Talk:Superhero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article was a former Comics Collaboration of the Month. (21/12/2005–29/01/2006)
To see how the article improved click here.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Superhero as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] non hetero-sexual chars in watchmen

"Although some secondary characters in DC Comics' mature-audience miniseries Watchmen were gay" Who?

[edit] Collaboration of the Month

Please add all discussion relating to improving this article to featured standard here. Thank you in advance. --Jamdav86 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should super-hero be limited to modern examples?

I wonder if characters such as the mythological Hercules should be considered super-heros for the purposes of this article. If not, then it seems we need some definition of super-hero that rules him out. Could we say that the super-heros of this article are only characters in popular fiction from the 20th century on? ike9898 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super-hero/superhero

Since the article uses the hyphenated form, and I guess we've decided that this is the generic, non-trademarked version, then I suggest two changes:

  • Move the article to Super-hero
  • Move the discussion of this technicallity further down in the article. The lead section should be an overview of the essential concepts of the article.

If you agree, please make the changes...I've got a plane to catch. ike9898 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "Superhero" is the better known form. I'll modify the article to match the title - SoM 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] amount of images

I just saw this article for the first time, and the first thing I noticed is how chaotic it looks because of the large amount of images. Maybe it could be reduced a bit? Mystman666 10:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I've cut the no source images and a few others to get to the point where, while it's still probably a bit over-imaged, it's not quite so heavily so. - SoM 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I can understand the complaints over too many images...but are we omitting the right ones? Do we need a picture of Northstar over Storm? Daredevil over the Fantastic Four? Three of Spider-Man? Two of Wonder Woman? -Skyblade

Most (all?) of the images are copyrighted and included under the claims of Fair Use, yet considering how many are being used and how little direct appplicability they have to what's being discussed in the article, I think that that defense would have a difficult time holding up in court. We can;t just use images we think look cool or whatever, there has to be a real reason. I think they should be scaled way back and only use ones very directly related to what's beingmentioned in the article. DreamGuy 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I must say that some of the images there don't really need to be. Why is there three of Spider-Man? Thats just wasting space...Forever young 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Step #1 in making this a featured article: get rid of all or most of the lists. Information should be conveyed in prose form. For example, if you can't find a way to mention the Incredible Hulk in the proper context of the larger history or trends of the "Superhero" concept, then don't mention him at all and let his article be linked to on other pages. The job of the Superhero article is to explain the history and the concept of superheroes as best it can, not to function as a big list of the most popular ones. What this article needs is more solid, referenced prose to beef up its informational value; writing such a complex, pop culture-inundated, fan-fixated article from the same neutral and encyclopedic standard as other articles will be very difficult, so you have your work cut out for you. -Silence 15:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where do these hero's reside?

I was thinking that it would be nice to have a list of where super-hero's fight crime (e.g. Superman = Metropolis = which may be in: New York, Ohio, etc). Unfortunetly, I don't have an idea of how to format this list, nor do I have enough adaquate information on super-hero's as to where they reside (though, I would like to know this information). So, I make this suggestion to someone who knows their stuff.

I think that information more appropriately belongs in the individual hero's own article, not one about superheroes in general. Noclevername 08:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article??

This article has just finish a month-long collaborative effort to get it up to featured article quality. Is it there yet? If you think so, please consider nominating it. Be careful to check the FA criteria before nominating; they are quite picky! ike9898 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I now see that the article has zero references. That is one major strike against it. ike9898 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1/31/06 edits

  • I re-added a few pictures. I hope the page doesn’t look cluttered but superheroes are such visual creatures that I thought more pictures were worthwhile. I also wanted to make sure we got all the big ones.
    • Added Gatchaman for a less Anglocentric article
    • Replaced Hulk image with one more relevant to text
    • Replaced Spider-Man poster w/ X2 shot. Already two of Spider-Man, no X-Men but Wolverine
    • There has to be a photo from the 1960s Batman show, which helped define the concept of the superhero in our culture
  • Tried to keep examples at one to three characters and use the best examples.
  • Wiki-fied, cleaned-up section on non-US superheroes
    • “Japan has numerous superheroes of its own and changes superheroes every year or so.” As someone who doesn’t know much about Japanese pop culture, I didn’t understand this. What do you mean “changes superheroes every year or so?” Different heroes become popular and then crash? I reverted this.
  • “There is also Mythology or Fantasy fiction like The Mighty Thor, Conan the Barbarian, Hamlet and others” Thor yes. But is Conan the Barbarian really a superhero? Who is Hamlet? The Shakespeare character? Again, I’m totally confused.
  • “The modern Animal Man is a compromise in this respect: he wears a standard skintight bodysuit under a normal jacket, which gives him both pockets and a distinctive look.” Despite the jacket, Animal Man looks more like the traditional superhero than a Cable or Image character.
  • “Spider-Man's web-slingers mark him as a Gadgeteer, and his 'Spidey-Sense' makes him a Mentalist.” Bad example most gadgeteers listed have much more engineering skills than Spider-Man and most mentalists are much more powerful.
  • “Several characters have taken-up the mantles of Green Lantern, The Flash, Captain Canuck, Zorro, Batman and Robin.” Zorro is classified as a predecessor below. Batman is a bad example because no one other than Bruce Wayne was meant to take up the role permanently.
  • ”Others, like Jonathin Quackup, are extraterrestrials who fight crime on different worlds and have never been on planet earth.” Others? I can’t think of another example.
  • I shortened-up the antecedents section. While interesting, detailed accounts of how some earlier characters resembled superheroes waste precious space. Also you could barely see the character in that Spring-Heeled Jack picture.
  • Prose: If there isn’t an article on it, it’s not worth mentioning

Rorschach567 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power Rangers

Lumping in an obvious child-aimed show like Power Rangers with Smallville and Buffy is misleading to say the least. Also, we simply don’t have room for that stupid picture Rorschach567 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


First of all Power Rangers IS a superhero show, which is what this is all about. And in my opinion it is supiror to Smallville and Buffy. And as for the pic, it can be left out, but you must acknowlage the series. Mainly because of its historical imporatance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs).


Ummm...can you explain what is the "historical importance" the Power Rangers have on the term superhero? Yes, Power Rangers are superheroes, but this article, in my opinion, isnt a listing of EVERY superhero show in existence, okay? But, I may take your side Rick, because Buffy is not a superhero like Rorschach seems to believe, and if Buffy is in the article, she should be taken out. One doesnt need a definition of superhero to know Buffy isnt one. ----Mailrobot


Complaining Power Rangers is a kiddy show is for lack of a better term juvinille. A show aimed at kids with a Superhero, is still a Superhero. Lazytown on Nickeloedon has a superhero (Sportacus) who is the epitomy of lame (see static shock) but yet he should still in there. Many of our Super Hero shows from our childhood were aimed at children, doesn't make them not superhero shows.--Kinglink 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Marvelman' more famous than Judge Dredd?

Am I unusual in thinking that the following sentence is wrong, not least because of Judge Dredd?

'Marvelman, known as Miracleman in North America, is probably the most well known original British superhero'Glennh70 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I as a US resident, I agree that Judge Dredd is more well known, at least because of the movie. Neither one is particularly well known. What about Captain Britian? He is not well known either, but I think that many US comic book readers got to know him through the Excaliber title. ike9898 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Judge Dredd and Dan Dare, while famous, are not superheroes, unless you are using a definition so loose as to lose all meaning. I've placed a fuller argument on your talk page. Personally, i'd argue that Captain Britain or Zenith are more famous than Marvelman, but that's just my subjective opinion. Vizjim 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-Marvel/DC superheroes

Including images of "super-heroes" that almost exclusively uses examples of characters owned by DC and Marvel strengthens their trademark bid.

I think we can all agree it's a Bad Thing for 2 companies to have sole ownership of a common word, especially when they neither invented it nor used it first in its modern meaning. The bid for a trademark depends on whether or not there is a 1:1 association between the word and the would-be trademark owners that people make.

I'm not a comicbook reader but after minimal research there is tons of information on "indie" (ie not Marvel or DC) comic publishers, for example Dark Horse Comics. It wouldn't be out of line to include recognizable images of characters from those publishers.

  • I agree; good idea. In addition to Dark Horse, there are other possibilities too. One that comes to mind is Scott McCloud's Zot! Images should be available from the on-line story McCloud did on his web site.--SEF23a 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3/20/06 edits

  • We don’t need every story that parodied the use of capes or scarves.
  • “although the fact that male superheroes are muscular and wear skintight spandex is usually not similarly commented on.” It seems the article is having an internal debate here. Reworded
  • “Many Golden Age comic heroes had no powers or special abilities at all, being merely "two-fisted" fighters in unusual costumes.” Is this really distinct enough to be a “divergent character example?”
  • “Some characters have broad, visionary or political goals in mind for society and work to accopmlish those goals, although in different ways. For example, Professor X and Anarky from Marvel and DC Comics (respectively) both have utopian visions for society, although they work in radically different ways.” Is this really common or distinct enough from the general superhero mission to be a “divergent character example?”
  • Eliminated some details about John Stewart controversies
  • “Subsequent minority heroes, such as the X-Men’s Storm (the first black, female superhero) and The Teen Titans’ Cyborg were created with a conscious effort to avoid the patronizing nature of the earlier characters as the comics industry became more mature and diverse.”
Anyone have a citation that these characters were created in a conscious effort to avoid the patronizing nature of the earlier characters?
  • Got rid of some lesser known gay characters, added link to full list
  • ”Films like The Incredibles and Sky High both introduced a new generation to the classic traditions of the superhero genre, and deconstructed them at the same time.”
Analysis like this probably belongs in the main superhero film article
  • Prose section is again way too long with esoteric examples
It has come to my attention (somewhat belatedly, I know) that this edit was also used to remove the redirection reference to the Danish band "Superheroes". This is not explained in the comment, so I'm putting it back in. chochem 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prose Section

  • I agree with Rorsach567 that we shouldn't have too long a prose section with esoteric examples. But Michael Bishop is a very prominent SF writer; his novel Count Geiger's Blues deserves a mention. So I have once again replaced it.

[edit] Removed "Super for short in The Incredibles"

The opening sentence of this article began "A superhero (or "Super" for short in The Incredibles) ...", and I decided to remove the part in parentheses. It just seems kind of non-sequitur, because The Incredibles do not really define superheroes. I'm not saying The Incredibles isn't an important work, but it's still only a small part of the vast superhero genre as a whole. Normally I wouldn't explain a deletion like this on the talk page, but the opening sentence of an article is pretty prominent, so I felt I had to justify it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4/16/06 edits

I slimmed down the article, getting rid of some lengthy, uneeded examples and information. Some big points:

  • Again, the information about Japanese superheroes has gotten completely out of hand to the point where we are comparing two specific heroes. Also, I am not sure why heroes of Britain and India were deleted, partial revert.
  • I’m not saying these French characters weren’t important or weren’t forerunners of Superman (although that seems a bit hyperbolic). I am saying that we need more information on them - either Wikipedia articles or outside links - before it’s convincing to include them at such length in the article.
  • I deleted the humor section. Obviously, a comprehensive listing of parody or comedic superheroes is too large for this article.

Rorschach567 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For Japanese superheroes, Wikipedia will eventually need the article of its own as this article's focus is on "American" superheroes. Something like "Superhero in Japan" should be the good enough article title but trying to compose various things into one article like this one would be a very huge (and nightmarishly complex) work... -- Revth 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark status

Might find some info here on "weak trademarks" [1] [2] Ewlyahoocom 12:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Origin of the trademark: From a story told by former Mego Toys CEO Marty Abrams. In the 1970's, Mego held the toy license for both Marvel and DC characters, and decided to ship cases containing characters from both publishers together. The name World's Greatest Superheroes was printed on the packaging, and in small letters it said "Superhero is a trademark of Mego". Shortly thereafter, Mego got phone calls from its two leading superhero licensers, Marvel and DC, who both objected to Mego's claim to a trademark on a word that they had both been using for decades. A meeting was arranged, and Mego sold a share of the trademark to each publisher for a dollar. And since there wasn't any other significant superhero comic publisher around at the time, no-one challanged the trademark. It is possible that Marty Abrams may still own part of the trademark on the word superhero.

perhaps a brief mention of how other comic book publishing companies get around not calling their super-beings "Super heroes" but rather, terms like "science hero" "ultras" "metas" and so forth.

[edit] Moved comments from Comics Notice Board

The Superhero Article is good, but where it loses quality is including Batman and the Green Hornet as Superheros. The two of them are technically action heros, their abilities are the same a normal human can reach. Granted they are more skilled than an average human but not Super. All Superheros should are characterised as such because they have super human abilities, abilities no other human can possess. Batman and the Green Hornet are nothing more than Action Heroes and should be removed from the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.88.255.139 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Original Research

Where do the terms like "brawler" and "brick" come from? --Chris Griswold 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RPGs and computer/video games, primarily, I'd wager. But I'd not be surprised if they actually appeared in the comics; indeed, I'd be surpised if they'd never been used in the comics. -- Dr Archeville 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on?

My computer doesn't show anything beyond the picture of X-Men 2 and neither does my friends. I click edit and it's all there, but it doesn't show up. Can someone please tell me what's going on.

Yeah and what happened to the "in other languages" section.

Bad formatting of a reference. It should be corrected now. CovenantD 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7/15/06 edits

  • Generally tried to cut down on too many examples, especially when a few good ones are already given.
  • I reorganized the first fifth of the article. I don’t see why “Common costume features” and “Superheroes outside the United States” should be subcategories of “Super-Teams.” Although it’s hard to organize, everything above “Superheroes outside the United States,” seems to more or less describe superheroes in a broad sense.
  • Expanded the section explaining that Marvel and DC own most of world’s most well-know superheroes
    • Used “Significant Seven” as a basis of this claim
    • Explained how DC bought many Golden Age heroes but others and creator-owned heroes of the 1990s, cropped-up.
  • Cut Raj image, just not enough room, and changed Marvelman image to one actually of Marvelman and not Young Marvelman.
  • Cut brawler, mastermind and teleporter from common types list. Brawler is a much more useful term when applied to gaming than comics; gamers have to worry about a characters’ “ability to soak damage.” Also, I don’t think teleporter or mastermind are common, often-imitated archetypes.
  • Given his extreme distaste for guns, it’d be misleading to call Batman a marksman
  • Replaced blurb about the Thing under the Silver Age w/ one about F4 in entirety.
  • Reverted much of the article on female superheroes. We don’t need every example, just ones that were truly commercially or artistically important or prove a point.
    • The content of the Lois Lane series of this era would undermine this section’s focus on women being treated as successful professionals. Wasn’t her sole aim in that series marrying Superman?
    • Also made note that treatment of women in comics is still a touchy matter.
  • Added diversified teams to section on minorities. It seems to fit there
  • Put information on minorities who take on roles of white superheroes into new paragraph
  • Added small section on religious minorities
  • Once again, the detailed histories of superhero films, live action shows and in animation has its own section. Also, Incredibles should go into animation section, which dealt with prior animated superhero series released theatrically.
  • Got rid of section of real life superheroes, section obviously talks about something very different from fictional superheroes. Added to “see also” section.
Rorschach567 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alliteration names

An interesting fact that it would be nice to add is that many have alliterations for names. M. Night Shamalyan used this when naming David Dunn for Unbreakable. Notable Alliterations:

Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Bruce Banner, Matthew Murdock, Wally West and more....

Scott Summers, Warren Worthington, Brain Braddock...It's interesting but I'm not sure a defintive enough characteristic to warrant some space. Rorschach567 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female characters

I’ll grant that some of the points need attribution, but I have three problems with recent changes to portions of this article discussing female characters:

1) It seems wrong to move the development of female counterparts and supporting characters from the female characters section to the Silver Age section. Chronologically, it would be apt to put them in either place but I think the development is more relevant to the latter. The Silver Age was spurred by the recreation of DC characters and the new wave of Marvel, not by the development of more female characters.

2) Too much biographical detail is added. Why is it important that Barbara Gordon is the daughter of “Gotham´s Chief of Police Gordon” (especially when a) Gordon is mentioned nowhere else, b) Gotham is mentioned nowhere else and c) he is more commonly known as Commissioner Gordon)? Same with the Scarlet Witch and Supergirl.

3) Some facts are wrong. Ms. Marvel was never Phoenix and Mortimer Weisinger was an editor/writer of the Superman titles and thus could only reasonably given credit with overseeing the creation of Supergirl, not the entire DC Silver Age revival (a task widely attributed to Julius Schwartz). Rorschach567 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AH! SO YOU ARE THE ONE! here´s my answer, or are you going to erase THIS too?:

Hi, people! WELCOME!: to the one most biased article in the whole of the WIKIPEDIA Encyclopedia! This one article exists only for the glorification of the Wonder W. Character, who has a lot of nice biig color pics...you know, the one that never earns anything. The one that never sells comics since Moulton left. In order to glorify her more properly, and the Illuminati agenda behind her , you gotta keep those who can compete and beat it clean out of the article. Thank you for doing it.

1) It doesn´t seem wrong if you consider females to be exactly the same than males, like I do. Of course it is wrong if you are sexist like you are. Or like Jeannette Kahn was in 1985 when she killed off both S-girl and Bat-girl like she did, to make Wonder W. shine awhile. They are and have always been main characters, not supporting characters since they have sold evermore than Wonder W. has, go check it..., but thank you for erasing it anyhow.

2) Why is it soo hurtful to you that I wrote one line about both S-girl and Bat-girl...one line! ooh!I forgot, ONE LINE is enough to kill off your Wonder Woman, who has about one whole book of garbage data to her credit in the article and a lot of nice color pics in there to boot...but never ever has sold as much as either of the other two real sperheroines, since moulton left.

S-girl? ooh, you mean the one that this very month sold more than TWICE as much comics than your ww? go figure! anyhow, I give you the latest data available from ICV2: MARCH 2006 )last month for the both to compare:


place 9) S-GIRL #5 86,000 copies place 34) WW #226 46,000 copies.


Geez! Now I see who the Supporting character really is. Care to check it in ICV2 yourself?

3) Some facts are wrong???????????????????????? B-w-AAH! Go check that MORT WEISINGER, ...not your J. Schwartz, was the Chief Editor of the whole of DC Comics, not only the S-man books UNTIL the end of 1970!....for the WHOLE SILVER AGE! Care to check it, too? Xx

But hey! Thank you for erasing everything I wrote, and thank you to WIKIPEDIA for this being THE MOST BIASED ARTICLE in the whole Encyclopedia wrote only for the glorification of WW, and the Refrigerating of the rest of superheroines who sell a lot of MORE COMICS than WW since moulton left. We understand this is the only way that she can reign supreme as the supposed most famous heroine. We understand that the Diane one world religion of the illuminati has to be protected at all costs, no matter what. The whole of the Age of Aquarius, the NWO, depend on WW being thought of as the greatest heroine on earth, after all!!!

Too bad for you, since 1950´s sales prove otherwise. did I mention it already?? Bye. ANNUS COEPTUS! Wonder Woman bless our great work!

DAVID: ooh! BTW, for the other guy who down this thread writes that "maybe this article is a little biased against women..." B-W-AAA! no kidding, pal! How ever did you notice!?

End of my editing. THIS MAKES IT EASIER TO JUST ERASE IT TOMORROW, since it is about the only way you could win this, shall I call it, discussion... XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[edit] Female Superheroes

I restored some of the material removed from this section, including female superheroes who were prominent in the 1960s. I have also deleted comments regarding the level of assertiveness of the characters of this time period to remain within Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV (since this is a subjective observation). Also, criticism of female superheroes should be in its own section to maintain NPOV. -Classicfilms 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional point

The article as a whole is heavily weighted towards male superheroes - a possible solution would be to integrate female superheroes throughout the article in a stronger fashion according to time period or to develop the "Female Superhero" section following its current chronological format (perhaps creating a separate page), using the list of superheroines in the See Also section. -Classicfilms 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point but there should still be some mention that both characters were related to feminism. However, I don't see how Medusa and Crystal could be considered "prominent."
Also, I think it would be evident to anyone who read these books that Jean Grey and Sue Storm often served as love interests and damsels in distress. How many times was Sue captured by Namor or Dr. Doom?
Yeah, the article is somewhat weighed towards male superheroes. There are more of them and they tend to be the headliners. If you can see places where a male character, used as an example, can be replaced with a female one, I'm all for it, but I don't see why we would create a false sense of equality in sections regarding history and other media adaptation or ones that use the most popular superheroes as the best point of reference.
Please check facts and style matters before editing. There is no reason for The Invisible Woman to be in italics or “second wave” to be capitalized and Scarlet Witch was never “a member of the X-Men.” Rorschach567 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More female superhero debate

The above, unsigned rant may be worth some serious discussion if it were expressed without hyperbole and contempt. That said, I think-

OK. Good. So let´s begin to discuss it, shall we? But first, please. You are only talking in terms of what you think, while I am stating facts here. Do stop talking about what you think. Only Answer the three arguments I gave yesterday and we´ll take it from there. I don´t care that ...you think...how great ww is. I care that your Superhero article is by now only one biig bias and absolutely no truth. So let´s begin to correct it, shall we? I will check out your answers to the three questions I posted above. Then we can begin to have one serious discussion, like you said... Xx

btw, I posted my name. DAVID, agreed? And here´s my email, too. bsalas70@hotmail.com Xx

One day later.. I am still waiting, my friend, for your serious discussion of this item.

Well, David, it’s extremely rude to and inhibiting to open discussion to erase what others have posted on a talk page. Revert this page if you want some discussion. Rorschach567 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How about YOU erasing TWICE everything I posted and beginning this idiotic talk...maybe you enjoy it, but I do have one life to live. I can´t waste my time trying to teach you the basics 101 of LOGIC or RESPECT for others. So DO BEGIN your serious discussion already. Where is YOUR answer, for God´s sake...to those three FACTS I gave you almost three weeks ago, while YOU hide and look for excuses? Just ANSWER THOSE three things already, Aargh!

Why do I have the feeling I am just wasting my time with one idiot here?? DAVID Trying one last time with little Wondie here...

Okay, coming in from the outside here, DAVID, you should get an account. A Wikipedia account guarentees more privacy, not less. And it is free. Then you can sign your posts like everyone else, namely with ~~~ or ~~~~ (the latter is preferred). By the way, don't post your email address here. The way to resolve disputes is by discussing them here (and, yes, blanking other's comments is a big no-no). — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the history of this discussion and saw no instance of Rorschach567's deleting anything you posted. In fact, the only deletion I found was this one and you were the perpetrator. If you're talking about your edits to the article he reverted, please stop attacking him personally and assume good faith. He's got the same powers on Wikipedia as you do (or could if you registered). There's a difference between blanking other's comments and changing another's edits. The latter is okay, the former is, as Frecklefoot put it, "a big no-no." He's not pushing a pro-Wonder Woman agenda backed by the Illuminati, he's trying as much as you are to better the article. If you disagree with him, discuss it, do not falsely accuse him. He created the discussion in order to get a consensus and explain himself. You'll get much farther on Wikipedia by engaging in discussion, while your current methods will only get your IP banned. --Newt ΨΦ 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First image

That first image on the page is a rather poor one, IMO. Dark with not a lot of contrast. Can someone find a better one? Turnstep 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Appropriate or accurate?

Does anyone think some of the homosexual superhero stuff should be removed. I am not against homosexuality at all, but a lot of kids are going to be reading this and parents won't like it, plus it almost seems offensive to seperate homosexuals in such a way.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VanderTE (talk • contribs).

As far as I can tell, in the article the topic is only in a single location, which also deals with other diversity issues. - jc37 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, if Wikipedia starts censoring articles because they "Might be offensive" we may as well all start living in a delusion. Censorship of any topic on wikipedia would be bad, but what you propose would be one of the worst ways I could think of. The appearance of gay superheros, like that of non-white and female superheroes, is an important milestone in the genre.--Pyritefoolsgold 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about it being offensive to have a seperate section for homosexual superheros, this isn't segregation, this is a section about an important trend in the history of comics. We might sometime see a day when a superhero being gay is no more noteworthy than having blonde hair, but the fact is, once a comic would have been banned for having any gay characters at all, and taking the risk to change that is a noteworthy action.--12.72.235.146 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

This is a very thorough, informative article about a topic that marks, like jazz, one of America's great contributions to popular culture. It's also one that sparks a lot of fannish passion. That passion is the reason we're all here, volunteering our time and effort anonymously.

There's a lot in here, though, that is unverified or poorly cited. Inline links, for instance, are a poor substitute for proper footnotes. And there's an uncomfortable amount of original research and opinion here. The "Character subtypes" section, for instance, uses a lot of terms I haven't heard used in my decades going back to the Silver Age of comic books, nor at the comic book companies for whom I worked. The fan press may very well call the Thing and the Hulk "bricks" — so give a citation. If the term is really in wide use, that'll be easy to do.

As well, there are passive-voice phrases that weasel word their way around proper references. Re: the book Gladiator, the article says "DC Comics' Superman is commonly thought to be based partially on the novel." Yeah, I've heard that. too. But that's not enough for an authoritative, encyclopedic reference, that you or I might have heard it. We're required to state: Who thinks so? Where was this claim published? Provide a citation. And put it in context: Siegel & Shuster always said this wasn't so.

This article requires a lot of cleanup to be more authoritative. I'd like to suggest it once more to WikiProject Comics as a new collaboraiton of the month, so the whole Project can clean it up together.--Tenebrae 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costumed crimefighters

[edit] CC of post at User talk:71.206.231.102

This anonymous-IP user deleted a footnote reference, saying the informational was trivial because, he claims sarcastically, superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". My response at the above talk page:

RE the term "costumed crimefighter": Authoritative footnotes document this is a term used in historical and academic research. "Underwear perverts" is not, and your sarcasm demonstrates someone not behaving in good faith.

Could we get some commentary going? I think the citations speak for themselves, and given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super", I believe the clarification is needed up top for the general reader. --Tenebrae 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


My actual argument:
  • The term is generic and obvious -- it's like noting that "cars" may also be called "wheeled transports". True, and you probably find cites in which it's used, but it just falls straight out of them having wheels and being used for transport. Noting specifically that they may be referred to by that name places a strange false-importance on the term.
  • If you want it to be more clear that some superheroes are *not* super, and rather just wear costumes and fight crimes, it would be better to state that precisely, rather than focusing on the fact that the name which falls out of that observation happens to be used.
  • I mentioned "underwear perverts" not sarcastically, but actually just to note that there are more ways to refer to a stereotypical superhero. People could (and, I think, do), also use "costumed hero," "costumed vigilante," "spandex-clad vigilante," "spandex clad crime fighter," and most likely every single synonymous term. So I don't think the specific wording of the term is important.
  • The references given aren't from academic research, as far as I can tell? Not that that matters much.
  • I note on the other page you claim "underwear perverts" is not actually used, but at least in terms of google hits (obviously not a rigorous metric, but should give an initial sense of the landscape) I see on the order of 30,000 hits for "underwear perverts" (in quotes) and on the order of 3000 hits for "costumed crimefighters" and "costumed crime fighters" combined (both in quotes). Sure, it's recently popularized, and a silly example, but it may already be used more ...
  • By the same silly google-fight metric, "costumed hero" is also more common than "costumed crimefighter".
  • Shouldn't crimefighter actually be two words?

-- 71.206.231.102 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion has moved to WikiProject Comics

Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board#Costumed crimefighters. --Tenebrae 17:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12/03/06 edits

  • I generally got rid of examples in cases where two or three would be sufficient to make the point or got rid of superfluous information about the examples where it doesn’t illuminate the point being made (the life sustaining capabilities of Iron Man’s armor or what number Phantom the current one is)
  • “While some people see heroes without superpowers as not being superheroes, their existence in a superhero universe, a superhero format (e.g. comics) and sharing many of the traits listed below place them firmly within the definition.”
This is problematic because
a) It seems the article is having a conversation with itself
b) A citation is needed
c) “Some people” seems to be a euphemisms for hair-splitting comics fans.
d) This is already covered in the intro

For marketing purposes, within the framework of comics universes and to the general public, someone like Batman, The Question, Green Arrow, Blue Beetle or Hawkeye is a superhero. To avoid some confusion, though, let’s get rid of Green Hornet, who does not exist within a superhero universe and predates Superman

  • Punisher seems like the purest example of a superhero with a vendetta against criminals
  • “or a family legacy of fighting crime (e.g. The Phantom or Black Canary)”
This applies to a very small minority and can also be considered a formal calling
  • Added small paragraph on the public perception of superheroes.
  • We don’t need two Phantom images
  • I don’t see how an elementalist, mage or marksman is a subcategory of blaster as each has abilities beyond just “blasting” something.

“Sometimes called "Egoist", in a direct reference to the character Attribute in Champions most associated with such abilities; since many such characters are physically unimpressive or outright fragile (vis. Professor X's wheelchair), they are sometimes denigrated as "Ego Wimps".”

This seems more related to gamer terminology than superheroes
  • Changed Phantom image so the covers are chronological; this is a history section.
  • The divergent characters section deals with how the Hulk and X-Men differentiated from the norm, so there’s no need to repeat it in the Silver Age section.
  • The bit about crossovers seemed to be more about the history of American comics than superheroes.
  • Moved some of parts about female characters being used as damsels in distress and love interests and breaking out of that role to the history section. The controvesy section deals more with modern controversies and it seemed so inherently linked to the change that it belonged under history
  • Made some changes to Dust entry, she is not a member of a minority faith in her nation of origin
  • Maggie Sawyer is a supporting character, not a superhero
  • Moved critical and artistic response section to follow the history section.
  • Moved Mad parodies to comedic superhero listing in divergent character examples. It doesn’t seem like Mad and honest academic responses belonged in the same area.
  • Moved Darga section to place for non-U.S. superheroes. Although I can see the reason for the Canadian Nelvana’s inclusion (she was the first), most of this section deals with the development of female superheroes in the U.S. so it just seemed out of place. Also I cleaned it up a bit.
  • Because superheroes are inherently visual, readded some pictures Rorschach567 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't put 27 images on a 16 page articule. I'm going to remove a few.67.150.12.29 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I don't see anything under the policies section about such rules (I could be missing it, there are a lot of policies and guidelines) [3]. I think using 20 to 25 images is fine as long as they are sized and positioned wisely. If there has to be a limit, the number and which pictures should be used should be discussed. Action Comics #1 is way too historically important to miss, there should be at least one Wolverine and I don't see why we need two Phantoms. Thanks for your input Rorschach567 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that given the huge number of notable heroes and types of heroes that there really is no justification to have two images of the Phantom. I do think it's important to have one image that shows him in the sui generis costume, but no more than that. --Tenebrae 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll help you guys out. The current line up is 3 Batmans, 2 Supermans, 2 X-men, Spider-man, Fantastic Four, The Phantom, Captain America, Kamen Rider, Miracleman, Plastic Man, Hulk, Captain Marvel, Flash II, Spawn, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Northstar for a grand total of 20 images across a 17 page article.207.62.88.11 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy cow. There has got to be a little winnowing and some swapping out. I can see 2 Batmans (cover of Detective #27 and a modern-day image) and 2 Supermans (cover of Action #1 and a modern-day image), given that those really are the big 2, but otherwise the Marvel/DC concentration is a bit much. There need to be examples of other companies' heroes. --Tenebrae 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Plan

First of all, I’d appreciate it if anyone taking part in this conversation would get a user name and sign in. Thanks.

As far as images are concerned, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Hulk, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, X-Men, Phantom and Flash are, to me, the ones that can’t be missed. Green Lantern, Daredevil, Captain Marvel and Plastic Man would also be good. So here is my plan:

1) The Ross/Lee Superman and Batman - good in the introduction because it has the two most popular and archetypical heroes

2) Spider-Man - In the common traits section because he’s the third most popular and archetypical hero

3) The Fantastic Four - In the common traits section

4) There’s a lot of text in the common traits section after the F4 image, how about a Frank Miller Daredevil cover to represent superhero noir or a spacey Green Lantern for sci-fi superheroes?

5) Captain American - Under common costume features, really any hero with a typical costume could be put here but I can’t see another good place to slip Cap in.

6) Some typical Japanese superhero in superheroes outside the U.S.

7) Plastic Man under types of superheroes, also many heroes that could be used here but this seems like a good place to insert him

8) Hulk under character examples

9) Phantom under antecedents

10) Action Comics #1 under Golden Age, too important an issue to pass up

11) Captain Marvel also under Golden Age

12) Showcase #4 under Silver Age, an important issue and way to insert the Flash

13) The Dark Knight Returns under destruction of the superhero or a Green Arrow/Green Lantern if we don’t have Lantern anywhere else. It’d also be nice to get Arrow in here.

14) Spawn under struggles of the ’90s because he was such an archetypical 90s character and because it gets another non-Marvel-or-DC character in

15) Wonder Woman under female superheroes

16) Giant-Sized X-Men #1 under Non-Caucasian superheroes, gets the X-Men and an important issue in.

17) A Hugh Jackman Wolverine under film, gets Wolverine in

18) Adam West Batman under television, I know it’s another Batman but this show dominates all others in historical importance. But we could go with a Hulk if we wanted to switch it up a bit and use someone else under character types

19) It seems like any character with an important animated series has been used above. I’d keep the Superman just because it’s so iconic. Rorschach567 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is great — so well-thought-out.
  • I would suggest Watchmen under deconstruction (point 13), since that really was the ne plus ultra and adds diversity.
  • Wonder Woman is covered so much elsewhere, and while she's important, we have so many DC heroes already that I'd like to suggest a superheroine example from Charlton Comics or one of the other lesser-known companies.
  • Adam West is important, though the campiness factor I think makes him an example of playing with the superhero image rather a superhero per se. Something from the TV show Heroes might be good since it also provides an example of a non-traditional superhero, without costume.
  • Don't know if he'll fit, but E-Man is a good example of a humorous hero. (If no room for image, a text line about him and Plastic Man as humorous hereoes under "Character examples" might be good.)
Fun stuff! --Tenebrae 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
On point 13 I agree with Tenebrae. Watchmen under deconstruction is a good idea.
  • 4 I do not think there should be an image between F4 and Cap. America. I just don't see the space your talking about and I think it would look too cramped.
  • 14 Spawn is an excellent example superheroes outside of DC/Marvel. No need to put a image up just for Charlton Comics and there are other, more well known humorous superheros thanE-Man.
  • 15 A Wonder Woman image need to be there at least once and the Female Superhero section is ideal.
  • 18 Before we add a Heroes section we must first mention them.
  • 19 For the Animation section we could use a Ben 10 or Danny Phantom picture in place of another Superman to show made for television superheroes.
We should all agree that a concensus must be reached before anyone begins this major edit.207.62.97.195 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is an agreement that Watchmen should go under deconstruction.
For the other media sections, there’s the balancing of getting characters not shown elsewhere and getting the most important examples (which tend to utilize characters already popular in the comics). We could do both by using them as a way to get the Hulk, X-Men, Wolverine and/or Wonder Woman in. And for historical importance and familiarity to the general public, I don’t think WW can be skipped.
And, yeah, there should probably be a place under character types for Plastic Man, E-Man, the Flaming Carrot and others who, while not parodies exactly, are humorous. Rorschach567 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for consensus!
I believe it'd be an oversight not to have one Charlton Comics image: It was the #3 company, at least in fans' minds, for years, and historically significant. I'd suggest E-Man since he's one of the few who hasn't since appeared in DC Comics, and because he's also been poublished by First Comics, Pacific Comics and who-knows-what-else [which certainly gives us diversity apart from Marvel & DC...! :-) ]. Another possibility might be the Steve Ditko versioj of Captain Atom, which looks nothing like the current iteration.
Finally, I can go with Wonder Woman's inclusion for historical reasons as the best-known superheroine, but to otherwise have only men (or, if Danny Phantom, men and a boy)? There are soooo many superheroines that it would seem imbalanced not to have at least one other! --Tenebrae 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why Charlton Comics and E-Man are important. They aren't mentioned once in the article and don't seem to warrant an image. As for another superheroine how about we leave the Halle Berry X2 image of Storm or put in one of her from X3 instead of Wolverine (point 17). One of them together? There's also the Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four there (point 3).
Should we be altering The Plan as we go along so everyone can keep track of everything or should we put in a new headline insert the new plan and keep going from there.
What we are trying to create is a lasting set of images that everyone can agree on unquestionably.66.53.212.225 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that another female superhero is a good idea but who? Storm seems the most mentioned (under female, non-Caucasian and religious minority superheroes) and she’ll fit in under several sections. I agree the pictures should match the text; so I’m not sure why E-Man, who weren’t just talking about mentioning now, or another Charlton character should be put in. Rorschach567 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I can go with Storm for all those reasons cited.
RE: "Can someone please explain why Charlton Comics and E-Man are important." Reiterating, Charlton was the #3 company, at least in fans' minds, for years, and historically significant. An encyclopedia article needs to have diversity, and while Marvel & DC need to be well-represented, an article on superheroes needs to have a broad range reflective of as much of the entirety of the field as practicable. I never insisted on E-Man; I suggested either him or the Steve Ditko Captain Atom since neither is reflective of DC.
As for where it can go, we have several sections devoted to things like powers, origins, and types of costumes.
Captain Atom, for instance, is a good example of Silver Age superhero conceptions in that he was an astronaut (the way Green Lantern was a test pilot, both glamorous occupations for young readers at the time). While E-Man is an example both of a shapeshifter and of a humorous hero (and we have the necessarily included Plastic Man for both of those), he's also an example (for example) of a non-humanoid hero, being sentient star matter. (The only other example of that off the top of my head is the Green Lantern that's an actual planet.)
There are other Charlton hereoes we could use: The Pete Morisi Thunderbolt was one of the earliest respectful examples of Eastern philosophy in popular culture, predating its widespread inclusion in TV and film. He was also the basis for Watchmen 's Ozymandias. Steve Ditko's Killjoy is an example of Objectivist heroes, one of the few created not primarily for adventure-lit reasons but to embody political/philosophical concerns, like an editorial cartoon. To neglect any example of what was one of the major American companies of the Silver and Bronze ages — the company that first published John Byrne and gave Dick Giordano and others their stars — seems like it would be a big oversight in an encyclopedia article about superheroes.
Rorschach567, would you volunteer to maintain The Plan list? You seem like a good person for the job. --Tenebrae 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That isn't what's being asked. What's being asked is that no where in the article is Charlton Comics or E-man mentioned. Notice how with every image in the article there is a corresponding line of text next to, directly above, or directly below it. Watchmen fits into the Deconstruction section because it's mentioned there. John Stewart is right next to his name in the Non-Caucasian characters section. Even the first image is right next to Superman's mention. No where in the article is Charlton Comics mentioned. Therefore if you wish to add the image of Charlton Comics you must first mention it in the article as I am going to do with Heroes RIGHT NOW. 67.150.175.242 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if I was unclear. It's acceptable in encyclopedias, reference books, etc., to use a captioned image that illustrates a point not literally or specifically mentioned in the text. For example, an entry on comets might describe comets' composition, history, and physics, and mention some famous comets such as Halley's or Kohoutek, but also have a picture of the otherwise unmentioned Hale-Bopp with a caption to the effect of "Some comets, such as Hale-Bopp, inspired cults of panic and prediction, UFO-related claims, and even group suicide". Also, please register and don't shout. --Tenebrae 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plan Revision

1) The Ross/Lee Superman and Batman in intro

2) Spider-Man - In the common traits section

3) The Fantastic Four - In the common traits section

4) A Steve Ditko Captain Atom for a sci-fi superhero with the example in the text changed accordingly.

5) Captain American - Under common costume features

6) Some typical Japanese superhero in superheroes outside the U.S.

7) Plastic Man under types of superheroes

8) Maybe a Wolverine, vol. 3 #24 for character examples (both Daredevil and Wolverine)

9) Phantom under antecedents

10) Action Comics #1 under Golden Age, too important an issue to pass up

11) Captain Marvel also under Golden Age

12) Showcase #4 under Silver Age, an important issue and way to insert the Flash

13) Watchmen under deconstruction

14) Spawn under struggles of the ’90s

15) Wonder Woman under female superheroes

16) John Stewart Green Lantern under non-Caucasian heroes

17) X-Men (including female hero Storm) under film

18) The Incredible Hulk under live action television

19) Superman under animation

Does that satisfy everyone? Rorschach567 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to applaud Rorschach567 for stepping up to the plate and sifting through all the various discussions in order to synthesize a list. Bravo and thank you! --Tenebrae 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. The only thing I notice is that Superman is up there three times. Should we start editing now? 67.150.174.127 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Right — Action Comics #1, plus the alpha & omega spots. Missed that. How about a different animation image at the end? Maybe something non-Marvel/DC, for diversity. The original Space Ghost (designed by the late, great Alex Toth)? The Maxx? (Something serious would be good, so as not to play into the idea that cartoons can't be dramatic. --Tenebrae 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking Batman Beyond since we cut Batman twice. It would be a way of adding him back without adding him (Bruce Wayne) back. You bringing up Space Ghost and The Maxx reminded me about the necessity for diversity so I'm good either way. What do you think? 67.150.14.103 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
How about instead of Batman there, we add a 20th image: Batman #38, which introduced Robin, since, come to think of it, we really need to mention sidekicks and have an image of one. Robin's probably the best known.
This way, we'd get Batman twice, which isn't excessive given his prominence, plus a sidekick, and we'd have the animation spot left open for something diverse.--Tenebrae 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm for a Batman and Robin from Batman: The Animated Series under animation instead of Superman. Gets Robin, a second Batman and an important animated series there. Oh, and thanks for your applause. I appriciate it. Rorschach567 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rorschach's idea 100%. An image if Batman: The Animated Series makes perfect sense. No 20th image. 67.150.10.131 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with ya. Now, about a sidekicks section....--Tenebrae 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a Sidekick section. 207.62.97.195 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant as a section of this article, not a separate article. Since there is a separate article, I can throw together a basic paragraph and put a "main article" template link to the separate sidekicks article. Just not tonight. It's late. :-)
And that's a whole 'nother thing separate from the images, for which it looks like we may have a consensus. Time to get to it, do we think? --Tenebrae 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in. How about you Rorschach? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.120.12 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't know if a new section on sidekicks is worth the space, especially given that they are so rare post-1950, but I will admit they are mentioned somewhat awkwardly after teams. Maybe they would work better under character examples. Something like:
  • Robin, a young assistant and companion of Batman, is a well known example of a superhero sidekick. Others include Bucky (sidekick of Captain America), Speedy (Green Arrow) and Kid Flash (The Flash). Since the 1950s, sidekicks have become less common as more sophisticated writing and older audiences have made such obvious child endangerment seem implausible and lessened the need for characters who specifically appeal to children. In longer-lasting superhero continuities, where the role had already been established, sidekicks now act like apprentices, growing up to become independent superheroes; e.i. Dick Grayson, the original Robin, become Nightwing and Wally West, the former Kid Flash, took on his mentor’s mantle after he died.
I think that better explains what a sidekick is as a character type.
Thank you for putting in the images. I have some small ideas for tweaks but these can settle for a while. Rorschach567 00:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I DID IT!!! I really want this set of images to last until the next millennium so please no changes, no tweaking, no rearrangement without discussion. Just let the images set for a while.

Now on to the business of making this a featured article. 67.150.120.12 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Niiiiiiiice.
And, yeah.... --Tenebrae 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Help to spread Wiki:Love by posting smiles on discussion pages! To find out how, go to the discussion page under List of comic book superpowers and look under "Smile" Thanks for working hard on this discussion page!!

24.162.81.54 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Wow....just wow

"Superheroes originated in the U.S. and most internationally popular superheroes are American creations" That is the worst sentence I've seen in my life. Oh really? Were they?Jeff503 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "References" vs. "External links" vs. "Footnotes/Notes"

Hi, all. The reason I've changed the "References" / "Footnotes" subheads at Superhero comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes
It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

2)

Further reading/External links
An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.
All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.


So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. Footnotes go unde "Footnotes" or "Notes". Thanks!— Tenebrae 08:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

This page is 66 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. 67.150.120.185 01:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladiator

Noticed that reference to Phylip Wylie's Gladiator was removed and can't remember where I saw discussion of this. There is good evidence for Gladiator as a conscious antecedent in Men of Tomorrow (ie, Siegel read it and wrote a review and based Superman on it). --Gothamgazette 10:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See above on this page. Siegel & Shuster have denied any influence by Gladiator. --Tenebrae 03:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The influence is mentioned in the Superman article as well. Authorial intent or statements should not be the final arbiter of an encyclopedia article if there is evidence to the contrary.--Gothamgazette 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fictional" Superheroes

As is, the definition given here states that superheroes are fictional. Therefore, is it not redundant that in a majority of articles concerning superheroes, the word "superhero" is immediatly preceded by the word "fictional"? Should the definition given here be changed, or should any related articles be changed? Or just...left alone? --130.111.91.63 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuperhero_26d8.html"