't appear to actually qualify for articles as they do not pass the WP:GNG, with this one being one of the more egregious examples. The only sources included outside of the three issues of the single storyline they appeared in are simply listicles or extremely brief (i.e. two sentences) plot summary, all from Comic Book Resources. Even if WP:VALNET was not an issue with those sources, they would still not actually qualify for being significant coverage sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. Searches are not bringing up any actual significant coverage in reliable sources regarding this obscure comic race - just user generated content on wikis or extremely brief mentions in plot summaries. Rorshacma (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of alien races in DC Comics

[edit]
List of alien races in DC Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate list of alien characters from comics, the overwhelming majority of which are so minor they are only of interest to hardcore comic book fans. Wikipedia is not the DC Database, and even a list needs some sort of indication it passes WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Unikitty!

[edit]
Lego Unikitty! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose a WP:SMERGE to Unikitty! because there is already a list of sets in the article (which should be removed in my opinion) and overlapping discussion of the show and I feel the content here can be discussed in a Merchandise section there. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thugs on Film

[edit]
Thugs on Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found only one review from Dallas Morning News. Every other hit on newspapers.com, GNews, or GBooks was a passing name-drop in articles on Mondo Media, or a false positive that used the phrase "thugs on film" in other contexts. Only sources in article are Mondo Media's website, IMDb, and one passing mention in an animation trade. Suggest deletion or redirection to Mondo Media. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with company page. SenshiSun (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Manstead, Tom (2000-10-15). "When cartoon thugs review films, hilarity ensues". The Sun News. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2026-07-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""Thugs on Film" is one of the funniest TV shows that isn't on television. Thanks to Web sites such as ugo.com (Underground Online), there seem to be more and more such shows every week. Make no mistake: "Thugs on Film" is a TV show. It has a catchy little theme, an opening montage and recurring characters. But since the show's realm is the computer screen instead of TV screen, "Thugs on Film" is free - free to be short (each episode is just a few minutes) and sassy (each episode is fearlessly funny and topical). Presented by Mondo Media, one of the Web's most consistently entertaining "content providers, "Thugs on Film" uses the standard TV context of tag-team movie criticism as the starting point of its satire. The show's co-stars are Cecil and Stubby, a pair of soccer hooligans who offer their salty critiques of a current movie - the newest episode is their review of "Remember the Titans.""

    2. Milvy, Erika (2001-03-23). "If You Don't Take the Academy Awards Seriously, Try These Sites". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2026-07-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "If you've already seen Ebert and Roper don tuxes to impart their Oscar picks, crack open a brewsky and watch their low-rent counterparts pontificate. Thugs on Film (www.mondominishows.com/ shows/thugs_on_film/ is a flash animated Web series hosted by Cecil and Stubby, two English football hooligans who provide, if not highbrow movie reviews, then perhaps Neanderthal brow reviews. (Stubby likes them violent "with loads of shagging." whereas Cecil has a somewhat more refined sensibillity.) These ruffian reviewers are hosting the second annual Tossers Awards, a brass-tacks (and brass-knuckles) alternative to the Oscars. According to Cecil, ... For instance, the first category is Special Effect in a Leading Role: the nominees include the wave in "The Perfect Storm" ("I haven't rooted for water like that since "Ti-tanic,' "Stubby says during the nomination show). But this force of nature is up against formidable competition: "Julia Roberts' Avenging Cleavage in Erin Push-up Bra-kovich." Other categories include Best Tackle Tickler (which translates to movies that have sexy previews and sexy advertising but then you go see it and discover there's no sex. Nominees include "Charlie's Angels," "Scary Movie" and "finally but most obviously, 'Coyote Ugly.'"

    3. Graham, Jefferson (2001-04-16). "Inventive spoofs rule wide-open Web". USA Today. Retrieved 2026-07-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Thugs on Film (**½; Shock-wave.com and elsewhere Weekly animated movie parodies are offered by two working-class Brits, Cecil and Stubby, who review recent films, including The Mexican, 15 Minutes and Hannibal. They also take off into non-review territory, such as a recent outing where the boys found themselves in Beverly Hills, to tell Julia Roberts that she had been nominated for their own alternative Oscar show, The Toss-ers. "Another award?" says Roberts, excited — until she finds out it's for best cleavage in Erin Brockovich. These guys are funny, with colorful animation and topical humor. And the Thugs are all over the Web: at Shock-wave, NBCi, Lycos, Netscape and BBC America, where they also air on cable."

    4. Smith, Liz (2001-04-02). "Gladiator hunk wins 'Thug' film award". Stamford Advocate. Retrieved 2026-07-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Dear Boss, tell the truth: Have you ever heard of the Lifetime Thug Achievement Award? It's given by a British news agency run by Australians and is presented by animated movie critics Cecil and Stubby of "Thugs on Film." This year, they gave their prize to the hunky "Gladiator, " Russell Crowe. Julia Roberts also won the Tessers Award for her cleavage in "Erin Brockovich." You can latch ofto www.mondomedia.com or www.planethollywood.com to get all the winners. Things can get a bit vulgar, and I don't always understand what they're talking about, but I keep trying."

    5. Raugust, Karen (2004). The Animation Business Handbook. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-6228-5. Retrieved 2026-07-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Mondo Media's model has utilized both syndication and advertising. It licensed its series Thugs on Film exclusively to BBC America for use on its online site as well as on air. It also has syndicated content nonexclusively to 30 affiliate partners, including Real Networks, Netscape, and Lycos, with a total audience as high as 100 million users. Mondo charged each of its affiliates $500 per nonexclusive weekly episode and has sold advertising to companies such as Priceline.com and Altoids; its 12-second advertisements were priced at between $50 and $75 per thousand viewers in 2001. Each episode of Thugs on Film reportedly cost $15,000 to produce and generated $60,000 $60,000 through a combination of syndication fees and ad sales."

    6. Bjortomt, Olav (2007-10-06). "Vodcast of the week; The arts online; Screen". The Times. Factiva T000000020071006e3a60000m. NewsBank 11C1D1B4133CFCE0.

      The review notes: "Movie reviewers tend to be men of a certain age. Cecil and Stubby would certainly fall into that demographic if they weren't crudely animated cartoon characters going by the name "Thugs on Film" (above). Of course, these "English working class lads" offer no criticism of any substance and instead play their part in a series of ironic sketches, which take the films they are meant to be appraising (such as A Clockwork Orange and American Beauty) as the inspiration for their off colour and often insane antics. An acquired taste, but good enough for a few chuckles in every episode."

    7. Ojeda-Zapata, Julio (October 2000). "UnderGroundOnline". I.D. Vol. 47, no. 6. p. 118. ProQuest 214760332.

      The article notes: "Standing features now include ... Thugs on Film, a weird take on the Siskel & Ebert franchise ... Thugs on Film stars two Trainspotting rejects Who trash movies such as Mission: Impossible 2 and insult its stars-Torn Cruise, in the case of M:I-2. "Tommy Boy" gets locked in a jail cell with the Thugs but busts out with a stick of exploding chewing gum he pulls from his briefs. You won't see that on Roger Ebert & The Movies."

    8. Hornby, Steve (2000). Virgin Weird Internet Guide. London: Virgin Publishing. p. 112. ISBN 0-7535-0449-9. Retrieved 2026-07-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Thugs On Film www.shockwave.com When it comes to TV film criticism, jumper-clad oldsters and hirsute boys with lisps can’t cut the mustard when placed next to Cecil and Stubby, two East End lads with a healthy appreciation of the cinematic medium. Could well be the pinnacle of film criticism. Visit soon before it becomes a watered-down MTV slot."

    9. Whitney, Daisy (2000-06-16). "From Web to BBC America : Animated Internet shorts about to make big leap to small screen". Electronic Media. Factiva eltm000020010805dw6q001qg.

      The article notes: "The two shows are "Sister Randy," created by Dotcomix, and "Thugs on Film," from Mondo Media. ... The one-minute show will run as an interstitial Monday through Thursday on BBC America, as will "Thugs on Film," which is about three to five minutes in length. ... "Thugs on Film," starring two British football hooligans who review the latest movies, has been syndicated on the Internet for about a year and is available on 25 Web sites, including Netscape and AltaVista, said John Evershed, CEO of San Francisco-based Mondo Media. The studio and BBC America will also work together to develop a new short series for both the Web and TV later this year. "

    10. "Broadband Content: Briefs". Cable World. Vol. 12, no. 21. 2000-05-22. ISSN 1042-7228. Factiva cblw000020010804dw5m000mr.

      The article notes: "BBC America has signed Mondo Media's weekly Web hit, Thugs on Film, to make the leap from Web to TV for its summer primetime lineup, bbcamerica.com also picked up Thugs on Film and will include a co-branded show introduction and a special launch page on the bbcamerica.com Web site. The show is hosted by Cecil and Stubby, two English football hooligans with a healthy appreciation for the movies."

    11. Perenson, Melissa (2000-12-12). "Monetizing Online Content". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 366, no. 4. Factiva hlyw000020010806dwcc00chz.

      The article notes: "John Evershed of Mondo Media agrees. "Thugs on Film," which Evershed executive produces, is a year-old episodic that currently appears on more than 30 sites including BEG America, Lycos, Netscape, NBCi and Shockwave.com. Each of the 30 "Thugs on Film" partner sites pays $500 per weekly episode. Evershed estimates that Mondo Media's cost per show is $15,000 with syndicated earnings at $60,000 per month. "But the key to it is we hold back advertising space in the show and we sell it ourselves (at $75 CPM per episode) across the affiliate network," Evershed explains. "It's part of the reason the syndication model is so compelling on the Internet as opposed to a single destination site.""

    12. Freeman, Laurie (2001-01-22). "Web syndication catching on : With clever ideas far and few between, Internet efforts step up to next level--TV". Advertising Age. Vol. 72, no. 4. Factiva advage0020010709dx1m0004z.

      The article notes: "In fact, Mondo already has sold one of its properties, "Thugs on Film," to BBC America, which runs the kooky animated shorts on both its cable network and its Web site (bbconline. com). The series features two English hooligans talking about the latest movies."

    13. Nguyen, Maria (2001-10-27). "Visual Impact". The Sydney Morning Herald. Factiva smhh000020011026dxar00v1e. NewsBank 1053AF81951F3842.

      The article notes: "Thugs on Film, an animated Web series by Mondo Media about two working-class English "thugs" turned movie critics, was picked up by BBC America for prime-time TV viewing last year, making it the first Internet-based animated series to cross the media threshold."

    14. Mara, Janis (2000-05-08). "Reel.com and Thugs In Harmony". Adweek. Vol. 41, no. 19. Factiva adwe000020010802dw58002o6.

      THe article notes: " Lovers of dry wit, bad taste and animated cartoons will be interested to learn that Mondo Media, an online animation creator and content distributor, today announced a partnership with video and DVD e-tailer Reel.com. Thugs on Film Mondo Media's Net-only movie review show, will feature several different types of ad insertions for Emeryville, Calif.-based Reel.com. ... The Flash-animated program is syndicated on sites such as Lycos, Alta Vista, Netscape, Snap and Excite. The show is not for the faint of heart, using strong language and fairly demented humor as characters Cecil and Stubby skewer lame movies. ... As part of the arrangement, Reel.com is running archived Thugs episodes on its site."

    15. "Videos & DVDs". Forbes. 2000-09-11. Factiva fb00000020010805dw9b001gl.

      The article notes: "Best: The Screening Room, loaded with items both useful (word of mouth on upcoming films) and amusing (Thugs on Film, a cartoon review show hosted by two English hooligans)."

    16. Kaufman, Debra (January 2002). "Fun & games". Millimeter. Vol. 30, no. 1. Future Publishing. p. S8. ProQuest 227126707.

      The article notes: "'Thugs on Film,' an online feature from Mondo Minishows whose hosts review the latest big screen releases and host a trivia quiz, won the 2000 Digital Coast Award for Excellence in Digital Entertainment. ... Some of the more well-known shows from Mondo Minishows include Thugs on Film, in which two soccer hooligans critique films ..."

    17. Macdonald, Moira (2001-10-05). "'The Wedding Cow' kicks off underground film festival". The Seattle Times. NewsBank 0EF065BA042A5B11.

      The article notes: "Over at 911 Media Arts, tonight brings a Seattle premiere of the short film "Token Life" and other animated works from David Donar, whose work has appeared in Spike and Mike's Sick and Twisted Animation Festival, the General Chaos Uncensored Animation Film Festival, MTV and Mondo Media (where he works on the irresistible "Thugs on Film" series)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thugs on Film to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed sources....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro (Marvel Comics)

[edit]
Pyro (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to List of Marvel Comics characters: P because there's no indication of notability for any incarnation of this character, and a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing to boot. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm honestly surprised this character has been selected for deletion, I don't think that this character article is poor enough to support it being merged.
- Has appeared in 14 Marvel handbooks (primary source, but shows this character probably is in theory notable enough for his own article)
- Potential sources:
-- https://www.cbr.com/x-men-pyro-most-dangerous-member-marauders/
-- https://www.slashfilm.com/1562100/pyro-x-men-marvel-character-history/
- https://screenrant.com/xmen-pyro-hero-villain-krakoa-marvel-comics/
- https://comicbook.com/comics/news/x-men-brotherhood-of-evil-mutants-members-ranked-power/
Also there is a good argument to be made that Pyro's Fox character should be merged within this article, similar to the discussion I had regarding Quicksilver's.
I can personally try to add much more analysis on the Fox character, and if I do so I think this would definitely be worthy of a keep. ModlordD (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are WP:VALNET sources, see the link for the problem with that. The use of such sources constantly plagues fictional characters and topics, but in a word they are SEO bait and/or AI slop that are not good indicators of notability and solely created to bring views to what are popular topics the actual press is ignoring. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Slashfilm and ComicBook.com are not Valnet outlets, just to be clear on those two. Unless the point of the statement was more that their output has become more like Valnet since their respective sales. -2pou (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comicbook.com is still considered a source on par with Valnet as far as proof of notability goes. It is essentially no different despite not actually being Valnet owned. I admit that Slashfilm does seem to be an RS that would count towards significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I'll put ComicBook.com higher than Valnet myself, that is basically a listicle entry that isn't actually saying much at all. The SlashFilm article is a character rundown, which is useful for secondary sourcing on his history and incarnations, but offers no real reception to speak of.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is another major policy problem the article then runs up against. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To @ModlordD, WP:NVGC#Listicles would be a good read. Usable coverage looks thin at the moment, but I'll have a deeper search and !vote accordingly later. 11WB 💬 06:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After having a search, there are usable reliable sources about Pyro from Nerdist, Men's Health, GameSpot, Times Now and Atomic Mass. There may well be others from non-English sites, but this definitely satisfies SIGCOV. 11WB 💬 06:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources found by ModlordD and 11WB. BOZ (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @BOZ @User:11WB I feel it's important to point out that Atomic Mass seems to be a game guide for a toy (and not even sure if that's editorialized), while Comicvine is a wiki part of GameStop making it usergen. But the bigger problem is I'm not sure if the articles themselves were thoroughly checked. Times Now is not really saying anything, nor is Men's Health, and at most all the sourcing supports the Fox film version of the character solely.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a SlashFilm source provided higher up in this AfD. There's more than enough to work with and the movie sources can be used to expand the "In other media" section. I'm sticking with retention. 11WB 💬 13:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    SlashFilm though was already discussed as primarily a character rundown. Where's the significant coverage illustrating reception for this group of characters (which this is) as a whole?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pushed for time this weekend unfortunately. Poor excuse, but I genuinely don't have time to do a deeper search. My !vote is based on the sources and proposal put forward by @ModlordD, among with the sources I found from my search earlier today. 11WB 💬 15:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a bit of time to look beyond surface level Google search listings. A chapter by Dennin Ellis contains discussion on Pyro's heritage (page 77). There's also this article from Geekade. Regarding Atomic Mass, if that article is about a toy, I think that's also worthy of inclusion. 11WB 💬 08:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be useful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: SlashFilm's history coverage plus the Dennin Ellis chapter and Nerdist/GameSpot pieces add up to enough independent sourcing to clear GNG, even if no single source is a knockout. The plot bloat and primary-sourcing issues are cleanup problems, not proof of non-notability. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I am seeing a fair amount of coverage for a comic book character, some of it based on his presence in film adaptions. Based on the sources listed above keeping a separate article makes sense. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Chandler

[edit]
Marlo Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG without reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on Popverse. I did not see a mention either way in the usual reliable sources lists. Daranios (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like the consensus would likely be to merge, but should it be selective or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 17:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marge the Meanie

[edit]
Marge the Meanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to The_Simpsons_season_33#ep726 because it is not notable. It has a grand total of 4 citations, all of which I think are trivial coverage. TPI81AF (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that articles of Simpsons episodes should be keeper if nominated for deletion/redirect. Loc863 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer the question of whether this episode is sufficiently notable. There is no automatic/inherent notability simply based on what a subject is if the sourcing and SIGCOV is not there (but on that front, I have no opinion). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 19:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Den of Geeks, IMO, is the big one for me (it's a WP:RS by consensus, and has a full article on this episode.) That plus Screenrant = a narrow Keep. Jishara (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other deletions

[edit]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5 § Redirect comics templates. (edit | history)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:R comics with possibilities with Template:R with possibilities; Template:R comics from alternative name with Template:R from alternative name; Template:R comics to list entry with Template:R to list entry; Template:R comics from merge with Template:R from merge; Template:R comics from related word with Template:R from related word; and Template:R comics to section with Template:R to section, respectively.
Note that this isn't a proposal to merge all these templates into one huge template, but to merge the comics redirect templates into their non-comics equivalents. I think the comics redirect templates should be merged into their respectively similary titled templates, without the word 'comics' in them, because they otherwise serve similar purposes, and I don't see the point of them being separate. I'm open to the proposals of the templates without the word 'comics' in their titles having the {{{comics}}} parameter instead if that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and its participants want. I'm surprised these proposals weren't made sooner. I've deliberately excluded 'Template:R comics naming convention' from this proposal because it serves a specific purpose and because there's no non-comics-related template similar to that one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TadgStirkland401: The nominator wants to merge all the comics into the non-comics. I.e. merge the first with the second ("R comics with possibilities" with "R with possibilities"), the third with fourth ("R comics from alternative name" with "R from alternative name") and so on. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2025-11-09 I feel that the proposal is clear enough (replace all the "R comics" templates with their regular counterparts), and I weak support because this also seems unnecessarily redundant to me. If anyone has a good reason for keeping them then I'd be interested to hear it! But my hunch is that it's just historical cruft. Hopefully an automated replacement can also automatedly "add {{WikiProject Comics}} to the talk page of the redirect" or whatever (if anyone actually cares about that; I don't really know) as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per voidxor. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the actual intent here. This was mislisted as a single merge (i.e. to one template), when the intent is clearly to merge {{R comics with possibilities}} to {{R with possibilities}}, then separately merge {{R comics from alternative name}} to {{R from alternative name}}, and so on. This should be done unless there's a compelling reason we need to divide each of these "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" rcats into topical subdivisions, and that comics in particular should be one of those subdivisions. (Even if that's actually true in some case, it is not necessarily true for all of them.) We shold do all of these merges in absence of a strong showing that one or more should not be merged. This is basically useless micro-intersection, of a sort that badly mixes categorization types and purposes. The identification of something as a comics topic is already accomplished (and is a reader- as well as editor-facing matter) by comics topical categories of the usual sort. Meanwhile, "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" categories are maintenance only and just editor-facing (nor do these generally need to be topically split, since editors working on categorization of, and other maintenance pertaining to, redirects that go in such categories are doing so on a cross-topical basis. Another way of putting it is that a redir being from an alternative name (or whatever) and it also pertaining to comics is a trivial intersection and non-defining characteristic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question to supports: You are all saying you support the nomination, but three of you said per "SMcCandlish" which (if I read correctly) isn't in support of continuing with the comic-specific categorization. So it would seem the intent here is to replace (or redirect), rather than merge any functionality. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no need to differentiate FaviFake (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Support merging the comic variants of these R-cat templates into the corresponding general templates with matching names. For the avoidance of doubt, I Oppose merging the various R-cat templates that do not include the word comics. The proposal is badly worded and confusing at first glance. It would have been clearer if a separate proposal was made for each template that it was proposed to merge with its corresponding target template; as I interpret the proposal, it is only proposed to merge Template:R comics from merge into Template:R from merge, etc. This is not actually a proposal to merge all these templates together, even though it appears to be one based on the way the templates are listed. Hence my partial opposition. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 23:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the "redirect comics" after they have been replaces with the "normal" R-templates. My first vote was support, but it was unclear what I was supporting, but still per user:voidxor. strong oppose merging. Christian75 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if I've understood correctly that this is fundamentally equivalent to replacing "R [media type] from [relationship between source and target article]", at least for those articles to do with comics. If we have "Redirect from alternative name", we don't need a more precise "Redirect from comic with alternative name", for example. I think I'm in agreement with BobKilcoyne. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOPAGE Freddy[citation needed] 18:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 15:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Will this have any effect on the 109,000 uses of {{R with possibilities}} other than to add that template to a few comics redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Daask (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mergers of 'R comics xyz' to equivalent 'R xyz' templates and categories. The duplicate 'comics' categories serve no useful purpose. There is no clear rationale for comics' special treatment and this is likely to lead to inconsistent tagging. Oppose adding 'comics' parameter as I have not seen any rationale for adding this. Overall, I support simplifying Rcats and not having a million ways to subcategorize them unless there is a meaningful benefit to maintenance or another aspect of the project. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"