Talk:Speed Demon (character)

Publication history

Hi. Just wanted to say there's been some concern about removal of "Publication history" from some Comics Project pages. The exemplar doesn't actually make any exception for "minor" characters, I suppose with the understanding that if they're so minor they don't belong in an encyclopedia. We really need to operate by consensus here or else it's anarchy, so I hope we can all work together, here and elsewhere, as a single community. Thanks -- Tenebrae 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

While it would be preferable to have a cover image, or an image that is fully cited, this one fits the depiction criteria of the Project guidelines.

Help in clarifying where this image is from is needed though.

On a side note... Any one have a scan of Sanders in the Whizzer costume that would fit the same guidelines? Seems appropriate to have that as a spot image for here and the Whizzer article.

- J Greb 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

History of James Sanders

I object to the constant removal of Speed Demon's early history as Whizzer from this article. The Speed Demon page is not supposed to be a continuation from the James Sanders section in the Whizzer page, the James Sanders' blurb should serve as an intro to the Speed Demon page, where you should be able to visualize everything about this particular character. --Pc13 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as the link goes to the Whizzer page, I'm fine with that (I wrote it so I can't object!)

Asgardian 11:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in and split it into sections, to break up the text logically. Using other pages where heros change code names, a section per name is helpful when readin. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Music dab

While the article for the Michale Jackson son is up for AfD, it does exist, and potentially will have people looking for it directly.

Since this article is what someone searching for "Speed Demon" will find, not a dab page, it is entirely appropriate for a dab line for the song exist. This isn't an issue of "relevance" to the comic, it is an issue of the functionality of Wikipeadia as a whole.

In that vein, the film stub Speed Demon (film) should also have a dab on this page.

Either that, all the dabs get moved to "Speed Demon (disambiguous)" with an {{otheruse}} here, or the Amalgam character gets bumped to "(Amalgam Comics)", this article gets bumped to "(comics)", and a actual dab page gets this title.

- J Greb 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Completed a merge of the best of both. The new intro is there, and a padded out PH that does not encroach on the FCB. As per standard protocol, the two are separate, and many, many entries document a character's history via the FBB. The PH is not the place for this.

Asgardian 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Padded out" is your POV, particularly with a four-graf PH covering two different characters and two versions of one of those characters. And there is no "character history" in the PH. Giving the protagonist of a cited issue in two instances — one of with the protagonists' name not in the title ("He returned against Spider-Man and the Human Torch in Marvel Team-Up) — is not biographical. --Tenebrae 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made slight clarifications, but again, this is the format for almost all articles. The bulk of the information goes in the FCH. And no more accusations thank you.

Asgardian 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you reverted to you last version. Period. Please refrain from that type of disruptive, possessive editing as it has gotten you into trouble in the past. - J Greb 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true, no assumptions please. The first version was there for months before a radical change. I then retained the new introduction and have simply moved around the PH info, which is all still there. Once again, there is no precedent to empty out the FCB, where all the pertinent character development and sourcing occurs. Perhaps Doczilla could offer comment? He is a better writer than Tenebrae and can be counted on to be impartial.

Asgardian 03:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No assumption made:

Your edit of today compared with your edit of October 16: Blanked revert

Your edit of October 16 compared with your edit of October 15 (21:08): Effectively a blanket revert. What changes are negligible, so, yes, I guess it was a "slight tidy" of your last edit. But an obliteration of anyone else's work.

Your edit of October 15 (21:08) compared to you edit of (04:43) same day: Reverted everything after the PH

The suggestion still stands with an addendum: Self revert (this is the addendum) and bring the specific issues here to talk them out. - J Greb 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae should have brought it here in the first place. Again, there is a clear difference between PH and FCB.

Asgardian 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary: We all have talked and talked already, over and over again over the course of more than a year, because it's always the same edit war, always the same choppy, jargony ("Earth-4,668!"), objectively poor writing that no writing teacher would countenance -- and always the same ignoring of consensus. Multiple editors continually revert you, yet you keep coming back, refusing to acknowledge that others regularly do not agree with your edits.

You have spoken in the past about disrupting Wikipedia for a school project. You have promised no more blanket reversions. Every time censure proceedings have been initiated, you have promised to modify your behavior -- and you never have for long. What is the community to make of this? How much more talking, how many more empty promises, are still in store? This has to end. --Tenebrae 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so melodramatic. You've been told by others before to "chill". The sky is not falling. On to Editing below...

Asgardian 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing thoughts

This kind of bickering is exactly why I had no problem taking a two-month break during which I barely edited Wikipedia while I was busy this summer. Here are some thoughts regarding the two versions. These thoughts about the edits needed are wholly separate from my thoughts about the process going on here. Why in the world are people still getting into big fights over this article? Like I said a long time ago, it's not like any of the Whizzers are such busy characters that we have to struggle to keep up with the changes. Whoever started the page reverts (I haven't checked the edit history to see which of you did this) should have made one edit at a time instead of starting a fight over thirty changes in a single posting.

• superspeed versus super-speed – Either is acceptable. Unhyphenated is more common, but more common does not have to mean correct.
• Marvel Universe versus Marvel Comics Universe – I've never been thrilled with with either and usually won't bother changing it either way in an article. That said, I do think Marvel Comics Universe will be more clear to outsiders.
• the character versus he – I remember discussions about this. In the lead, the character is not a person, so he really doesn't fit until you're writing about the in-universe fiction. We're not going to call the character it, though, so the character at that point works better.
• debuts versus debuted – That depends on whether you are writing about real world publication history, in which case you should use past tense, or writing about the fictional story, in which case you should use present tense. That is the publication history section, after all, not the fictional character biography.
• loosely based on four characters in rival DC Comics' Justice League of America versus the version that follows that by naming the other characters: I'm unclear on why those other characters are mentioned. They're not Speed Demon. Are they mentioned so that when they are mentioned later in the article, their connection to Speed Demon will be clear?
• In 1981, versus a parenthetical Oct. 1981 later in the sentence – Is this really worth fighting over? Repeatedly starting sentences with In 1981, In 2001, and so forth is clunky, weak writing. Although it's not going to matter with a month like October, saying that a story came in such-and-such year can be wrong. During the 1980s, the cover dates were off by three months. Using the parenthetical month and year gives official publication dates without risking inaccurate statements about the actual years.
• Spider-Man writer Bill Mantlo – He didn't just write Spider-Man. Also, saying that is unnecessary when the publication titles will make that clear anyway.
• Later, solo again, he fought Wolverine in Wolverine #167 – That's awfully in-universe for the publication history section.
• under the codename Whizzer versus as the Whizzer – Go by the first rule of editing: Omit needless words. By that point in the article, "codename" adds nothing to the reader's understanding.
• It's Avengers Annual with Annual italicized. I thought everybody was clear on that a year ago.
• already existing versus extant – I like the word extant a lot. On the other hand, I have to admit that already existing will be clear to more readers. Back to the first hand, though, people reading an encyclopedia should have to look up words once in a while. So altogether I wouldn't fight for either one. I would say that there is no reason to italicize already existing. In fact, the emphasis invokes POV.
• Several years after, Soon after, and Shortly after – Unless characters in the story clearly say that it's been either several years, soon, or shortly, don't say any of these. (1) They are all vague, especially shortly. (2) Comic book story time does not pass the same way real time passes. (3) Chronological order should already be clear.
• Does mentioning Madripoor in either version really add anything to readers' understanding of what was meaningful in the character's history? Who cares where that happened?
• References: Oh, come on now. We have established standards on how to do those.

Anyway, do with these as you will. Doczilla 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Doc, I, for one, would be completely happy to insert your edits, or to have you do the honors. I will then not touch them, and I ask that User:Asgardian, in the interest of harmony and compromise, offer to do the same. What do you say, Asgardian. --Tenebrae 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That all seems perfectly reasonable. (Emperor 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

I tend to agree... And here I was thinking I'd have to block out a chunk of time after work to wade through the two. Just a cople of point though:

• While 3/4 of the analogues don't belong in this article, the linkage to the Flash does. Thomas created a pastiche of the JLA with the Whizzer filling the place of the Flash.
• Much to the consternation to many here, I'd argue that this is precisely the type of article where it should be a PH with a few in-universe bits supporting the real-world history and NO FCB. This is a minor, B-list, and that is being generous, villain with little relative use or real world notability. Putting it up as a PH only would promote what notability there is. As for the FCH... bluntly, the Marvel DBP is better suited and inclined for a purely in-universe article on the character, include the link for the character's article there in the External Links. (And yes, I was going to offer a PH only version here, I can still go through with that if there is an interest.) - J Greb 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to set a precedent of having to decide subjectively who deserves a bio or not. If a character is worthy of its own article, then there must be at least a sentence of two of fictional existence to justify it — otherwise, why is that character here and not just a line in some other character's list of villains/supporting characters/etc. Having even a sentence of two of FCB just seems the more WP:NPOV way to do it. --23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)

I've got two problems with that: 1) We (general term) are already making subjective decisions since editors are giving minor characters articles which really don't deserve it. 2) The test is supposed to be real-world context, not in-universe. I also can't see how forcing a PH/FCB split equates to NPOV. An article can be just as neutral, if not more so, without the split. The only thing I can see the split doing is pointing up articles that fail the RW context test, either because it's a single line that cannot be expanded, or the editor that put it in place was only throwing up an appearance list. - J Greb 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla and J Greb are mostly on the right track, but expanding the comparisons and relationship with the Squadrons, as opposed to the minor and incidental encounters as those are what's particularly notable about the character. However, only doing as much as can be tied to the Pub hist is optimal here, I believe. ThuranX 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the real-world publication history is the more important of the two, and despite my reservations I can certainly bend to consensus. And there's nothing to say an FCB can't be added later, eventually, if the character figures notably in something.

Feels like more discussion is needed, somehow. Should this go the the WPC talk page?--Tenebrae 03:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I like Doc's suggestions, which match my own thoughts. I've yanked the mention of the other DC heroes as here it simply isn't needed. Another look tomorrow. The overriding issue of format still stands, however.

Asgardian 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making unilateral changes and acknowledge that the consensus of a number of editors consistently disagrees with your edits. Additionally, you've been at this long enough to know that the Publication history is not written in present tense; therefore, one can only conclude this is deliberate disruption for, possibly, a continuation of the Wikipedia school project mentioned some time back. --Tenebrae 13:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "which match my own thoughts." To be fair, I should point out that I agreed with each of you on some points, disagreed with each of you on others, asked questions about a couple of items, and said on several that they just aren't worth fighting over. Doczilla 06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also found that comment from Asgardian to be, and this is being generous, odd. But then I also feel flat out insulted every time I see him post statements like "I'll address Doc's list in greater detail in a day or so, then seek action." Those, with the possessive reverting, read as though the editor feel he, and only he, should be the one working the articles. - J Greb 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why be insulted? Or for that matter assume? Yes, I will address Doc's points, and then will seek action from folks such as yourself. If in doubt, just ask, as opposed to labelling...there's enough of that from a certain someone who believes a stake through my heart is the only way. No matter. We'll work it out.

Asgardian 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along?

Arrgh, here's another page that may stall out in indefinte protected-land, much like the long-sleeping Blood Brothers... BOZ 12:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd bring that point up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Every few months he erupts in edit-warring against the consensus of at least a half-dozen other editors. Add your voice at that link, so that perhaps an admin will note the sheer number of us wishing for something to be done about this continually disruptive and often lying presence. --Tenebrae 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I wouldn't bring up Blood Brother if I was you. That article is about two C-grade characters, and yet you insisted on your way, even to the point of overriding a moderator, who was in his own words "speechless."

2. continually disruptive and often lying presence. Stop this. Now.

3. Focus on the article, not the persons involved.

Asgardian 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you dare mischaracterize Steve Block and me on the Blood Brothers edit. My God, Steve has blocked you from Wikipedia, not me. Multiple editors call you a disruptive presence. Yet you're the only one attacking me. What does that tell you? --Tenebrae 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It tells me you need to focus on the edits with the rest of us. Move on.

Asgardian 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You've gone on editors' talk pages asking them not to jump on the "bandwagon" of those who find you a disruptive presence. Why do you think there's a "bandwagon" of editors? I have to wonder how anyone can willfully disregard so many like opinions by so many experienced editors both working and speaking in good faith. How can everyone be wrong and you right?

Focus on the edits? That's all we've been doing. None of us knows anything about you or your life, and don't care. We only care about the edits.

Let me leave you with a specific question about them: What writing teacher or class has ever said it's good writing to begin each successive paragraph with the same words ("In [year]", "In [year]"), or to place redundancies within a sentence? --Tenebrae 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll address Doc's points in a day or so, and we'll go from there!

Asgardian 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)