Jump to content

Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article or redirect

[edit]

Hi Tenebrae, having come across this article at NPP I considered it was valid and well written. The article on the 1930s-1940s Daredevil says that he is unrelated and seperate from the Marvel version.My opinion is the article should be restored but perhaps the creator could be asked to go through the proper procedure for splitting first. Perhaps you could advise the IP as you are more knowledgeable than me on correct procedure.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. The issue for me is that even with italics, " Daredevil (comic book) " can refer to two completely different publications, and so is technically invalid as an article name. This was an issue back in 2005 or so when Daredevil (Marvel Comics) was given that name. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tenebrae and Atlantic306, thank you for bringing this to discussion. If the issue is the article title, we could move it to Daredevil (Marvel Comics series) or something else more appropriate? I did consider the 1940s character, but when I initially looked at his article I did not really see much about where he had his own solo title (as "Daredevil", as opposed to "Daredevil Comics"), but looking again at Daredevil (Lev Gleason Publications) I do see one mention as "Daredevil #13 (Oct. 1942)" - kind of easy to miss, sorry. Regardless, obviously, that article doesn't focus very much at all on his solo title, where as the Daredevil (Marvel Comics) article focuses quite a lot on his title. I think that the Daredevil comic title has some legs to stand on its own separate from the titular character, much like The Amazing Spider-Man or The Incredible Hulk (comic book) and other such long-running titles. The sources are there for both. My feeling is that the article on the character should focus on development of the character and story details (using as much out-of-universe description as possible) and the article on the comic title should focus on the creators and publication details. My thinking was that the comic book title article has the potential to look something like The Amazing Spider-Man while the character article has the potential to look something like Spider-Man. Just some thoughts! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 73.168.15.161 i've copied your comments to the talkpage of Daredevil (Marvel Comics) , hope thats ok, where the discussion should take place, my mistake starting it here. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I will try to keep an eye out there. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Daredevil (Marvel Comics series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]