Talk:Shield (Archie Comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Comics / United States / DC Comics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.

!mpact's Shields[edit]

How about adding something about The Legend of the Shield by DC under its !mpact logo? (If that's listed elsewhere, someone needs to link to that article & correct the link in the Impact Comics article.) I would, but (a) I don't have the time right now, and (b) I've forgotten more about the 3 Impact Shield's than I remember. --Joe Sewell 18:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: On Shield's son from the 1960s Radio/Mighty Comics, the first name was Bill, not Bob. Please correct this. You can verify that information on this yahoo group: You can also verify it on the link for Shield III you attached to the article. Also, I don't believe that Shield III (or at least as you have him numbered here, the Bill Higgins Shield) was a part of the "new" Archie heroes line-up in the 1980s. I believe I read somewhere that he had joined the airforce, but, either way, he did not participate in the new adventures in the 1980s. Only the Original Shield and Lancelot Strong Shield appeared in those adventures. Lance eventually "died" in the pages of his own magazine and after that only the original Shield was featured. 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: I made the changes that I mentioned in my last post. Check the document. 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


How does one go about getting an account here? The reason I ask is that I know somewhat of the Archie super heroes (or ultra heroes as they called them in the 60s). I made some changes to this article sometime ago (see the two notes above), but I notice that some of the Archie heroes do not have listings, for instance Steel Sterling, Red Rube, Bob Phantom. All the MLJ/Archie heroes have a rich history. I'd like to be able to start pages on these heroes and add more depth to some of the others. Please let me know how to go about it. (My user name might be different from the one on the notes above because I might be using a different computer from the one I used then.) Thanks. 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I dropped you a note on your talk page. (Emperor 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I'll take a stab at it when I get back from vacation in mid-October. I'm looking forward to updating the Archie/MLJ characters, such as Bob Phantom, the Web, Mr. Justice, etc. I know that some pages on some of the characters already exist, but the details are very scarce. 17:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is user above, though I am sure I'm at a different isp at the moment. I went to my user page to finally begin to set it up and I found out that it has been deleted. I followed the link to the page that is supposed to tell me why it was deleted, but I didn't find any specific reference as to exactly why mine was deleted. I suppose that it was because I haven't accessed it or started the process in over a year. I do want to begin setting up a page, however all the instructions that you sent me are gone along with the page. Would you be so kind as to reformat that page for me so that I can start the project that I had intended. I would really appreciate it. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


The naming convention for comic characters is that this should be Shield (Archie Comics). Any objections to my moving it? (Emperor 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

For those wondering this is the basis for this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#The. Which is pretty clear. I'll make the move in a few days if there are no good reasons put up against it (or I forget). (Emperor 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Possible refs[edit]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Public domain or not?[edit]

Current article text reads: "In 1999, Joe Simon and the Kirby estate regained ownership of the character by terminating their shares of the copyright. The character is currently available for licensing - something which no one took advantage of as of this writing." What can this possibly mean? Do they own the character, or have they no share in its copyright? What? Mandrakos (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

In no way, shape or form should the minor, 2015 version of the character go in the infobox, the guidelines for which specify the most longstanding and usual version of the character. Having the most recent version smacks of promotion. Do not revert to the most recent version without discussion here, as per WP:BRD and WikiProject:Comics guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links[edit]

An editor is wanting to delete these links from the "External links" section:

While retaining these:

On the basis, according to the edit summary, of "Per WP:FANSITE part 11 -- these are non-authorative fansites. Toonopedia is recognized and has its own page here". WP:FANSITE is part of Wikipedia:External links which is a guideline. "Links normally to be avoided" point 11 says "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

Well is run by Rik Offenberger, who has an article here which begins "Rik Offenberger (born January 30, 1964) is an American comic book journalist... and the public relations coordinator of Archie Comics". (The Shield is or was an Archie Comics characters.) So that one doesn't really even fail point 11. does, but I still think it should remain., I don't know who runs it. They don't say. However, the internal clues lead me to believe it's a good site. It's quite exhaustive. It's well put together, uses a standardize format for information. The owners has apparently been building it since that 2002, and good job they've done of it too. To characterize that a non-useful resource... I'm not seeing it. It looks quite a bit like Toonopedia actually, and certainly to say "this is a bad link, Toonopedia is a good link" strikes me as pretty arbitrary.

These are comic book characters, not articles on nuclear physics. People obsess about this stuff. That is why Comic Book Guy is a thing ("I can't tell you how many times people have come up to me and said, 'I know who you based that comic book guy on. It's that comic-book guy right down the block.' And I have to tell them, 'No, it's every comic book store guy in America.") A lot of this information is collected by and written about amateur enthusiasts. If we have an article on medieval literature, we're going to have stuff written by college professors. For comic book characters, not so much. There's no money in knowing who the the Human Top's parents were. There's no professorships or career path for that. But luckily -- since we want to include information like that here -- we have people whose avocation is knowing stuff like that.

It could be that that proprietor(s) of is spending obsessive amounts of time making this site while at the same time not much caring if he gets it right. I don't get that feeling, at all. The articles have scans from source documents which indicate that he probably has access to these source documents. There's no reason to believe he's being otherwise careless with his sources. Pointing to this site is a service to the reader IMO. There's no benefit to the reader in erasing this information. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

An International Catalogue of Superheroes is an anonymously edited fan site, and your argument for including it is that it is WP:INTERESTING. As for "These are comic book characters, not articles on nuclear physics," that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding that this is an encyclopedia, which treats all subjects seriously and academically, and not a fan page.
Don Markstein's Toonopedia has its own Wikipedia entry, indicating notability, and the late publisher Markstein is a recognized authority on comics. Joe Simon / Simon Entertainment are the rights-holders to the Shield.
But you're right in that if is run by Rik Offenberger, then he's also recognized for this field and it should be included. Restoring it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I take it back: There's nothing I can find at to show it is run by Rik Offenberger. There is no "About Us" page or credit list. Can you link to a page on that site that confirms this? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The main page (, bottom left -- "Created by Rik Offenberger September 18, 2003".
So I mean, slow down. You got the one wrong, and IMO you're wrong on the other one too. There's no hurry here, and no need to come in with the approach "Well, how can we interpret our rules to make sure we minimize the amount of information that our readers get". Sure, I guess you could call it a "fansite" (or not -- at this point its more like an encyclopedia) but if it is, its an extraordinary good and comprehensive one. It's not just something dashed off, and probably not what the the people writing the guideline had in mind.
  • It's a guideline to begin with, not a policy.
  • And then the section title is "Links normally to be avoided"
  • And then it says "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites..."
So we're certainly not required to delete it, and there's no way to interpret the guideline to infer that we are. Maybe "most" fansites are crap, fine. This one's not (if it even is a "fansite"). Since the removal has been contested on reasonable grounds, the burden's on the editors wanting to make the change to show that its not a service to the reader to include the link. Don't quote rules; tell me why it improves the article.
And for goodness sakes lets not war over this. "They remain out until consensus is reached on talk page to include" is exactly wrong, please see WP:BRD, a very important rule. Slow down, relax. there's no hurry. The material has been in the article since at least July 2015 so it is part of the stable version. The burden is on the editors wanting to change the stable version. Herostratus (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've restored per your note.
You misread Wikipedia policy. Each of us is responsible for justifying our edits and for gaining consensus when a contentious edit is challenged. When not one but two editors revert you, and you continue to insist on your edit, that absolutely is edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And I'm sorry you feel that an anonymous fansite, with no way of determining the credibility of the author and his or her research expertise or accuracy, is perfectly OK for an encyclopedia. That wouldn't hold muster for a print encyclopedia so to suggest that Wikipedia have lower standards is untenable.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm the original editor who removed those links. The above is very interesting, and it is clear now that the Mighty Crusaders site does fit the "authoritative" criteria, though it was not clear on initial viewing. I've restored the MC links on the other character pages I touched last night, following the new EL format here which includes the link to Mr. Offenberger's page. HalJor (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, but nevermind about that. Tenebrae threatened me so now we have a behavioral issue and this supersedes. I'm standing by to restore the previous long-term stable version and then talk about it -- maybe we should have an RfC or whatever -- but I can't restore the previous stable version because Tenebrae will have me blocked if I to that, or or try, or anyway so he avows. So I'm not willing to discus it until the existing stable version is fully restored. I can't do it. If HalJor or anybody else wants to, that's be good first step. Herostratus (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "threat" to give a 3RR warning but rather a requirement.
Urging others to violate WP:ELNO because you're not getting your way, over two editors' objections, is disruptive behavior.
"Avow"? Really? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, making fun of how I talk doesn't really help the discussion much, so I'd recommend against it.
Looking at it some more, I'm still reasonably confident in the International Catalog as reasonable source. It's marginal. It's probably as good as ComicVine and Newsarama, which are used as sources in the article, -- although its hard to tell for sure. But anyway the International Catalog not really helpful here: WP:ELNO #1 says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already in the article". And there's nothing at International Catalog that isn't already in Offenberger's site.
So on that basis let's let it go. As to procedure, you're wrong on the merits. WP:BRD is basically the enforcement arm of WP:CONSENSUS, and there's nothing in WP:CONSENSUS that says "if you can get one other editor to agree with you, you're golden". Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
You use overly dramatic, heated language like "avow" in order to mischaracterize me, and then get defensive when I call you on it? Take responsibility for "how [you] talk." Words matter.
RE: "'I'm still reasonably confident in the International Catalog as reasonable source." Yet you continue to refuse to say why. It's an anonymous fan site. We don't know who runs it or what their expertise, if any, is in research or accuracy. And the standard for inclusion as an EL is not whether you, Herostratus, personally are confident that this anonymous website posted by some unknown comics fan is a "reasonable source." At least two editors did not, yet you continued, unilaterally, to insert it. Is that your own website? I don't know ComicVine, but you're objectively incorrect when you compare an anonymous fan site to a professionally run, journalistic hobbyist-news operation like
Neither I nor the other editor are wrong on the merits — and while I hadn't notice before, I can see why your judgment in interpreting guidelines had you led to your removal as an admin. It is an anonymous fan site and you were edit-warring with two other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shield (Archie Comics). 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)