Talk:Jamie Madrox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. See comments | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
I am sure that at one point he was advertised as Xerox the Multiple Man - I guess copyright lawyers nipped that in the bud.
Aha - see this from Len Wein - "I was going to call him XERROX, THE MULTIPLE MAN, until Roy [Thomas] went berserk. There was screaming about lawsuits and suchlike, even though I spelled the name with two Rs. Roy didn't think it would placate the Xerox company, so Madrox it became."
and "though I did remember after posting that I'd intended the original name to be Zerrox the Multiple Man, with a Z, not an X."
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/001658.html
-- Beardo 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Creators
In May, 67.186.35.95 changed the previously credited creators to Stan Lee and Gil Kane, and the date of the first appearance to December 1975. The date was wrong, and it seems the creators were too. Sources such as http://www.ffplaza.com/library/?title=Giant-Size+Fantastic+Four and http://www.angelfire.com/comics/mcg-sac/1974.html support the originally credits (though I will ignore the inkers) -- Beardo 08:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kill Crop
In a recent issue of X-Factor Vol. 3, it is stated that Jamie is not a mutant but a homo killcrop.
- ?? What, exactly, does that mean? -- Noclevername 13:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Past Tense
Past tense can be used in articles on fictional subjects, as order of events is not exclusive to reality. Any literate individual will tell you that events occur in some chronological order in the vast majority of written and illustrated media and thus when talking about comics it follows that, assuming the present to be the most recent event, all events that preceded it were in the past. With a statement of its fictitious subject in the beginning of the article any reader will realize that the, obviously fictitious, subject is, in fact... fictitious. Its useless and will only confuse the article to make everything present tense.
If nothing else it implies a certain lack of intelligence or simple literate ability in the readers, that is so extreme as to imply that one does not have the ability to comprehend what one reads (the article clearly states that it concerns fiction at the beginning). I am almost offended that someone would believe any reader capable of that... then I realize that any individuals that impaired are not likely to be browsing the internet as even children understand when someone tells them they are about to tell them a story of a fictional nature (though one usually uses simpler language).
The tag is thus erroneous in claiming that the use of past tense should be exclusive to actual history, is it not? 70.136.89.194 06:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
