Talk:Whizzer (comics)

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

The Blur[edit]

The Blur does not belong in a category for the superhero The Whizzer, having never used that name. He's simply another Marvel super-speedster, and no one other superhero entry lumps together, say, all archers under Hawkeye. And there certainly shouldn't be a Blur picture in an image sidebar that refers to the Whizzer's first appearance in USA Comics #1, etc. -- the two charactes are completely unrelated. Moving Blur to his own entry, and remming-out image box until a proper Whizzer/USA Comics/etc. image can go in its place. Tenebrae 17:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have once more removed the Blur -- as I just noted at User talk:Pc13 as well as here now -- noted because The Blur does not belong in a category for the superhero The Whizzer, having never used that name.
No one looking for The Blur who didn't already know who he was would look for him under The Whizzer.
The relationship -- an alternate-universe (MAX) version OF an alnerate-universe (Squadron Supreme) version of a Golden Age hero -- is extremely tangential. Any explanations as to the Blur's background can be addressed in his own entry. Please do not revert unilaterally without Discussion. -- Tenebrae 13:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in Tenebrae's talk page, the Blur makes no sense without the Whizzer to put him in context. The Blur is not a MAX version of an alternate-universe version of a Golden Age hero, because the Squadron Supreme Whizzer is not an alternate-universe version of the Golden Age Whizzer. He is a parody of another company's character, namely, the Flash.
Since both characters are called Stanley Stewart, and Supreme Power is a revision of the Squadron Supreme, there is no need to scatter the information. Likewise, the entry on James Sanders remains on the Whizzer page, even though the character is now called Speed Demon.
Also, Tenebrae simply erased the Blur from the Whizzer's entry, and did not bother to move it to the The Blur, which is still a redirect to Whizzer.
I'd also like to point out that although Tenebrae has asked on my talk page not to revert without discussion, he has removed the Blur without a discussion having taken place [1] -- Pc13 13:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The content's at Blur (comics) (which needs categorised, BTW). The Blur would be going against the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (comics). I also added a "See also" link to Blur (comics) on the Whizzer page.
Abrasive as he's been about it though, I have to go with Tenebrae on this one. Maybe a mention at the end of the SqSup Whizzer section would be a good idea, but having the content at Blur (comics) makes a lot more sense. - SoM 15:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up issues[edit]

Reasons for reverts and changes:

  • Infobox image: As per Project Guidelines the character should be the focus, not buried among other characters and elements.
  • Alter ego(s): The line is there for a reason.
  • Removal of the Speed Demon character information: The character has its own article, which is where the 'box information belongs. The "Alter Ego" links to that article, again, part of the reason the line is there.
  • Lead: Restructured to follow publication order.
  • "Reboot": Removed as editorial assumption. The Blur is the "Ultimate" version of the character, nothing more. Unless, of course, a cite can be found showing that Straczynski's characters replaced Thomas' in the older Avengers stories...
  • Section header: By secret identity for clarity and consistency.
  • Restored a portion of the first paragraph for clarity. Also reworked the reference for the origin retcon.
  • Moved, and cleaned, Liberty Legion retcon ref to where the article actually mentions it.
  • "In other media" created for Spider-Man cartoon appearance.
  • "See also" restored. The article is related, but not heavily referenced, as the Squadrons Supreme and Sinister are.

Crap edit contents:

  • Information that should be in the article hidden in the reference/footnotes. References are where you cite the source for a point in the article. It is not the place to put the point, nor is it a place to editorialize to justify a point.
  • References should also be as short and specific as possible, where and by who stuff. Some righteous citations here are marred by extraneous stuff.

- J Greb 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting...
As much as the headgear is extremely goofy looking, the image is an improvement. As is the expansion of the Frank bio.
That being said...
  • Infobox:
    • Redundant information in the "Alter Ego" line removed
    • Unwarranted bolding undone.
    • Speed Demon: This is not a suggestion but based on consistency of use. The character has its own article. All the 'box info save the wikied "Alter Ego" doesn't belong here.
  • Lead:
    • In part see below in regard to the "references". The crap has been removed from the needed reference information.
    • Again this is not a suggestion, unless a non-fan spec citation can be made that the Supreme Powers characters replaced the "712" characters in past stories, wording that implies that the Blur is a replacement for the 712 Whizzer should be avoided.
  • "Fictional Bios": "Lowest common denominator" disclaimer removed as redundant and offensive.
  • Frank bio:
    • As per Project naming guidelines, re-worded to avoid explicit or implicit numbering.
    • See below. Germaine point(s) moved back into the body of the article. Proper referencing left in the footnotes.
    • Retcon is implicit in the dates of the sources. If it needs clarification (and it likely could use it...) should be in a Publication history.
    • Specifics of the Magneto revelation belong in the Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Magneto articles. Generality moved into the article proper with proper cite left in the foot notes.
    • Minor cleanup for clarity.
  • Speed Demon
    • Compressed to a "lead" section. The details belong in the Speed Demon article.
  • Stewart
    • Cleanup for clarity.
    • Removed unsourced fan spec about the removal and replacement of the 712 characters.
  • "See also": Reverted to this instead of the poorly worked out "Blur" section. Suggestion: If the Blur section is to be included (and an argument can be made for it), it should include a brief "lead" type section like the one under the "Speed Demon" section.
  • General: Cleanup of the citation formatting. (in progress)
Crap edit contents that has been re-entered
  • Information that should be in the article hidden in the reference/footnotes. References are where you cite the source for a point in the article. It is not the place to put the point, nor is it a place to editorialize to justify a point.
  • References should also be as short and specific as possible, where and by who stuff. Some righteous citations here are marred by extraneous stuff.
  • The insistence of constantly reinserting this could lead to the belief that it is vandalism by an editor or editors who just don't give a damn.
- J Greb 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to adjust your tone and keep it civil. There's a Wiki-policy about this as well. You may also like to remember who is actually been ploughing through the Supreme/Sinister entries for the past few weeks to try and sort out the continuity mess.
Anyway, the main edits sort all the players into their respective categories. The introduction was reworked and includes universe designations - the only real way to distinguish who's who. Note that the opening statement needs to be factual, and not POV. There were a few subjective terms (eg. "generally") and mistakes (eg. the Golden Age Whizzer is dead - he does not reappear from time to time) that needed to be pulled. I've also removed the information about the reboot.
Note that the villainous Whizzer's exploits belong here, as he committed these acts as the Whizzer, and was the Whizzer for many years. Also note that the entry stops and directs to the Speed Demon entry once there is a name change. There is also a note and a link prior to the Earth-712 entry spelling out the difference between the Stanley Stewarts.
Asgardian 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding tone: I'm sorry if it hurts you feeling to have parts of the content of your edits commented on in less than glowing terms, but it's going to happen. I will though try to avoid the expletive, though it seems to be the only way to actually get your attention to discus things on the talk page.

The main piece of content I'm finding fault with is the extremely poor way the references are being used. In your preferred version three go well beyond what a reference should be. Yes, they have a reference buried in them, but they are information that should be in the article proper. Beyond that, one reads like it wants to be a side bar (related to the article but not really part of it) and another is written to force emfasis, which is very encyclopedic. Yes it's done on the talk pages and in the lead sections. though one is a conversation and the other is reinforcing the topic of the article. Beyond that, this isn't a newspaper or a fan site, keep it simple and let the text speak for itself.

Now, if you want to discus civility of actions, and implied attitude of editing, fine. Let me know and alert everyone else that WP:NPA might get pushed. Other wise we both need to back off of the rhetoric, wouldn't you agree?

Other content items:
By and large, I do think a lot of what you've done has help the article. Finding a usable, focused image. As well as tightening some items up, such as the lead, and bringing in additional information in others, such as expanding Franks bio. However, that does not mean everything is perfect. Aside from the issue with the references, a few other content related issues are cropping up. As well as what may wind up being, for good or for ill, procedural issues.

  • The caveat "To avoid confusion, the biography is separated into three sections that describe the Golden Age, villainous and heroic versions of the Whizzer."
    At best, this is redundant. The lead spells out that there are 3 characters, the header "Fictional character biographies" (FCB) implies that there is more than one to deal with, and there are what should be 3 subsections of FCB. That is enough for a reader to glom on to the idea that there is a distinct section for each of the characters to use the name.
  • FCB sub headers: While I can see a reasoning for them to be descriptive, they also need to be functional. Especially if there is a likelihood that other articles are likely to link to that section instead of the article in general. And that is the case with this article, Frank and Stewart are more likely to be the direct target of the link. That puts the article in the position of needing short, descriptive headers. All things being equal, the secret identities work best. The era, inclination, and home reality of the characters can, and should be spelled out in the body of the section.
  • Speed Demon. This is the one that may wind up having some procedural issues. LSS, the character has its own article, including what should be a complete FCB. At best, the Whizzer portion of that FCB should be nutshelled and placed here, under the {{Main}} link. Ideally, if {{Further}} will take it a link can be set to the general speed Deamon article as well to a potential "Whizzer" section of that article's FCB.
    Going beyond that looks like a move to merge the Speed Demon article back into this one. If that's the case, since the the split is a reflection of the consensus towards "1 character, many codenames", I'd caution to propose it first. Put up the merge tags, start the discussion, and get a feel for whether or not there is a consensus to do it.
  • The infobox... stylistically, I think the Squadron characters are the only place I've seen the alter egos bolded and saddled with extraneous information. The idea of the 'box is, IIUC, "Keep it short, keep it simple". I'm not sure it's such a good idea to add descriptors to them in this case. If all three characters had been names "Robert Frank", I could see "Robert Frank (Golden Age)", "Robert Frank (Earth-616)", and "Robert Frank (Earth-712)" to clarify the characters and the information in the 'box. Since the alter egos are unique to begin with in this case, it's extra information that doesn't need to be there.
  • Also with the 'box, from what I've seen there does seem to be an informal "consensus by use" for multiple characters in one box in 2 aspects: 1) (minor) the "- John Doe" format and 2) (major) characters with their own 'box, in the same article or not, are only mentioned as a link at the alter ego field. As with the {{Main}}, the information is resident elsewhere and doesn't need to be here.

- J Greb 08:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: (knew there was something I forgot) Looking at some of the information, both currently in the article and what should potentially be in the article, there needs to be a short "Publication History" section. One benefit of this would be to pull the publication quirks out of the bois, ie retcons and revamps noted as real world decisions by writers, creators, and editors instead of shoehorned into the flow of the bio. - J Greb 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and edited the ref tags to JUST reference the source/issue etc as they should be. As for Speed Demon, he has his own article, he gets to be a short bit here, just like Blue Beetle and The Flash. Leave him on his own, it's JUST enough to warrant it's own article and I think that's fine. For the infobox, you might want to consider using Robin (comics) as an example. The current Robin is bolded, however that would probably mean we need separate infoboxes per character... Atom (comics) has another example of the multi-hero box. - But yeah, pub history, if we pull it out, may help. It's also okay to later say 'This was retconned and became...' since I know that;s been done in a couple places. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup - As for keeping the Whizzer/Speed Demon information for the guy who's both separate - No. We don't do that for anyone else. Wally West has his exploits as Kid Flash and the Flash, Dick Grayson has Robin and Nightwing. Speed Demon the article should be about Speed Demon and everything he was and has been. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the refrences to put most of them in the "Comic book refrence format". I also added external links to a on-line source for the issue information for each cite except the Exiles.

One worrying item though... ref #13 covers 2 arcs, one 4 issues the other 3, and a stand alone issue that cover a nine year period. I think I see how to split it up, but it still looks like it'll be clunky. - J Greb 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

On the references... As they stand right now they are in the proper format, or at least as close to it as is possible without each issue getting a separate number, and there by making it a de facto all inclusive appearance list.

As pointed out, the Sanders section is nothing more than a passing "Yup, he used the name. To read about it go here." statement. If the intent is to move the Speed Demon article, in whole oer in part, in to this article, it needs to go through the full blown procedure. I'm going to try and be bluntly clear here. This has become a major point of contention, with the Whizzer and Speed Demon article specifically, but also with all of the related Squadron Supreme, Squadron Sinister, and Supreme Powers articles. If the mergings are the desired result, propose 'em, let the debates run, and live with the consensus that results.

Section headers... restored the formatting. The 3 bios are sub-section of the FCB. - J Greb 05:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References aren't supposed to be parenthetical comments. I'm going through and fixing them as best I can. If you can't say it in-line, then rethink how you're phrasing it. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat ad nasuem. Assgardian are you reading these or just reverting for the sake of reverting? It's hard to tell. the ref tags should just be a note to say what issues (books etc) you can find information in. If I've taken out parenthetical comments, please add them back in outside the ref tags. Joe Superhero does ABC. <ref>Comic Foo, Issue Blah</ref>. Not Joe Superhero does ABC. <ref>Comic Foo, Issue Blah, even though it says BCA</ref> -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it can be tweaked, but I've just reworked the Earth-712 Whizzer section in layperson English and as the "Alternate versions" item it is. I've also copy edited all the details about his adventures with the Squadron Supreme and embedded it so that someone can place it in the Squadron Supreme article where it more properly belongs. (I'm afraid to go over there since what I saw in passing needs so much work and I've only go so much energy!) --Tenebrae 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a thought, Tenebrae or Ipstenu, do either of you know how to set up a side bar, preferably as a template, that would run down the right side? What I'm thinking is that, given the point that this article, as well as the others associated with the Squadrons, a sidebar nutshelling the Marvel Multiverse, with specifics for the character or team the article focuses on, would clear at least a portion of the jargon problem.
I had included it as a Note, in a separate section, not as a cite, here at one point, but that was reverted out. I've cobbled a rough idea of what I'm thinking about here. - J Greb 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am enormously impressed both with your ingenuity and your technical skills! I can only contribute some copy editing that hopefully streamlines while also helping make a difficult concept even clear. Specifically, I exchanged the publishing data for the Official Handbook with simply a link to the Official Handbook Wiki entry, and removed the sentence about "This article deals with...." since that would be self-evident if the sidebar appears in a particular article. Those things aside, Bravo, dude! Now that is constructive.--Tenebrae 12:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the rework, it simplifies things and it eliminates the annoying "band" that cropped up with 3 or less characters. (Yes, I deliberately changed the background for the 4th through 6th characters as a readability issue.) That being said, there still needs to be a linkage other than the sidebar being on the page. Did a little tinkering with that... - J Greb 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it rocks. Other editors may see things I'm missing that might need tweaking, but I'm down with what you got. What now? Do you put it on the Comics Project noticeboard for comment? --Tenebrae 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That actually sounds like a good idea... and posted on the Project talk. - J Greb 07:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The naming of the Blur[edit]

The anom 66.44.54.180 brings up a good point. I've got nagging images of both the Squadron Sinister and the Supreme Power characters mentioning the degrading connotation of the name in story. Unfortunately I don't have the stories readily available (bagged, boxed, and stored...).

Could someone who has the books at hand check that for a primary source?

- J Greb 05:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied up PH, as it had quite a few spelling errors, speculation, POV and some incorrect tenses /grammar. Basically, we can only say what we can prove with a source. That said, good effort. The PH is the hardest component to write, and many make the mistake of turning it into an extension of the FCB, which it is not.
Kept intro, as it is consistent with many other entries, and as has been explained the universe numbering is the key to separating "who's who" for all the Supreme/Sinister members. Also need to keep that early history of the evil Whizzer, then jump to Speed Demon. All that's really happened is that I've expanded it and made it clearer, of which there can never be enough with the aforementioned teams.
Asgardian 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are absolutely right that we need to take out the POV, etc. But a wholesale change that rewrites the intro with jargon meaningless to the general public and which is contrary to Project editorial guidelines and exemplar is not the way to do it. We've all been through this before, A. Let's take things paragraph by paragraph together with other editors. It'll save us all a lot of time and agro, if history serves. You know your Marvel, so let's do this together right. Thanks-- Tenebrae 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK...intro reworked, with universe numbering now in notes, which helps. PH still needs some tidying up and a few tenses are a little off. Should really always be about the dates and then the information follows. Will do in a day or so. The FCB I wrote is pretty strong if I say so myself, as I spent some time in working out chronologies and then applying sources.
Asgardian 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo[edit]

I know about vol. 1, #69. All four appear on a cliff in the final panel. It's a cameo and not a first full appearance. So, let's note it as such.

Asgardian 11:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still the character's first appearance. Honestly, to say otherwise is being historically inaccurate. We can't ignore facts that we don't like. The Whizzer's first appearance is The Avengers #69. Yes, it's a cameo, but a cameo is still a first appearance. Luke Wilson has a cameo in Meet the Fockers, but it's still an appearance. We can't really say he doesn't appear.
--Tenebrae 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine's first appearance is cited as #180 - 181. Sounds like a good way of covering the bases.

Asgardian 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 1 edits[edit]

I'm going to explain why I reverted, and if Asgardian still feels his version is the more encyclopedic, we'll need to do a Request for Comment from the editorial community.

As I noted above, the verifiable fact of the Whizzer's first appearance is The Avengers #69.

Second, Asgardian violates much of WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines and exemplar. We don't spell out months in an issue cite, we don't separate the months from the issue cite (e.g. "from Timely in August of that year"), we say the full name of a company in first-mention ("Timely Comics", not "Timely"), etc. All this is in just the first couple of PH sentences and the superhero box. I can list every other vio or clunky phrase individually, but rather than nitpicking, I'd encourage Asgardian and myself not to engage in an edit war, and, if Asgardian feels so strongly about his version, that we present both to the WikiComics community for peer evaluation. What say? --Tenebrae 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cameo issue is still out there. The more I think about it, it should read like the Wolverine example to be accurate. This extends to a LOT of characters seen in one panel, and opens a whole new can of worms. As for technical edits, I've checked and abbreviations for dates are fine, although you'll find umpteen articles cite it as the Avengers. As for the text, I'll touch it up again tomorrow, and note the Timely point. Your paragraph should also lead with a date for consistency, and there's some text that's a tad too conversational. Again, tomorrow. Despite Gentleman Ghost's bizarre assertion, I would hardly call this a edit war given how the article has improved (and who's done most of the research).
Asgardian 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Asgardian continues to disregard WikiComics MOS, but we don't say for an issue date "in August of that year," and we use correct titles, like The Avengers. --Tenebrae 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed date. But, in every other article I've seen it's "Avengers". By that logic, it has to be "Daredevil, The Man without Fear." Other changes made for consistency. Like the table.
Asgardian 08:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A subhead is not the same as a main title. And just because other articles are incorrect doesn't mean others have to be; I could site you two dozen articles that give the title correctly as The Avengers or The Amazing Spider-Man. If you go to Fantastic Four, it even discusses when the "The" was dropped from the cover logo. --Tenebrae 13:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Demon[edit]

I really feel we should move the majority of the details of Speed Demon to his own article. Just as the Dick Grayson page has the full character history of Dick, and not split between 'Robin' and 'Nightwing', Speed Demon should have his whole history on one page. Naturally there will be redundancies, but you shouldn't need to switch back and forth. When characters change codenames, their history follows them. This shouldn't be an exception. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already done that, and Asgardian reverted it. --Pc13 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the Wizzer section over to Speed Demon, and if we can 'refactor' the section here to something more of a summary, we'll be okay. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]


Nebulon[edit]

Sorry, I just remembered that you've got a dispute on this article so I thought I would add a note here in case you need to revert my change. Just wanted to note that the alien Nebulon in this article needed to be disambiguated, since Nebulon refers to Transformers characters, while Nebulon would have to be a placeholder for an eventual article. 204.153.84.10

Fixing bad links is never controversial (or it shouldn't be, anyhow). Thanks for helping out! --GentlemanGhost 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


?[edit]

I fail to see the problem with those minor edits. They add consistency and tidy up sentence structure and style. Hardly disruptive. Asgardian 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because the RfC had not been closed yet. Quoting from above:
  • "And while I am disappointed that User:Asgardian edited the article again prior to the close, I'll refrain from following through on the warning (to block), and just revert. If the changes that Asgardian is making/suggesting are contrary to the above consensus, I presume that they may be reverted at will (unless/until a new consensus should be determined). "
I suggest, if you haven't already, that you may wish to read (re-read?) through the "section by section" closed discussions. - jc37 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the edits improve the clarity. It's very simple.
Asgardian 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great that you're self-confident enough to feel that way about your edits. However, I would appreciate if you would actually explain how the edits improve the clarity. And, more importantly, how your edits match the recent consensus on this page. - jc37 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead with date for every opening sentence in PH. Clarity and consistency.
All information in PH in chronological order. No biggie.
Tidy up FCB for last two Whizzers for clarity.
Asgardian 06:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're wiping out a lot of the ref-formatting when you do your changes. Is there a reason you're doing what appears to be a sectional revert instead of a more careful copyedit? -- Ipstenu (talkcontribs) 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ipstenu, have included the new references. I've added the PH references that were mentioned (and needed), and done a modest tidy up of the FCB so it is less simplistic and more to the point. Now reads fairly well.
Asgardian 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: Your edits are contrary to the consensus above. Even the simplest part in duplicating the "Timely predecessor to Marvel" comments. If you do this once more, Asgardian, you'll be blocked. - jc37 12:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an overreaction and not correct. I am aiming for consistency throughout, which the article currently does not have. Are you a comic fan and know your SS and Whizzer? I did add the new references. Changing a sentence to lead with a date like the rest of the paragraph is not earth-shattering...
Asgardian 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you're just throwing up an old version. You're not making any new changes, you keep restoring the version you like. Why not do ONE thing, like take the current FCB and change it alone, rather than try and do a massive revert. Chuck the old version and work for something new. You're trashing a lot of valid data and refs when you do it the way you are. Repeat: Is there a reason you're doing what appears to be a sectional revert instead of a more careful copyedit? -- Ipstenu (talkcontribs) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rework a version for your perusal, Ipstenu. You I respect, so I'll do it your way.
Asgardian 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a comic fan and know your SS and Whizzer? - Whether I've been reading comics for several decades (which I have), is immaterial. There is now consensus on "the way forward". And it doesn't matter whom you "respect" at this point either. If you do this even one more time, you'll be blocked for tendentious editing. - jc37 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why weren't these potential edits discussed during the cooperative effort posted up above on this page? Shouldn't the RfC-related work have taken care of all this? Why is this dispute happening at all? Doczilla 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you go through the edits, you'll find that most, if not all, of them were listed and/or discussed above... - jc37 08:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is they ought to have been resolved already. My question is aimed at any involved party now introducing deviations from the agreed-upon edits. I would prefer not to look through the specific edits because I hope I might offer some semblance of an objective outside view. Somebody is in the wrong here. Either (a) contentious edits are being made that should have been discussed during the RfC but the person making them refrained from mentioning those, (b) somebody is blatantly disregarding consensus which didn't go his or her way, or (c) other people who have chips on their shoulders are overreacting to minor edits. (Choice c seems unlikely given the amount of red lettering I see when I compare the two versions. I have not checked to see which of the two best matches the agreed-upon version from the end of the RfC.) Did somebody plan on introducing these edits all along regardless of consensus? The only way this makes any sense is if these are wholly new edits that in no way have anything to do with anything that was discussed or that should have been discussed during the RfC, and I have trouble imagining what could possibly qualify for that exception. It's not like any Whizzer is so busy a character that he's giving everybody a lot of new material to incorporate into the article. Doczilla 09:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever big work the article still needs should have crossed somebody's mind before the RfC-connected discussion ended. If it wasn't important enough to think of then, it's not important enough that it has to be rushed into right now. Doczilla 09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time disagreeing with anything in your above two posts. - jc37 11:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here... I think there may be one or two points over the last three actions by Asgardian that are additional to the RfC, but it would take some doing to dig them out of the rest. - J Greb 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rewrite a version in a few days and post it here.

Asgardian 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Page[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Split - I'd suggest using Whizzer for the Marvel comics characters (the more commonly known), and Whizzer (Robert Frank) for the Timely comics character, since it's about a single character, rather than an overview page. This would also deal with J Greb's (Marvel Comics) disambiguation concerns. - jc37 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Robert Frank character had absolutlely nothing to do with the Squadon Supreme/Squadron Sinister/Supreme Power versions of Whizzer/Speed Demon/Blur, I think it makes sense to split it off similar to Black Widow (Timely Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics). -- 69.183.15.244 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Oppose -- The Vision and Black Widow articles are nice precedent for characters the Marvel has all but ignored since the end of the Golden Age, if not earlier, but there are two issues that make the application here problematic.
    1. The Frank character was brought back as a recurring character from the mid-70s through the mid-80s. This made him as much a "Marvel" character as Captain America or Namor.
    2. The modern versions of both the Vision and Black Widow have substantially more information to cover than the Golden Age characters. The Whizzers each have roughly the same amount of material to cover. - J Greb 08:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support but go with the general structure in this entry: create Whizzer (Timely Comics) and link it in from the section here with {{Main}}. If you made an article on the Timely Comics I feel it'd need to be mentioned in here anyway making the need for a disambiguation page unnecessary. (Emperor 12:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Just to clarify why I proposed the disambiguation page. Since a Whizzer (disambiguation) page already exists, I though redirecting Whizzer(this page) to the disambig with the two character entries linked from the disambig made sense. -- 69.183.15.244 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... you may want to look at articles like Frankenstein and Werewolf. If there is a well defined likely "first target" the practice is to have that article take the name, not the dab page. And in this case, it is most likely that a user would be looking for the character(s) owned by Marvel. - J Greb 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume the precedent for the split is here [4] although, as J Greb notes, the case may be less clear cut here (due to his appearances in Marvel titles - making his inclusion on this page seem a good idea - although that doesn't stop a separate entry from being created). (Emperor 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support The Timely Vision appeared in a later volume of Invaders, and the Timely Black Widow (IIRC) will be in The Twelve, so you have at least some precedent there. BOZ 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Normally I support merges for different versions of characters but I just think the Squadron characters are confusing enough as it is. I hate to see the Robert Frank character getting caught up in the madness given that his only thing in common is the name Whizzer. He doesn't have the same creative connections to the other character that Jay Garrick has to the other Flashes. I also think that at some point there needs to be a discussion on how to handle the four main Squadron characters(Hyperion, Nighthawk, Doctor Spectrum and the 3 runners) so that the pages are structured similarly but thats a discussion for another time. -- 69.183.15.244 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, with reservation I've been on the fence, but 69.183.15.244 makes a good point -- it is damnably difficult keeping all the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme/MAX etc. straight. I draw a different conclusion, though: Whereas we'd want to keep the various Nighthawks, Doctor Spectrums, etc. together for easy compare/contrast, I would split the Timely Comics Whizzer, who as a character is unrelated to the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme/MAX Whizzers. The only connection is the name. That said, I'd keep the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme/MAX Whizzers together. --Tenebrae 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with JGreb's point about Robert Frank, which most have overlooked - probably because they haven't seen the comics. He was around in the 70's and 80's. The summary is fairly clear, and there's not that much information here, as the Earth-712 version has all but disappeared. Asgardian 11:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Split The Timely Comics Whizzer is a completely seperate character, as different as Spider-Man is from Spider-Man 2099. Creatively speaking, the Squadron characters have more in common with The Flash than they do with Robert Frank. The way the article is currently merged makes it seem like Robert Frank is just another version of the Squadron characters. - 12.76.129.127 07:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
I'm going to work up a model when I have the time, and you all can have a look at it, work on it, and then we'll decide as a group if we want to use it that way. BOZ 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, maybe I shouldn't be the one to attempt this. Because of the article's current structure, I'm finding it hard to find a place to start - everything's interwoven a bit much. Maybe I'll look at it again later and something will come to me. Meanwhile, to allay some concerns that a few people seem to have, I'd advocate splitting the Golden Age Whizzer into Whizzer (Robert Frank) rather than Whizzer (Timely Comics). The Spider-Woman characters, for example, are disambiguated that way. This way the title doesn't imply what company owned/published the character, but instead focuses on the character himself. BOZ 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be a bad idea to look further back in the edit history. It may make your task easier. - jc37 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edit[edit]

Why:

  1. Foremost [this] was a revert to the same editor's version of June 20, 2007. Which the editor put in place in spite of the RfC consensus results, and RfC he participated in.
  2. Given the contentiousness of these edits, before the publication history has information removed or it structure changed, a discussion should be had here on the talk page.
  3. Check links before doing a blanket revert: the article on the cobra is now the primary use of that title, no dab extension.
  4. As with the publication history, the Stanley Stewart section changes also need to be discussed first.
  5. The spot image. Graphic design 101: Images that have a definite flow which the eye follows should be placed so that the eye is directed back into the text. The image drags the eye from the upper right, corner through and arc, and back out the right side. The text should be to the images right.
  6. "See also" instead of "Main": If the above split happens, then "Main" should be used since it will be directing to the actual article on the subject, as is done with Speed Demon. But if the article referred to doesn't share the same primary focus as the section, it should be "See also", and since the Squadron Supreme article does not focus on the Stewart character, "See also" is the way to go.

- J Greb 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over the June 14th edit and the two June 21st edits, they are the same as the edit User:Asgardian attempted today.
Now there was an extensive RfC about all of this. And the user was invited to join in on it, and all I need do is scroll up to see that the user agreed with the results. But then after it was done, attempted to ignore the results and add his version. And now we see this again today.
It's just a repetitive pattern, constantly being called in to referee over Asgardian's Ownership of articles issues. This is simply an example of Tendentious editing, a type of Disruptive editing. - jc37 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six guns and assumptions back in holsters please. I take the point about the cobra, but is there is a Wiki ruling as to image placement, or is it just opinion? Also, the PH still has some sloppy wording and a touch of POV, such as "other strong characters". Without sales figures that's opinion. The Stanley Stewart section is also weak and needs work. I'll post a revision here.
Asgardian 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're missing (or ignoring) in the above statements is that you're consistantly reverting to your "preferred" version. The exact same version of the page. - jc37 18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also occurred to me that there is still no good shot of the evil Whizzer.
Asgardian 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, which assumptions, that it was a blanket revert or that you had agreed with the RfC?
That aside, you're right the "other strong characters" comment is awkward, at best. There are also a few typos in the paragraph as it stands. A possible correction to the para is:

The first Whizzer (Robert Frank) debuted in USA Comics #1 (Aug. 1941), published by Timely Comics. The character was created by penciller Al Avison and an unnamed writer. One source credits Stan Lee as that writer,[1] but there are no other sources to support the credit. Timely published solo adventures of the Whizzer throughout the first half of the 1940s, then, in 1946, the company placed the character, along with a number of its other marquee characters, such as Captain America and Sub-Mariner, into team format stories as part of the All-Winners Squad in the final two issues of All Winners Comics. These were the character's last appearances during the 1940s.

As for the image, there is a reason I tagged the comment "Graphic design 101" instead of "Wiki image placement 101", the view is based on fundamental concepts in the area of graphic design and page layout. I would also direct you to #Image/Caption (done) where you agreed with a left side placement of the image. - J Greb 16:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Arnold[edit]

Was there a Whizzer named Hiram Arnold, member of the Squadron Supreme before Stanley Stewart? [5] He apparently appeared again in Quasar #54. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.15.188 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like fan fiction. It's not a source to use.Doczilla 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tenebrae did a fine job of making the information on each of the Whizzers more distinctly separate, with his latest edit here: [6]

If Robert Frank was ever going to be split into his own page, I think that would be the best starting point. It seems that a consensus was established above to do just this (and leave the other Whizzers here on this page), so if there are no strong objections I'd be happy to do the work myself. :)

I'll hold off for a day or so, in case anyone feels this needs to be discussed further. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, BOZ. And, yeah, it looks like consensus was made in September to split him off (modeled, I guess, after the Golden Age and modern Visions). Geez, guess we've all been busy with back-to-school and other work!   :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok at first glance. - jc37 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll work on that this morning. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done. Note that I wasn't sure which Whizzer the "In Other Media" section was referencing, so I left that as-is. If there's anything else that needs fixing, have at it! BOZ (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Stanley Stewart?[edit]

The currently article is rather confusing - it covers all three Whizzers but the infobox is for Stanley Stewart (presumably as he is the one without his own article). Equally the publication history covers #1 and #2, while the fictional biography covers #2 and #3.

It strikes me the best solution is to split off Stanley Stewart (to "Whizzer (Stanley Stewart)" I assume) and then have this page as a holder for a brief overview and {{main}} to the relevant article. Examples might include: Sandman (DC Comics) or Ant Man (although the latter is a little thin and the former also has a main infobox for the one character who doesn't have his own article). Just a thought as it would help make this article easier to use and it'd allow the Stanley Stewart PH and FCB to brought together rather than split across the page. (Emperor (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, sounds good to me.  :) I was the one who split off Robert Frank. BOZ (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]