Talk:Black Widow (Claire Voyant)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated Start-class, Low-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


Black Widow appeared in Marvels #1 and in Marvel Knights Spider-Man #9, you can read the summaries of both here: I don't think I'd call the Marvels issue a "flashback" though. I mean, the story is narrated in past tense by the main character, but the same could be said of any comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Golden Age?[edit]

Just wondering- Naming conventions - Phrases not used states that Golden Age shouldn't be used to disambiguate. In light of that, does this article need a move and/or rewording? --Mrph 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've wondered about this one also. The best idea I can come up with is Black Widow (Timely Comics). CovenantD 01:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That works for me. But it's opening a whole can of worms, isn't it? If this is renamed, shouldn't the same apply to Category:Marvel Golden Age characters and a fair number of the articles it contains? Not saying that's a bad thing - but it's something that needs a bit of discussion first...? I might point a link to this on the WikiProject Comics Notice Board, to see what general opinion is... --Mrph 18:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Marvel Golden Age characters" is categorization, not disambiguation. This one should be speedily renamed "Black Widow (Timely Comics)". Doczilla 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've see similar characters treated as Angel (Timely Comics) and Destroyer (Timely Comics). --Tenebrae 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Should something be said about the name Claire Voyant obviously coming from the term clairvoyant, who are often mediums. Just like this character. It's a little unlikely it's a coincidence that the character's name not only sounds like the phrase but essentially is the phrase (with the E in Claire being a silent E). - annonymous 2/15/10 3:20 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move at Black Widow.[edit]

For any editors concerned, there is a proposed moved at the disambiguation page Black Widow. If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do. Weebro55 (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source[edit]

Don Markstein's Toonopedia unquestionably fulfills the Wikipedia standard for reliable source. His background for compiling this online work is as editor of He Comics Revue from 1984 to 1987, and 1992 to 1996, and per the respected third-party source Editor & Publisher:

For journalists researching stories, these online resources can be golden. A case in point is Don Markstein's simply amazing Toonopedia, a vast repository of information about comics, past and future. Now, honestly, unless you're a comic book collector or a cartoonist, you're probably not going to put this on your frequent filer's list. However, if you're working on a story that deals with pop culture, that focuses on a particular time period, or that touches on classic villains and superheroes, Don just might become your own personal hero. The site serves up illustrated entries on nearly every comic strip, cartoon, and comic book you can think of, from the world famous Blondie and Peanuts to those ultra-obscure strips, such as The Pie-Face Prince of Old Pretzelburg.[1]

I've restored the citing. Per WP:BRD, we don't now revert the status quo without talk-page discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bowen, Charles (July 9, 2002). "Toonopedia Is Simply Amazing Comic Resource". Editor & Publisher. Retrieved October 25, 2011.  |archive-url= is malformed: liveweb (help)
You've used that term "unquestionably" a few times now, and yet, I fail to see even a single time it has been discussed at RSN. Maybe I am missing something. Do we suddenly take our reliability cues from Editor & Publisher now? If so, I seem to have missed that memo. It might be a great source, but maybe a bit of discussion is in order before decision-time. Can you provide other secondary sources that also evaluate Toonopedia's quality as a source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jack. I understand your concern; as a journalist, I live to get things right. I would imagine Toonopedia might not have been discussed at RSN since it perfectly fits the definition of reliable source for self-published work: "[I]ts author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Markstein was editor of Comics Revue, published by another party, from 1984 to 1987 and 1992 to 1996, and he edited the 1992 book A Prince Valiant Companion.
Additionally, Markstein and Toonopedia are recognized as authoritative by animation / comics historians including Mark Evanier [1], who said Markstein and his wife/collaborator were "responsible for much scholarship and research about the field of cartoons," and that, "We engaged in some friendly e-mailed debates about some of his facts but I never questioned Don's devotion to getting things right. I hope his family arranges for someone else to continue the project." Judging by the care we share for good research, I'm sure you know that, obviously, no source is perfect. That said, Jerry Beck calls Toonopedia "indispensible" [2], and in an obit quoted Animato! magazine founder Harry McCracken, now a technology editor-at-large for Time, saying he was "happy to see Toonopedia succeed and bring his work to a large audience", and quoted another respected author / historian, Fred Patten, who considered Markstein "a rare expert scholar" in the field and said he (Patten) himself "would go to his Toonopedia website for accurate and informative details about cartoon-related facts."
These are all in addition, of course, to the mainstream trade-press Editor & Publisher. I think by any objective standard all these points would show in an RfC, for instance, that Toonopedia fulfills the standard for WP:RS. I'm not sure anyone could find published sources of the same caliber that denigrate Toonopedia; I couldn't, in the considerable time I took to research and write this. I think, ultimately, we're of like minds in our desire for good sourcing and citing, so I'm hoping you'll see no need for the, I'm sure humorously intended, sarcasm. We're both editors of good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You make several excellent (and convincing) points. You are right. Toonopedia seems to be okay. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)