Talk:Spirit (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Strips / DC Comics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Miller[edit]

This entry needs updated as Frank Miller has just signed on to adapt and direct a film based on this comic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.65.16 (talkcontribs) .


The movie has been out and that section is awfully incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.59.3 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lee Falk trivia[edit]

I'm not sure why the following trivia, which is only partly cited, was inserted way up in the article's lead. Aside from everything else, the vagueness of the claim seems very out of context. The Spirit and the Phantom are so incredibly dissimilar, it might be that Eisner was kidding, or perhaps just referring to his character's name, or something else. The following needs to have a full citation and more context to make full sense and be encyclopedically useful:

According to an interview with Lee Falk done by Comic Book Marketplace, Will Eisner once told Falk, creator of famous comic strip The Phantom, that the Spirit was a send-up of the Phantom, although the characters have very little in commong except the fact that they both wear masks.

--Tenebrae 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous?[edit]

The second paragraph says it chronicles an “anonymous” vigilante. The first paragraph says his real name is Denny Colt. He’s clearly not anonymous. Is it simply that no other characters in the comic know his real name? Or do they even know him as the Spirit? --Rob Kennedy 19:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How's that? Carlo 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks. --Rob Kennedy 23:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image consensus[edit]

The original Sprit image was just switched for another, very recent pic. My opinion is that it ought to be reverted (the previous one had class and an anchor in history, this new one is to me.. quite ugly) How do other watchers of this article feel? MURGH disc. 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Some people may not like the original image because of Ebony - which is fair. But the picture there now is unquestionably inferior. The illustration for this article should absolutely be by Will Eisner, if nothing else. Carlo 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is completely unencyclopedic for the main image not to be by Eisner, who created the character, wrote/drew it for many years and is as identified with it in a signature way as Orson Welles with Citizen Kane. The Reed Crandall image there previously was iffy enough (with all respect to the great Crandall) but at least it was historic and contemporaneous with Eisner's original. --Tenebrae 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Using an image to illustrate The Spirit by anyone other than Eisner is akin to using a Metlife ad to illustrate Peanuts. I understand that there are editors on Wikipedia who would prefer to use the most recent, updated images of a comics character possible -- but I feel that this is a perfect example of where the historical illustration is vastly superior to any recent renditions. As a critical source, it is important that our article reflect that Eisner as the creator is so closely linked to the character. Unlike other superheroes, it's Eisner's body of work that defines the subject, not the character's longevity due to continued publication. ~CS 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Recentism is a bit too common in comics articles. While I can understand why we go with the most recent when it's not easy to tell if there's a certain definitive depiction of a subject, Eisner's work is the definitive depiction of the Spirit, and excluding Ebony White because he's uncomfortable to deal with today smacks of revisionism. Tht said, is there actually any disagreement here? I've stuck the Reed Crandall image back for the time being since it's contemporaneous with Eisner's work, but we really need an Eisner image there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. How do people feel about #1 from 74 displayed here? [1] MURGH disc. 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything at the link. Carlo 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Right you are. I think its fixed. MURGH disc. 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine with me; it's a cover, so it's fair use. Personally, my favorite is #4 (that picture on #1 always look fat to me). But it IS #1. Isn't that actually Will Eisner and Wally Wood? That's what my memory is telling me, anyway. Carlo 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm easy too, there are so many great Spirit covers, as long as experts confirm it's in fact Eisner. The only condition I think is that facial features ought to be relatively close-up in this particular image. MURGH disc. 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
We can always put the Crandall placeholder back, but what does everyone think of this shb image I've just inserted, taking a detail from a Warren cover?--Tenebrae 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I love the Warren cover. It looks Eisner to my eye, but we do need confirmation that it's not an imitation. It's also a 1974 reprint, not a Golden Age comic, but if it's Eisner, it's Eisner -- we just need proper attribution. Tenebrae's image isn't bad either. It's framed little strangely and out of proportion, but it's not obviscated by shadows the way the Crandall image is. ~CS 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a prob: Go to this image from Grand Comics Database, and you'll see that it's signed. See also the GCD listing for that issue. Cool!--Tenebrae 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Opps! I guess I was unclear. The Warren image I really like is the Spirit #1 cover that MURGH posted. That one doesn't have any attribution, but I can now see here that it is not by Eisner. But I like the image you uploaded as well, and I'm happy with it. ~CS 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spiritcircle.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Spiritcircle.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"The" Spirit[edit]

Howcome this article is named "The Spirit" and not Spirit, like Joker (comics)? Personally, I think all all articles about characters with names of the sort should be titled like this one, but I know most wikipedians think it'd be a bad idea. Which characters get to keep the "The"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.155.3.160 (talkcontribs)

That's a good point. Unless it's a formal title like The Sorrow and the Pity, Wikipedia disallows "The". Moving, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Other cases --Tenebrae 06:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This move happened a bit too fast for my liking. It is in a way how you view it, but for me this article is primarily about the series, The Spirit, the character within being secondary. This is how it differs from The Joker, and many such examples, and is in fact the formal title. MURGH disc. 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Except, honestly, it's been about the character for almost two years now. I know how you feel &mdeash; I created an article for the comic book Yellow Claw, rather than the character Yellow Claw. But as the WPC MOS got more formalized and someone else changed it to be about the character, I could see going along in order to be consistent with every other case like it. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, the article opens with a character statement, so as is, it's completely correct, but I'd be very interested to see a "haul of consistensy". I may be in the minority but but think the series ought to take precedence. Certainly there are enough "small" comics articles that are about the series, and then allot sections to characters, and these potentially grow into "see also-main-articles".. And on the other hand Hogan's Alley is a redirect to The Yellow Kid so a master plan is needed. MURGH disc. 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sand Saref?[edit]

Why no Sand Saref Article ?--Brown Shoes22 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was merged because it would not have survived AfD. See the discussion here. Tealwisp (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

False alarm, just that BetacommandBot got aroused when the article name "Spirit (comics)" didn't correspond with "The Spirit" from the FUR.. MURGH disc. 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spiritcircle.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Spiritcircle.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move/name[edit]

I am curious as to why this was moved. "The Spirit" is specifically against WP:NCC/THE, which was the reason this, and dozens of other similar articles, are named as they are. I see no discussion here on the move and no mention of any changes in the Comic Projects Naming Conventions (which would have importance for an awful lot of articles). (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ebony White section laughable[edit]

the article seems to really stretch to whitewash the obnoxiousness of Eisner's treatment of that character. He chose to draw the character as more simian than human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Which "groups" commended him? Given the timeframe, not too many "groups" would have been to truly criticize/commend his work.63.165.50.227 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebony White section not laughable[edit]

The "commended" phrase comes in a direct quote from a mid-1960s article in what was then one of the country's leading newspapers. That's a suitable reliable-source statement.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Clothing Oddity?[edit]

This section really seems to be more a question versus adding any information. It should be moved to the Discussion page.63.165.50.227 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 67.212.24.114 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting merge made without discussion or request for comments[edit]

There was no discussion on this talk page about it — only between two editors. One or two editors can't unilaterally decide to merge or separate articles. We have templates for that: Go to Wikipedia:Template_messages/Merging and please go through the consensus process. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can unilaterally do something, but I'll set up the merge discussion if you want to force it. Tealwisp (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor can do many things, but an editor should seek consensus when making major changes. Ebony White is clearly a notable enough character - largely due to the "racism" question and the attention it has drawn - for a separate article. This article currently duplicates some of that information, which is better covered in the main article for the character and should probably summarized much more briefly here. I have no strong opinion about merging the other character articles into this one (or not). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The conclusion that was brought about through discussion by TTN and me is here. I contacted him after he boldly redirected the article. I would have expected any other editor to do the same, and I think it rather pointless to force discussion fore bureaucracy's sake. All the info is covered in the main article, and if we're going to have the individual article, we really ought to try and expand it. If you really think something was done wrong, contact TTN, as it was his action. I simply inquired about it and ended up at a logical conclusion, though not the only one. Tealwisp (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not for bureaucracy's sake, it's about respect for other people's opinions. That's what makes Wikipedia work. Back to the topic, the Spirit article doesn't cover Ebony White as well as the separate article, which stands on its own quite well, as the subject is notable and has been discussed independently of the main character (as indicated by the references). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jason A. Quest. "Be bold" is a not a catch-call to do anything, and editors who quote it forget the other part of the guideline page, which specifies, "Be not too bold." In regards to Ebony White, he is a major supporting character / sidekick, appearing in comics published in each of the last seven decades, both in newspapers and in comics and hardcover collections by by such major publishers as Quality Comics, Harvey Comics, Warren Publishing, Kitchen Sink Press and DC Comics. It is commonplace for supporting characters and sidekicks of all media to have their own article pages.
I'm not sure what rationale there is to not have an article page for Ebony White. He has a history both in publishing, as noted above, and has a fictional character biography / backstory. He had appeared in multiple incarnations, from child to adult. He is the subject of real-world sociocultural interest because of his in-depth characterization and his outward racial stereotyping, combined with the color-blind respect shown him from other characters.
These are all pertinent considerations as to whether a fictional character has the cultural depth and width to warrant his own article. What arguments are there that Ebony White is less significant than, say, Wimpy from Popeye or Flash Thompson from The Amazing Spider-Man, to give just two of hundreds of examples? -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note re: merge discussion[edit]

Before I put a note at WPC: Propesed moves, merges, and splits, the editors who are in fact proposing this (Tealwisp and TTN) need to put merge-proposal tags on the articles in question. If we're going to do this, let's please do it properly and in the consensus-approved fashion. -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Healing factor?[edit]

Well, after seeing Miller's shit sandwich, does Spirit have one or not? (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

  • No in Will Eisner's comics The Spirit has no Healing factor. In one story he is in a wheelchar after braking his leg. I'll look up the issue !--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture reference[edit]

This might be considered trivia, and it might not even be specifically encyclopedic, I don't know. But the 69th book of the series about The Destroyer (fiction), Blood Ties, by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir, which is also about an adventure hero whose career starts after he "dies", mentions that the grave the main character of the series, Remo Williams, is allegedly buried in is next to that of a "D. Colt", who died in 1940. I have to assume that this is a fairly obvious reference to The Spirit. Anyway, I thought it at least deserved mentioning. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Batgirl: Year One[edit]

Did anyone notice that the Spirit was seen at a party in an issue of Batgirl: Year One? He was being pushed around by Killer Moth's henchmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.171.26 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DC character?[edit]

Just a quick question: he has been tagged in the DC character category. So is he owned by DC comics now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.179.238 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No idea - DC has "Will Eisner Library" listed as an imprint, so possibly. NP Chilla (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)