Talk:Protégé (comics)

Redirect/Compresion

Fair enough.

The items that were compressed out:

• "...one of the most powerful beings ever in Marvel Universe."
  • Unsupported hype.
• "However, [Replica] comes into conflict with Protégé's other companion, a demonic-looking woman named Malevolence, who was later revealed to be the daughter of Mephisto. Thus, upon receiving a call for aid from her old friend Martinex, as his planet is being torn asunder by multiple tragedies, Replica dodges the attentions of Protégé and Malevolence to answer this call, though ultimately it's Protégé who lets her go. Despite this, she still had to be rescued from a Universal Church ship by Firelord."
  • Primarily this is relevant to the characters Replica, Malevolence, Martinex, and Firelord. Not Protégé.
  • That Malevolence is a companion of Protégé is retained.
  • Potentially there is a case for a sentence of "Later, when she attempts to answer a distress call from Martinex, Protégé eventually allows her to leave.^ref"
• "In the 31st century of Earth-691,..."
  • Partially redundant, specifying the time frame in proper place the list entry would make it fully redundant.
• "The Guardians of the Galaxy struggled futilely against Protégé, and the Living Tribunal itself with help of others wasn't able to defeat it and stated...
  • Over worked and a bit awkward. Compressed basics - the attempts failed and the Tribunal's statement.
• "(the Tribunal was later retconned as a mere manifestation body‎^ref)"
  • Completely irrelevant here. This would be more appropriate in the article on the Living Tribunal.

And the images. List articles have specific limits on image inclusion, basically that each entry doesn't get one. And even if it were reasonable for the images to be included, File:Protege Tribunal.jpg amounts to decoration in an article this size - it isn't needed.

Did I miss anything?

- J Greb (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I think you present good arguments. I don't agree very much about the irrelevance of the retcon, though -- it's not a big deal, but I think it's worth mentioning. Also, I think you could have used an image from the article. If these two points are addressed, I'll support the merge, since you did a great job of summarizing the article's content otherwise. --Waldir ^talk 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the image issue popped up with a different merge. The long and the short of it is that NFC policy and guidelines aren't going to allow the images into a list article the relevant ones are WP:NFC#3 and WP:NFLISTS, especially point 6. Having a character gallery would be nice, but I don't think it comes anywhere near accepable on Wikipedia.

The recon is a question of focus. Does it impact this character or that story? It doesn't appear to. It is writers re-thinking what the Tribunal is, that seems to fall outside of this topic.

- J Greb (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh -- I'm not sure I can support the merge given the image issue. I understand the reasoning of NFLISTS#6, but in such a visual topic as comics, the lack of an image is IMO a major handicap to the content. As for the retcon, it seems to me they did it to preserve the power hierarchy of the multiverse, precisely so this character wouldn't occupy such a powerful position in canon, being a minor character. --Waldir ^talk 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is something in secondary sources with a writer or editor stating the retcon was done to prevent this type of story from being done again, I could see noting it here. But... if it's an editorial assumption it isn't justified.

And there is a down side of keeping this article here just to keep a picture - and the article is to small to justify more than one. The article is almost entirely plot summary covering a minor character of questionable notability. Moving it to the list at least offers a better likelihood of not loosing it. Also, the list does point to the Marvel Comics Database and Marvel's official wiki where images are hosted. And if there's a viable way to do it, maybe adding a pointer to the ComicVine which is an image warehouse.

- J Greb (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say the retcon was done to prevent similar plotlines in the future, but rather to restore the classical cosmic hierarchy of the Marvel multiverse. That seems obvious to me, but you're right, without a source stating exactly that, it can be considered OR.

Also, you say "better likelihood of not loosing it" -- so, you're doing this to prevent deletion of these articles? I'd rather keep the article until (if) it is challenged. And should that happen, a redirect to the list is "worst" outcome anyway (as opposed to complete deletion). Yes, we could point to images hosted elsewhere, but by that reasoning we could also point to good text content hosted externally and not bother including it... I know, as the creator of the page I'm not exactly unbiased, but mind you, I'm not even a regular comics reader; I just once happened to hear about this character and wanted to read more about it. Having Wikipedia contain less info than a "comics layman" might need for a general overview (and this includes an image, quite naturally IMO), is a disservice to the reader. So for now I suggest keeping the list with a {{main}} note on the list pointing here. --Waldir ^talk 01:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a few problems there:

• NFC deals with all things that are under copyright protection, files and text. In the case of comics related articles the blatant examples are the images. If the article were images and extensive quotes of reviews or other reference works, both would need to be addressed under NFC. Images by reducing the number and text by paraphrasing and citing sources. Literally reworking the text and pointing to text pieces that may be "better" or "more detailed".
• We already point "off site" with "External links" sections for some things: For character appearance lists we point to the Grand Comics Database and Comic Book Database. For detailed in story histories or biographies - the massive plot sections WP:PLOT stands against - we point to Marvel's official wiki and the Marvel Comics Database at Wikia.
• While I do agree that minor characters in comics should be covered, especially when articles on non-minor characters or titles mention them, I don't agree they justify, under Wikipedia's rules and methods, full blown separate articles. Those articles tend to 1) lack anything indicating notability and 2) rely solely to 100% on plot summaries and primary sources.
• "Challenging" an article's right to be here does come informs other than "AfD" and "PROD". It also covers maintenance tags, merge tags, and bold out right merges in lieu of tags. At the moment we're working backward through that. And to be frank, it's become difficult to "leave alone" articles that match, at best, the state of articles on similar articles that have recently gone through AfD and been either deleted or redirected without a merge. It becomes a case of either doing it by the numbers with a known and very likely outcome or avoid the loss by merging into a list.
• Using {{main}} in the list is disingenuous at best. Right now it would amount to pointing from the content there to content that is essentially the same with maybe a few more lines of plot and images. That's pretty much a mark of redundancy that isn't needed. Or it would require compressing down the list entry to about 1 to 3 lines which makes the list more or less pointless and still leaves the article with all its problems.

- J Greb (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I get your points, and understand that the current rules make it hard for articles on such minor characters to be kept. I reserve the right to disagree with those rules, for the reasons I already presented (basically, I don't think that stand-alone articles on low-notability topics, or plot-based content are problematic enough to outweigh their usefulness to the interested reader), but I won't oppose if you redo the merge. --Waldir ^talk 17:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Redone the redirect. - J Greb (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

reverted redirect, working on it a bit

Today a mac IP reverted the old redirect. "04:44, 1 August 2017‎ 2600:1700:e820:1ba0:2df5:22ae:620:8bb7 (talk)‎ . . (2,935 bytes) (+2,619)‎ . . (restore - going to work on this one a bit) (undo)"

I am dubious about this. I don't see any secondary source coverage. As someone said above, a plot dump of a minor character. I don't see information at the redirect target to justify the redirect either. Considering AfD. Let's see. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)