Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)

IC Warning

I feel that it may be presumptive to state that the hero warning Dr. Light is Barry Allen, at this point. While, the Flash warning the Japanesse heroine was wearing Barry's costume, it may be Bart, or another speedster, (as Superboy-Prime upon leaving the Speed Force also had a new costume). Stating the speedster wore Barry's costume, rather than asserting the man himself, would help to improve the quality of the section to the standards of Wiki. (I suggest re-editting "Is a matter of fact" or at least making it a complete sentence.)

• I agree with you on that, and I actually edited it along those lines shortly before reading your comment. -- user:driscolj

Archive 1: Kitson's Image Discussion

Phaeton

I don't think Phaeton from League of Justice really belongs in the Barry Allen article. Phaeton is based more upon the Flash in general as opposed to Barry Allen. -- user:driscolj

Infobox streamlining

Please see revelant topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/templates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Infobox: Powers section. Thanks. dfg 05:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Iris Allen/ Iris West

I think there should be a page dedicaded to her, I mean she dies, is from the future, is born in the past? Its very confusing, Im sure there is enough about her to warrent a seperate page, not just a redirect back to The Flash(Barry allen)

Yes, there needs to be an entry. She is very much a character separate from Barry, and she continues to show up as recently as a few months ago. Her relationships with Wally and Bart are important in addition to her relationship with Barry, and "she wrote" the history of the Flashes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please help fix redirects!

[1] Whoever renamed this from Barry Allen didn't fix any of the redirects.--Exvicious // + @ 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

flash in current Apr 06 legion issue 15

the legion destroyed the anti monitors weapon in issue 15 leaving a live barry allen is this where he comes from to countdown —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.142.182 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Barryallen-kitson.JPG

Image:Barryallen-kitson.JPG 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 Wikipedia articles 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 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase4.JPG

Image:Showcase4.JPG 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 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Marv Wolfman, Editor-in-Chief

I don't believe that Wolfman was ever editor-in-chief at DC Comics, as stated in the "After Death" section. --Vlouie01 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Quasar1.gif

Image:Quasar1.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 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KennyJohnstonFlash.JPG

Image:KennyJohnstonFlash.JPG 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 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

plastic surgery?

Towards the end of the flash run, before crisis, did Barry get plastic surgery due to a severe beating that changed his physical appearance permanently? I seem to remember this happening in the last few issues of the flash comic, but am unsure. I think this would be a significant addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.189.7 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the middle of his trial after he was savagely beaten by a villain, he had the Gorillas at Gorilla City remake his face so that he could let Barry Allen die. When his lawyer revealed his face at trial no one knew who he was because of the plastic surgery. Aparently he had it changed back in the future, because later scenes of his life in the 30th century show him with his original face. Spanneraol 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Issues 342-346 of the Flash ☜  Mr JM  18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. Pull the other one.

Batman once said "Barry is the kind of man that I would've hoped to become if my parents hadn't been murdered".

Where'd that come from? Admittedly I never memorized every single thing ever said by Batman, but that sounds very out of character. Does anyone know where and when this was published? If we can't cite the source, can we remove it? Even if we can cite the source, I vote dumping it anyway cuz it sounds pretty stupid. ZachsMind (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"I vote dumping it anyway cuz it sounds pretty stupid." That standard would destroy Wikipedia!  Mr JM  18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics characters who can teleport?

I found The Flash in the above category, I admit I'm not a big comic reader so forgive me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge but he doesn't teleport in the true sense of the word does he? he's just very fast. He couldn't appear the other side of walls or bars for example, could he? (without running around them) I skip read the article and found nothing of teleporting mentioned in it. Should it be removed from this category? Even the vibrating thing would this be teleporting or more like phasing - Carlwev (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We're currently debating this caveate at Talk:Flash (comics)#Teleporter. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

Real World Character history vs. In-world Character History

• This article on Barry focuses to much on the in-world retcon and not enough on the History of the Character as Published (according to a RealWorld Timeline). DC is welcome to rewrite the In-World History but not the Real World history. Pre-Crisis Barry (Flash 105 through the 80's when my collecting dropped off when I went to college) was a very different Character than the retcon'd Barry described here. Supergirl and Superman articles do a better job of covering both In-world history and Real-World. The Barry here is the rebooted Barry, his family history and character are good examples. Are there any other Flash buffs out there who could help flesh out the (now referred to as) Pre-Crisis Barry? -- BrianFennell (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More (original) Information on Pre-Crisis Barry Can be found here:

ISBN 1563891395

ISBN 1563896060

ISBN 1563897997

ISBN 1401207715

ISBN 0930289811

ISBN 1401213278

ISBN 1893905985

ISBN 1401213723

http://www.amazon.com/gp/series/89684/ref=pd_serl_books?ie=UTF8&edition=hardcover

http://www.hyperborea.org/flash/books.html

-- BrianFennell (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note: New sections are supposed to wind up at the bottom the the talk page. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, extolling the need to have real world context, but then suggesting reprint volumes (4 archives, 2 "Greatest Stories", and 1 "Showcase Presents"), a website selling the Archives, and a website that is a bibliography of the comic book appearances, doesn't give a working starting point.

That said, The Flash Companion (1893905985) might actually have some value... - J Greb (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

J, by "real world" context I mean the character as originally developed in "our world" not the character as "re-imagined" in their world. Reprints of hard to find material are useful. I cannot scan in my whole collection, but an interested party could get the original material (reprinted) via interlibrary loan. Unfortunately I could not find a better list of reprint material on free sites. If you are interested helping with the article, I have most of the original run starting with Flash #105 (with a few holes). --BrianFennell (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has some terrific source material that might be worked into this article:

• http://mikegrost.com/flash.htm

--BrianFennell (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Crisis image

Regarding the Final Crisis image that is being constantly added:

1. It doesn't meet the criteria for the infobox in that the pose id contorted, the character is distorted, and key elements (the chest emblem) are obscured.
2. At present it is only being used to show how the character is supposed to look in a yet to be published issue of a yet to be published series. This appearance is not substantially different from how the character has always been portrayed. And assuming the obscured element is there, it's identical to those portrayals.
3. Policy, WP:NFCC#3a, is clear on this, non-free images are to be limited to 1 (one) image only per aspect of the topic illustrated. The infobox image's purpose is to show "how the character looks". Adding other images that only duplicates that function is a gross breach of policy.

Right now, there is no reason, given or apparent, to justify the inclusion of the Final Crisis promotional image.

- J Greb (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• For the final two points, the image qualifies. This is how the character will appear as drawn by J.G. Jones in Final Crisis, and Dan DiDio himself has confirmed that Barry will appear in the series drawn by Jones. [2] The article doesn't seem overpacked with it included either, since the images are limited. Besides, articles like that of Captain America slightly violate the policies you've outlined, but maintain the images for article aesthetics. This is really quite trivial. --CmdrClow (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, using "Well this article is in conflict with policy and no one is squawking" doesn't hold a lot. At best it means the other article(s) need to have the images looked at. (And as an aside, only 2 of the images within Captain America are strictly "And cap looked like", The convention program and Captain America #78. Captain America v5 #5 is boarder line ("as a member of") as is Captain America #350 ("Cap as the Captain"). But that is a set of issues to bring up there.)

Second, it's still "And Barry Allen as the Flash looks like he has since 1956", regardless of it being "in the hot new series or by this current named artist". If that's the only reason for the image to be placed, it's unjustifiable.

Third, lack of images in the article does not mean policy gets waived. If more images are needed, lets flesh out the points that are missing like: a conventional image of Barry as Barry, the character's "death", either and example of him vibrating through something or using the cosmic treadmill, killing Prof Zoom, or similar.

- J Greb (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Character creator

Why is Gardner Fox listed as a creator of this version of the Flash? He didn't write the character until almost a dozen issues in, and John Broome (not listed as co-creator here) wrote the majority of Barry Allen stories before that, including half of his debut issue. Is the Fox credit based on anything (interviews, official records)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.153.46 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Barry was originally a "reimagining" of Jay before that term was used. Both got their powers from a scientific experiment. I think Gartner is given credit for the Speedster named "Flash" because he originated Jay. In some one issue in the 80's Barry looses his copy of a "Flash" comic book he has lost. He describes it as having been inspirational. At some point Barry finds the Earth 2 Gartner Fox and there is some explanation of him having tuned in to Earth 1 "vibes" while he slept and using the ideas. This before the "Crisis" mashed all the Earths into one, and rewrote everyone's history in the processes. In the ideas of the people at DC Gartner Fox is "the guy" who invented Flash. Who created Superman, Green Lantern (etc. etc)? --BrianFennell 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

The fair use of image:Flash rebirth.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Minimal use: As few non-free content uses as possible are to be included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Full policy

While the image is a representation of a significant thing, it is redundant within the section with the Final Crisis page. In that respect, one or the other only should be used. Since the section is labeled "Return", the FC image is more relevant than the teaser for a later series.

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with Flash rebirth.jpg has been addressed.

- J Greb (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image removed as resundant. - J Greb (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Flash: Rebirth #2 as image

you guys have probably seen the cover of 2 http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/comics/?cm=11691 by now, and it appears to meet the criteria for an infobox image. perhaps with the removal of the background. so i'm gonna work on that and i'll put it up if no one objects. --Exrebel (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This image would be a great choice. Have you managed to remove the background? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebirth #6 works better with the guideline. In the #2, he is in a slightly contorted pose. Because Wally, Barry, AND Bart have used the costume, it stands to reason that the guideline's language of, "the picture must show the whole of the head and torso" would help to single Barry out among the Flashes. "The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight..." This applies to Rebirth #6 more efficiently than #2. --CmdrClow (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

This is a bit more general than the above section.

Right now we've got the following up for the infobox:

• The current piece derived from Flash & Green Lantern: The Brave and the Bold #1 (call it "A")
• The cover of The Flash: Rebirth #2 [3] ("B")
• The artwork for The Flash: Rebirth #6 ("C")

And we're getting Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images quoted.

Some observations:

The guideline does State a preference for a static, full or "torso and head", facing forward, 3/4 view. "B" does not meet this.

The guidelines also shoots for "the most universally recognisable appearance of a character". "C" falls short on this.

Keep in mind, the image only deals with the contents of this article. Since Wally and Bart are not, and should not be, depicted in this article, there is no justification for the unmasked image in this article. It would be more than appropriate at Flash (comics)#Barry Allen, where it honestly looks like we've got redundant images across Barry, Wally, and Bart.

Also, a simple punch out crop would be preferable if there is going to be insistence on the "no background". And if we're going that route "A" has a problem since a background was added in place of actual artwork. And "B" can't easily be "punched out". The guideline does leave a good deal of room though with point #3 - and since the Flash is the prominent element in "B" and the unaltered section which "A" is based on, the "punch out really isn't necessary.

There are a few other issues, but they stem more from 1) the lack of an actual publication history section and 2) an odd case of weighting the sections in the FCB.

- J Greb (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

His return

HE did not return, he's still dead, he's not existing in the dc universe, this should be deleted, so it has to be!--67.167.12.162 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

???129.139.1.68 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image 2010

And we are back to this again... The last time was in June 2009. And IIRC it was the same editor for his scan of "new comics" - [4] starting with [5] - that is pushing it this time.

At the time it was pointed out that the current image is the best fit with regard to WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE. And that a simple "punch out" crop of the Kitson art would be the preferable change was also pointed out as the best change at the time.

It also interesting that this time around the editor decided to play the copyright card regarding the background this time, though it wasn't the important issue to them last year.

- J Greb (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I'm playing this "card" now is because I just became aware of that particular copyright implication. If I was aware of that previously, then I would have brought it up sooner. And as far as CMOS, the guideline should only apply to images that don't have copyright hangups, as the Kitson image appears to have. The Secret Files image is a dynamic shot of the character in costume and his civilian ID, and includes the previous portions of costume that were brought back recently by Van Sciver. It seems to be only contested by one editor, making consensus impossible through cloture. If other editors feel that it is an unworthy image for the article, then I'd be more inclined to believe an aggregated assessment since the previous editor has floated my edits for years. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Question or two from that...

• Would you have the same issue if the Kitson piece was a knock out - cropped around the character - or just a square from the cover?
• Are you really arguing that retention of the current image or applying the Project level MoS requires a consensus here while your bold change does not?

- J Greb (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Usually not, since that's not an alteration of the image itself.
• I've seen consensus change happen multiple ways at Wikipedia. The majority of the changes that take place every day go without protest, and are simply allowed to stand. Even if consensus is silent, it is still consensus. (Recent examples from this article being my change to the herobox, or my adding the cover from the new series next to the short plot summary.) If my change were as bold as you seem to think it is, I would imagine there would be more editors imploring me not to make such changes. --CmdrClow (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bold" is one of those nasty terms - it lacks, at least for Wikipedia, an exact definition. As I've seen it applied it's someone taking initiative to change or alter an article. That can be in the form of copy editing text, adding sections, changing lay out, and/or fiddling with graphics.

And yes, there is a lot of that that is just accepted. It could be that no one is watching the article or it could be that are interested look at the edit summary or edit and agree. The problem with the "quiet consensus" is that when someone does stick their head up and object to a change, "no one else is complaining" isn't enough to allow the change.

And on the subject of the spot images... I really wouldn't bring them up at the moment since 2 of them - "Barry Return" and "Flashvol3no1" - are redundant - costume and running in comics - and wouldn't hinder a readers understanding if removed (WP:NFCC 3 and 8). Also, the cover scan is grossly over-sized.

- J Greb (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Even if no one else is complaining, which may be indicative of a quiet consensus, that argument can always be used, by you, to stop a change that is being lobbied for in good faith. As it stands, the copyright status of the current image is questionable under a claim of fair use, and a recently released image does a fine job of rendering the character in an iconic (one of your favorite words, if memory serves) state.

Note that the CMoS also says to show "as much of the character as possible," which I argue it does by showing not just Allen in his Flash costume, but also civilian Barry changing into it. The Flash is the one character where an image like that would be acceptable because of his speed. If there were an image trying to show, say, Steve Rogers changing into Captain America, it wouldn't work because that's not a main tenet of Cap. The image for Barry works because what is rendered is a split second in time, and is a vastly recognized part of who Barry Allen is. --CmdrClow (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Off the top, I'm not arguing your change was done in "bad" faith. On the contrary, I do believe that you edit with an eye to improving the articles. The rub tends to come in when your take on improvement runs counter to MoS concerns. At that point a vocal consensus that either the MoS needs to change or a particular article is an exceptional case. If there is a deafening silence aside from the editor wanting the change and the one saying hold on, the default is the status quo. Not the change. In that light, pointing to this thread from the Project talk page would be a good way to get others attention.

Beyond that... You've out lined two issues with the infobox image - the 'shopped background and that the character is cut off at the knees.

The first issue could be addressed by replacing the scan with a fresh one that is either totally untouched or where the Flash is popped out. Neither case would fix the lower legs though - they just weren't part of the art.

With the second problem in mind, along with minimal image use, the question becomes "Is there an existing image in the article that can replace the infobox image?" That would be preferable to just adding a new image. And there is one in there - Showcase #4, especially since Barry's costume is one of those that hasn't changes in 50+ years. It also gives an impression of running.

As far as interpreting "as much of the character as possible" should include more than "The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best."... I'd rather see more editors chiming in that such an exception should be made.

And one last thing to consider: As I pointed out, right now at least 2 of the images are definitely redundant. If the art for the Secret Files and Origins cover is used, a 3rd becomes redundant - "Flash Rebirth Variant" - for doubling up on Barry sans costume.

- J Greb (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd understand that and be fine with it, the only reason I'd disagree to Showcase #4 is because it's not simply an image of the character. The Secret Files image is a little rare in the sense that there is already little to no background, and the character is the single focal point of the image. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a good point about the punch out, not only has the background been removed but a new one has been inserted - that's not really what we want.

The new image has merits but rather falls down on the single, static image front. Even though yes, it is all the same person, but technically it is actually a number of figure (and the guideline is there so the image doesn't get crowded), and also I understand it is the Flash and static isn't his "thing" but there must be better image than that.

So yes the current one should probably be changed, I just don't think that is the one it should be changed to. (Emperor (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

What about the last page to Final Crisis: Rogues' Revenge #3? Here's a small scan. --CmdrClow (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not showing much more leg than the current image and he isn't standing straight.

If the problem is the image has been punched out then couldn't we just prepare another version that isn't? The guidelines J Greb links to say "editing the picture, by cropping, obscuring and/or painting out the other characters may help to ensure this" so could we just greyscale the background to make the main image more prominent? (Emperor (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

The plus would be "Yes, he has yellow boots..." but we do lose the belt and it is an overly contorted image. Not necessarily a good direction.

As for the "cropping, obscuring and/or painting out"... I think the rationale for the red is that it's "painting out" the characters in the background. And over the last 4 years I've really become less and less a fan of altering the scans - including fades, desaturations, clacking out characters/objects, and deleting text. Keeping the Kitson would either work as as either a straight crop or a pop out. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's always the Aquaman approach by having Alex Ross: [6]. --CmdrClow (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Silver Age Flash images tend to be among Ross' worst... That one winds up looking like a cosplay attempt rather than what is depicted in the bulk of the comics. - J Greb (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed I suppose. If we're talking punch outs or crops, then this image might be a good choice. It's got strong line, the colors are pretty vibrant, and it's dynamic: [7]. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also the new emblem... not a good option. - J Greb (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This image by Ryan Sook: [8] may be a very suitable replacement for the Kitson image, if either the trade dress is cropped out or a version is found without it. Thoughts? --CmdrClow (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest it shows only about 3 or 4 extra inches of leg and again he isn't standing straight, I can't really see how this is a big improvement on the image we have. (Emperor (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

It's not necessary that he be standing straight. When you think of the Flash you think of speed and running anyways, and this image is a good representation of what he's most familiar doing. Similarly to how Green Lantern's primary mode of transportation is flight, Hal Jordan's main image reflects that along with the "modern" spin that was put on his logo with the glow above the main one on his chest. That precedent can be used here with the crackling logo of Barry Allen, and it's well rendered with little to no background and a three quarter frontal pose. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've been asked to throw my two cents in.... While I agree with CmdrClow that the infobox image of the Flash needn't be a standing-still shot, the shot that's currently in the box is pretty clean and displays the costume details very clearly. A shot containing the boots would be better, but until such can be found, this one does the job of illustrating the character in a way that defines him encyclopedically and doesn't confuse him with any other in a mostly red costume. The running shots that are linked to in this talk-page section seem either too stylized or too cluttered to do that job. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just uploaded a cleaned version of the image since the impetus was that the gradient background had been added by a third party.

I'm also transcluding a related discussion from my talk page kicked off by CmdrClow. Emperor, I'd like you to take a close look at it.

There is something though I'd like to reiterate from my comments from the related discussion and something I'd like to add. Part of the intent of the Project level guideline for infobox images is to hold these articles to an encyclopedic standard and to keep them evenly weighted. Unfortunately that often means an image from "today" doesn't fit - it's new, it's current, it's great for a news site, it isn't how the character has looked for the bulk of its existence. Part of it is to acknowledge and respect that the image we use, the only images we really have an option to use, are not ours.

And what I'd like to add in response to part of Clow's comments on my talk page... Just because other articles don't meet the guidelines isn't a reason for this one not to. It also isn't a reason to imply that an editor should back off from trying to apply those guides or pointing to them when discussion involving a change of the image starts. Most of the articles pointed to have had stable infoboxes for a number of years. They could be better and suggests could be made, but this article is in the process of replacing its infobox image. Lets deal with it first.

From User talk:J Greb

(This section is provided as a reference and context. Additional material should not be added to this section.)

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.

---

This image by Ryan Sook: [9] may be a very suitable replacement for the Kitson image, if either the trade dress is cropped out or a version is found without it. Thoughts? --CmdrClow (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And again with the crackling chest emblem. I'm sorry, that's today's spin on the identifiable costume. - J Greb (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It goes back to at least Mark Waid's run in the early 90's. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For Barry? Really? - J Greb (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, for the identifiable costume. For the majority of Wally's time as the Flash, he had the identifiable costume pretty much as Barry wears it, except for the removal of the wings on the boots and the more elaborate belt. Many artists from Wieringo to Kolins used the crackling on the chest emblem. But even with that, the costume is still well represented in a three quarter frontal dynamic running shot (the most definitive pose for the Flash, doing what he's most identified doing) with the entire costume visible along with a minimal background.--CmdrClow (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... lets de-link a few things:

Flash (comics), Barry Allen, and Wally West are separate articles. If we are just looking at Barry, let's stick with that. Yes, there is a specific style that Wally's costume fell into with regard to the "lightning aura when running", and then it changes from "matte" to "shiny" to the current "dark, hide the nose" version of the JLU costume. But, using those to justify "Use a new Barry with the lightning" invites confusing the characters more than they already are.

With the Barry Allen Flash, the lightning effect is new and isn't indicative the of what is usually associated with the character. Also, it dies hide a traditional part of of the costume - the stylized lightning bolt in a circle logo. - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more apt to agree with you under similar circumstances, but the logo on the chest isn't hidden. The crackling only appears on the edges of the logo, as it seems that Mr. Sook wanted to maintain the iconography of the logo while still taking it in a dynamic direction. The bolt itself is in fact brightened by the effect and the circle is still very visible. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the logo is not the "normal" logo whether it is apparently replaces by "real" lightning or miscolored. And do you have a source for the artists intent or is that your interpretation and putting words in his mouth? - J Greb (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your tone floats on the edge of WP:CIVIL. Why you're being so aggressive towards me, I have no idea but please discontinue that. All I'm attempting to do is foster discussion about bettering an article. Second of all, the logo is the normal logo. It's simply highlighted a bit. And as far as artistic intent, call it an educated inference. He's not obscuring the Flash logo and it is in fact the regular three pronged lightning bolt, as opposed to the single prong that's on Wally West's current costume.

If I can have an actual civil conversation with you about this then please let us continue, otherwise I'll take this issue elsewhere. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that about the question regarding Sook? I'm sorry, but guessing about why an artist did or didn't do something isn't proper here. If there is a citable reference for it, then it may, may be a reasonable argument for inclusion of the image. But not as an infobox image.

If it's with regard to the images in general, the same could be asked about pushing for today's image rather than something that is indicative of the bulk of the character's appearances. To push for that is to skew, however slightly, the article on the character. And I really don't think it is "slightly" since the article text is already weighted to the past few years. Adding to that, adding to the recentism puts undue weight on the current over.

I'm sorry, this isn't a news site nor is it a specialty reference cite. This, Wikipedia, purports to be a general use encyclopedia. As such it should treat subjects as a whole, try to put things in perspective, and try to use a scholarly approach. Part of that is the Project level guidelines for infobox images. Give the weight to the most generally accepted/recognized costume design. Present it in the clearest , most scholarly manner. - J Greb (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are too many examples of images for comic book characters on Wikipedia that contradict your logic by not using an image that is "indicative of the bulk of the character's appearances" as the main images, Wally West, Tim Drake, Hal Jordan, Green Arrow, Roy Harper (comics), Sinestro, Punisher, and Iron Man just to name a few. I've made a few points on the talk page, feel free to move there.

But beyond that, you've just failed to address the near incivility that you've consistently been leveling at me for the past several months. Whether or not something may be "proper" in your eyes is no reason to treat an editor discourteously, and you of all people, especially as an administrator, should be aware of that. --CmdrClow (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Break 1

You're misrepresenting my point. My point was that what you believe the infoboxes should be and what they are are very different things in a number of high profile articles. I'm not saying that you should back down from enforcing the guidelines, but keep this in mind: if a new image is presented in good faith and meets the criteria then it should be considered instead of rejected out of hand. You would barely even consider any discussion on the matter, and that is not an attempt at consensus through discussion, nor is it an assumption of good faith.

It seems that whenever I lobby for a change in good faith and try to debate it with you, cloture is your only goal to reach as quickly as possible. The Ryan Sook image, the Manapul image, and the page from Rebirth #6 by Van Sciver all meet the criteria, some less than others, but they do meet it. That is the recognizable costume except for the crackling logo, but as pointed out previously, the main image in Hal Jordan, which except for some minor alterations Van Sciver made to the costume in 2005, is his costume as it is recognized and that emblem is modified more significantly than the Flash emblem is, yet the image still stands.

My last point is that there is a big difference between guidelines and rules. On this very encyclopedia, a guideline is defined as, "any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory..." If these are to be enforced by the letter and to the death as you suggest, then they should not be simple guidelines. --CmdrClow (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, presenting your list did come off as, whether you intended it to or not, "These others don't fit the Project guideline, so back off on wanting this one to." If you like, it's the article inclusion equivalent of the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.

With regard to guidelines - you are correct, they are not mandatory. But they are an expression of consensus decisions. Ignoring them may, may, be necessary for a partiular article since exceptions do happen. The rub though in wanting to treat an article as an exception is that not everyone is going to agree. When someone does stick their head up with a "wait a sec..." it means the editor wanting the has to either show there is an article level consensus for it to be an exception, change the opinions of the editor(s) disagreeing, or show that consensus on the guideline has changed. And a good chunk of that is the rationale behind WP:BRD, something that a fair chunk of the editing community has adpted.

With regard to this article. Looking at the comments aside from yours and mine, it seems safe to say there is support for an "in motion" image. And to be honest, I don't have a problem with that since it is a core piece of the character. As long as it is as clear as the Kitson piece there shouldn't be an issue. The revised chest logo though is a different issue. That is skewing to the new at the expense of how the character has been depicted for the bulk of its 50 year existence. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument for that exception to be made nor have I seen a consensus among the other opinions for it.

Regarding AGF. As I think I mentioned previously I do believe your intentions are to try to improve the articles. There are actions though that strain that - changing the content of a file to change an image; not providing edit summaries; providing incomplete edit summaries; suggesting different images that contain an element pointed to as a primary problem with a previous suggestion. The first three can be, and generally are honest mistakes, but the four of them together can feel like a disregard for other editors and their opinions.

Last thing re File:Greenlantern.PNG. Yes, the ring generated logo is "new". And if one of two situations were to occur I likely would be on that talk page with "Wait a sec... can we find something without the floating green thing?"

1. Greenlantern.PNG was just being added to replace an existing image, or
2. Greenlantern.PNG was being replaced by a similar image.

In lieu of those cases I'm more inclined to point from the talk page and ask if there is a consensus for that exception to the guidelines before changing it.

- J Greb (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Flash story

Does anyone recall a story involving the Flash (probably Barry Allen), that involved him either visiting a planet or a parallel dimension where everyone has superspeed? I seem to recall one part of the story there was a superfast tortoise! It is probable that this story was from the 1960's

Jpmct (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Jpmct

Patty Spivot artcile

I think we should create an article for Patty Spivot. I mean, she is Barry's current love interest, she is a supporting character in the new Flash series, she even played a role in Flashpoint. Patty debuted debuted in a 1977, so she is older than we initially thought. What do you say? Leader Vladimir (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Move (2012) to "Barry Allen (comics)"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Flash (Barry Allen) → Barry Allen (comics) –

The correct formatting of this article's name would be the subject followed by the context parenthisised, not the character's alter ego followed by the main subject parenthisised. ArtistScientist (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) and WP:COMMON. - J Greb (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Barry Allen (Flash) would seem to be natural disambiguation, as would the current title, since both are used outside of Wikipedia. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The edge would be to "Flash" being the more common name for the character. And since there are a number of characters that fall into that situation - see Flash (comics) - the guideline is to use the "Costume (Secret Identity)" format. - J Greb (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per J Greb. JDDJS (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New 52?

This page hasn't been updated in forever! Is it because none of the New 52 makes enough sense to write about? 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Split proposal

I think the content of the section needs to by split into Barry Allen (The Flash (2014 TV series), due to it is excessive on amount of intricate detail, and thus a subpage would be more suited for the character who is adapted for the television series. Section is already over 100 KB and should be split per Wikipedia:Article size. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: the section's length should instead be slimmed down. Excessive story and production detail for The Flash, to whatever extent it's appropriate to include at all, can be included on the TV show's articles.Zythe (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support for moving outside of the nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Flash (Barry Allen) → Barry Allen
• Barry Allen → Barry Allen (disambiguation)

– Consistency and Primary Topic. - Wally West is not called "Flash (Wally West)" and Bart Allen is not called "Flash (Bart Allen)". Additionally, Barry Allen (the Flash character) appears to be the primary topic - according to Special:WhatLinksHere, there are more than 500 page links to "Flash (Barry Allen)" compared to 20 for Barry Allen (musician) and about 50 for Barry Allen. In addition, all search results on the first two pages of a Google search for "Barry Allen" are about the Flash character, rather than about the musician. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Alza08 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is CONSISTENT with Flash (Jay Garrick); If you wanted to be consistent with Wally West and Bart Allen, then this would be Barry Allen (The Flash), if this isn't the primary topic. The WHATLINKSHERE is inaccurate in counting real links when the article appears in a footer template. That is because everywhere the footer template appears, will be counted, whether or not there is an actual real incoming link in the text of those articles. So, take the WHATLINKSHERE with a grain of salt, since the Flash template has something like 100 transclusions and Justice League template has something like 250 transclusions. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE see related requested move at Talk:Flash (Jay Garrick) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There are several characters who take the name of The Flash, and I'm going to repeat my argument from the current requested move at Jay Garrick's page. I argue that since these characters are primarily known as "Flash" and only secondarily as their real names (in the same way that Superman and Batman are their primary names, not Clark Kent/Kal-el and Bruce Wayne) I would suggest "Flash" be would be the more common search term, i.e. someone would ask themselves "what is Flash's real name?" type in Flash in the WP search box, then come to Flash (Jay Garrick), or Flash (Barry Allen) etc. rather than just Jay Garrick/Barry Allen. Also, most people (as mentioned in one of the previous discussions on the Garrick page) will not know Barry Allen as a standalone character, but as the Flash, so "Flash (Barry Allen)" to me makes more sense. Also, as there is already another Barry Allen page (the musician), it should not be changed. And I agree with above user regarding the WHATLINKSHERE counts and consistency. Vyselink (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The character is primarily known as the Flash, with "(Barry Allen)" as an appropriate disambiguator. —Lowellian (reply) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prevention of murder

Hello, in which comic was the prevention of murder of Wally's mom (and so the start of Flashpoint and later The New 52) published? Wishes, --Urgelein (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flash (Barry Allen). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060128175053/http://www.marvwolfman.com:80/Q&A.html to http://www.marvwolfman.com/Q&A.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Publication history

The article and other related articles fail to explain editorial reasons to create Barry instead of recreating Jay as well as the reasons behind his Rebirth.