Talk:Dick Grayson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dick Grayson article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

Contents

[edit] Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

[edit] Dick's Age

Does anyone know of any references in current, post-IC continuity, as to Dick's age? I know that in the article, it states that he was 12 now when his parents were murdered. Is the DCU still on a twelve year sliding scale, making him 24? It seems like he should be in his later twenties by now, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.96.66 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nightstar

Should their be at least SOME mention of her here? Shes not exactly non-canon. And with "Damion" being brought further into the continuity...

The same goes for Starfires article.....the daughters kina of an important tidbit, regardless of reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.239.251 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

She's an Elseworlds character, so that's where she gets mentioned. Alternate versions of Robin mentions her, I believe. Unless she's introduced into the regular DCU continuity (or in an animated version), she stays out. --Blckng 07:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nightwing theme PArk ride

What section should I add this too??? Other media?

http://www.sfne.com/index.php?cat=gallery&gallery=nw

Good question. I'd almost say 'In other media'... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome what about the OFFICIAL Nightwing legos? ;) http://www.nextbrick.net/2006/01/batman_first_look_at_new_licen.html

[edit] Archived

The page was long, there was very little 'new' discussion to be had, so I archived and now we can start over :) Merry Ramadan! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alliances

I think we should add Secret Society of Super Villains in allainces and categories. Even though he just joined for esponiage or other stuff. Brian Boru is awesome 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightwing as Green Lantern

Nightwing discovered that years earlier, when the Green Lantern known as Abin Sur crashed on Earth, Dick Grayson was one of the candidates that his emerald ring selected to be his successor (Action Comics Weekly # 642). Where does this go?

[edit] Alliances - Batman Family

Per a discussion at Talk:Batman_Family#Discussion, it seems that there is agreement that 'Batman Family refers to the comic book publication and supporting characters of Batman refers to the affiliation of people that surrounds the main character. I'd like to get some input before I try to find wording that reflects this. CovenantD 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Those articles do refer to those subjects, yes; however, Birds of Prey and Runaways refer to the comic book series and not official team names, and we do use as shorthand for affiliations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightwing is an Autistic Savant

In issue # 127 Nightwing reierates that his "mind is his greatest weapon" and says that he's always been considered a "savant" and that it clearly explains why he can see patterns in ways normal people can't. Marv Wolfman says in an interview that he always saw it that way and it was why Dick was the only person in the DCU to be able to solve the mystery of Who is Donna Troy? This should be added to skills/abilties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.101.15 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

That doesn't make him Autistic (or an idiot savant, which may be the phrase you were looking for). See Savant ;) "A savant (suh-VAHNT) is a learned person, well versed in literature or science, often with an exceptional skill in a specialized field of learning." -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually autistic savant is the politically correct term for idio savant--which Wolfman is clearly making clear about him.

Here's a def:

Most autistic savants have very extensive mental abilities, called splinter skills. They can memorize facts, numbers, license plates, maps, and extensive lists of sports and weather statistics. Some savants can mentally note and then recall perfectly a very long sequence of music, numbers, or speech. Some, dubbed mental calculators, can do exceptionally fast arithmetic, including prime factorization.

This is something Marv, NW's creator has been hinting at for years now and now finally made clear. He's even said that Nightwing is a master detective because he is able to see puzzles and clues etc and how they fit in ways no other people could see. The "Who is Donna Troy" story is perfect example of how Dick solved an entire case based on a single obscure clue that no normal person could ever imaginably solve. I remeber even Devin had an issue where NW use to watch Americas Most Wanted and solve all the cases before breakfast--that sounds like Rain Man stuff to me. Those are just a couple of the canon feats much more I'm assuming. The_Core_One (talk|contribs)

I've read the Autistic Savant article, and it heavily implies that the downside to the savant abilities is some sort of mental impairment. I'm not a doctor, and I'd be loathe, without some in universe statement of Dick being classified as such, to add any claims of savantism to the article. While Marv Wolfman may have created Nightwing, he did not invent Robin or Dick Grayson. His desires not withstanding, no one in the DCU has said Dick's a savant, in those words, and it's speculation to say that he is. Simply put: Dick's a master detective, he's a frigging genius, but we have no 'without a doubt' proof that he's a savant. Yet. Get a link for an article where Marv says it outright, or scan a panel of a comic where it's there in plain text. Otherwise, we're guessing and assuming, and neither of those belongs in an encyclopedia. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I just re-read Nightwing just now. Nightwing says his mind is his greatest weapon, and then calls himself an idiot savant, in direct reference to his love life. Smart guy, sucks with girls. I think this stays out. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Dick's ability to see puzzles and read through them is definetly a savant like skill, similar to someone that can count cards at a poker table etc and its obvious MArv is implying such. But I'd say wait and see how Marv plays this out. It is obviously a key to what makes a such a great detective but thats all we can imply for now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])


  • No. Definitely, definitely not. Somebody has misconstrued the definition of autistic savant. The definition presented above focuses on what the "savant" part without addressing the fact that the person has to be fully autistic with a range of autistic impairments to qualify. Doczilla 05:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nightwing and Batwoman

I reverted RonBatfreak's edits because we don't know which Nightwing it is in Gotham at the moment. There are contradictory news articles on the matter, and in Gotham, he's 'Nightwing' and not Dick or (the likely suspect) Jason. Please, let's keep it out of Dick's page until we can confirm it within in the pages of 52. I put the information on the Nightwing page in the meantime. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future

I removed the future mention because we don't know who 'Red Robin' is, and putting it here is speculative and borderline original research. I mentioned this on the users talk page, but they seem to be ignoring that. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this in reference to Kingdom Come? I do believe that is Grayson, and Drake is a pilot. If it's not in the actual series directly, it's in the cards or other supplemental elements. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
DC also released a teaser image a week or so back with almost zilch information. One of the characters in the image was Red Robin. Fan spec is that it's for either WW3 or the rumored follow up to 52 --- a 52 issue weekly starting the week after 52 ends, numbered 51 through 0, and focusing on the multiverse. — J Greb 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, but it's spec. Like how we didn't know which Nightwing was in 52, hitting on Batwoman. Until we know, we should play it safe. And god help me, Chris ... there's MORE Kingdom Come? I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la!' *sigh* I like it as an Elseworlds but can they PLEASE leave it alone? k'thnx'bye. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In other media images

Given that images from only 2 of of the 4 or 5 possible major animation sources are present, should we knock the live action down to 1?

- J Greb 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I flipped one image to the left, to try and balance it out that way ... It should be possible to flesh out TV Dick Grayson, more than Movie Dick, just based on bulk of information. I'd rather expand this one. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

True, and once that's done moving back to "bullets & pics" is easy enough.
Side issues if the entire section is getting a look with an eye towards re-working:
  • The Batman:TAS section seems a bit POV
  • The Teen Titans section is just plain awkward
  • The The Batman section is WP:DATED and a bit short.
— J Greb 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a first pass. Makes my head hurt, and I didn't watch most of the animated stuff. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a swing through. Added some stuff (the serials and the `66 film), reformatted (Filmation & HB toons), and cleaned up the tenses (real-world=past tense).
Now I'm wondering if we need a good screen-cap of the HB Robin...
— J Greb 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Main Image?

The most recently solicited cover for Nightwing's ongoing (#133) by Ryan Sook would be perfect for the image up at the top of the screen. It displays his Robin costume, his second Nightwing costume, and his current costume. It serves all the purposes of the current image, except (as a cover) it's higher quality. I vote for a change. Any naysayers? -- Blckng 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say wait until it's published, but if this gives no new information that might be untrustworthy, I think it is fine. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris Griswold, at least on waiting until the image sees print before thinking about swapping.
However, I don't think the proposed image offers anything additional to the image that is currently used in the infobox. It could even be argued that the image is a step back as the Robin and "old" Nightwing images are indistinct and turned away from the viewer.
Leave the image as is, it works and does not need to be replaced.
— J Greb 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I just looked at the current image and I agree that it is better than the new one for the same reasons. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Swap it out for the newer image, its more recent and higher quality plus just looks 1000000 times better!--Colossus34

Yeah, no. The current one is easily better. Dlong 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current image as well. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal preference doesn't matter. Per the rules of wiki most recent, HIGHER quality images are what is best--I mean the Leonardi pic is about a half-decade old! Plus, per the rules we must ensure that the ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character and visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances.

The Leondari pic is drastically contorted and NW's entire chest emblem--his freakin SYMBOL is not even visible! It never really worked and was a compromise pic to say the least, I'd actually prefer a single pic of only Nightwing but as a way to honor his past incarnations--the newer more recent cover art does it justice while also following the rules of wiki more closely.--Colossus34

Ok... this is the second time I've seen (to paraphrase) "The guidelines stipulate the most recent, highest quality image possible be used."
I've gone over the Comics Project guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images) and fail to find that nugget. Could someone who is relying on that to change the image please point by link where that guidelines is?
Also, by the above cited guidelines the proposed replacement fails:
  • Contorted figure (item #2, bullet 3 - though since both have this failing it could be seen as a non-issue)
  • Chunks of the character obscured by shadow (item #2, bullet 4 - Nightwing is not Raven or the Shadow)
  • Characters should not be miss-colored (item #2, bullet 5 - Since the image is being used to represent Grayson as both Robin and Nightwing)
Oh... and whichever is kept will need to be "trimmed" to 300px across, max to allay copyvio concerns.
— J Greb 07:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Images should be low-quality to avoid infringing on copyright. The image that best represents the character is preferred over the recent image. WP:CMC/EG --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


THe rules are what they are. Its pretty obvious the Leondari pic is drastically contorted when compared to the newer image. At least this new one is more straight on, Nightwing is sitting down and we can clearly see his entire chest emblem--the freakin SYMBOL of his costume that we can't see in the Leo one AT ALL. Like I said I'd actually prefer a single pic of only Nightwing, maybe a Jim Lee one but as a way to honor his past incarnations--the newer more recent cover art does it justice while also following the rules of wiki more closely as an image.

Also, while the image is cropped its still a higher res image to begin with so looks much better quality. And the image is in public domain. --Colossus34

Except it really doesn't, but it looks like that point doesn't matter. What it seems to be boiling down to is one editor deciding I don't like the current and my tastes should be all that counts.
As to your last line... boy does it have a pair of major problems:
  • "higher res" -- Resolution is the number of pixels per inch. Most images used here show at a resolution of 72 ppi. It can, if the term is stretched, refer to the images over all size. In the case we're dealing with here, most images max out at a "resolution" of 300 pixels across. What that means for the two image under discussion is that they will wind up being the same resolution.
  • "public domain" -- This refers to images, texts, and other creative works where the author holds no legal interests or control. Think Mona Lisa, Beethoven's 5th, or Poe's "The Raven". The images, and the subjects they depict, that we are dealing with here are still the property of DC and its parent company both in terms of copyright and trademark. Just because an image has been used to promote sales does not wave copyright. Hence, the images have to be dealt with under the Wiki policies for fair use of material under copyright.
— J Greb 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Except quoting from Wikipedia essays for precedent aren't good policy. As to public domain, there hasn't been a clear establishment of the facts as to the old image conforming with copyright anymore than this image may/may not conform with it. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with original poster Blckng and think the pic needs to be updated since no one can make any more points and others agree that per the rules its pretty obvious the Leonardni pic is a terrible box pic for the page when compared to the newer / most recent image then lets do it. It's obvious no image should be so contorted that we don't even see Nightwing's entire chest emblem! ouch! thats just bad! Gurlpower Ca

It looks like we're split 50-50 on this one. I agree that the current picture doesn't display the 'emblem' on his costume (is that really an emblem? Dude, Dicky-bird, that's kinda lame...), however the newly proposed image is way too dark and shadowing to show Grayson. Keeping in mind that one of the main hallmarks of Dick as Robin or Nightwing was his chipper, 1940s attitude, showing thusly is very Batman of him. If we could find a bouncier picture ... heck, I'd almost rather go to the formerly proposed Hester image, as chunky as it is. The current image not only shows you his costume, but it shows you who Dick Grayson is. Plus the somersault imagery is cool 0:) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The hestor image is horrendous--way to cluttered and convuluted to be a main box pic, I think the new image is perfect. Unless someone can come up with a better rebuttal than it needs to be "bouncier" then I say make the change. Oh, and I count(including myself 5-4) in FAVOR of the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.21.105 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. This is fortunate, as I've yet to see a legitimate reason for the change. (I like it doesn't not qualify). Meanwhile J Greb has shown several policies that would be against making the change. The answer is obvious. Further more, if there is no consensus (and there isn't any), I believe Wikipedia policy is to keep things the way they are, which again means no change (I'm looking at you Netkinetic). Dlong 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we're throwing around policies, Dlong, we could also use WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, which pretty much supercede the subjective interpretations of the essay (read...essays ARE different from policies) of "I don't like it", which is pretty much being used liberally by both sides of this discussion. JGreb also mentions copyright...can we verify the copyright of the sommersault image? I'm scratching my head looking for other "policies" of which you note Dlong. It boils down to...if you don't like the image as it currently is, change it. However, know that the nature of Wikipedia isn't static...it is change...continually. Your intrepetation of Wikipedia essay as "policy" echoes your particular dog in this fight, whatever it may be. Cease violating WP:NPA against a particular poster simply because they have a different point of view. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I know it's unlikely people will see this added in the middle of a debate from two weeks ago, but I get so tired of people citing WP:BOLD and WP:IAR when they can't get along with others. BOLD and IAR apply for noncontroversial changes. When controversy ensues, stick to policy, or you'll just turn into kids nyah-nyahing each other. Doczilla 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::And I, in turn, get so tired of people violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA instead of discussing the issues. Especially two weeks later. The mob mentality that perpetuates this project is disturbing. As to "nyah-nyahing"...the only one doing this right now is the editor above. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)I want to make sure that I get this right ... Netkinetic, you're saying that my (and others) view of 'I don't like the new image' is trumped by your view of 'I don't like the old image'? Counting an unsigned IP comment, we're still pretty much at a stand-still argument of 'I like A!' vs 'I like B!' which is kind of funny when you get down to it. Okay, so what are the pros and cons of each image? (I'm leaving out copyright, since both images have questions about it).
Leondari Pros: It clearly shows Dick Grayson as Robin, which was his initial identity.
Leondari Cons: It shows a convoluted body and distorts the Nightwing 'emblem'
Solicit Pros: It clearly shows the body of the costume
Solicit cons: It shows Nightwing in shadow

Personally? While I prefer the older image, I'm not gonna cry over this one. Wikipedia changes and moves on. I do think we should update the image caption. We need to know who drew it, what issue it'll be used in, and that must be in the caption info. Until we have that info, I'm removing the image. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Ipstenu, absolutely not...which in fact is why I said above: "if you don't like the image as it currently is, change it". What I object to is a type of condescending approach that "we know better than you so listen to our opinion" and attempting to make such law. Although your approach, Ipstenu, is a reasonable approach which is greatly appreciated. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, JGreb's arguments 'against' the image are actually against both, when you re-read it. Each image has their own problems. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And yet he keeps reverting to one version of an image and not another. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That was the image before this discussion.Brian Boru is awesome 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Change is good, y'know. Mind, I dislike people throwing policy around as a sole reason when the problem here is, no matter HOW you look at it, a personal preference. :P The idea that one of these images is better than the other is preposterous, and yet if we don't come to some consensus we'll be switching back and forth for months. I feel it's clear that the pros and cons of each image balance each other out, which is why I see this as a sort of 'well, damn it' standstill. If it gets bad and every edit is an image swap, then we need to pause and take a straw poll to see where hive-mind lies. Remember, consensus can change. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just some more thoughts...
Ipstenu is right, what I laid out up-thread would indicate neither image should be used. But, until he brought it up, no "third option", either a 3rd image or "no image", was mentioned.
The image he proposes doesn't have the various problems the two under discussion have. That being said, if it comes from where I think it does, a profile page in "handbook format", it skirts being a non starter under this guideline.
At this point I think that the article may be better served if we can find a Nightwing only image that doesn't hang up on any of the guidelines. I've got a sinking feeling that and "Dick's costumes in retrospective" we find is going to fail. The loss to the 'box is minor, especially since content supported images of the various costumes pepper the article.
Copyright issues... since DC currently holds the copyright on the character design, and what attribution we have indicated that the images in question were published in material for which DC also holds the copyright, I fail to see where this needs further verification. The images are subject to copyright, the applicable fair use guidelines hold that the uploaded image be in the range of 200-300px across at a resolution of 72ppi. Both, if they are retained for use in some way or another, need to be shrunk.
And as for the image flipping... This is something some editors are going to find very, very abrasive but it really cannot be PCed down. Changing the image while it is being discussed goes far beyond being BOLD or IAR, it shows an amazing degree of disrespect for the editors engaged in the discussion. No AGF made, no willingness to work with others, just "I'm right. Your wrong. Live with it." attitude. Leave the infobox image in the state it was when this started. When this discussion is closed and if the decision is to change it, change it then.
- J Greb 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Absently noting I am a she not a he ... The third image I tossed out was one we held against the Leondri image back when we were trying to find something better. I think you're right about the 'Nightwing only' image being a better idea, or at least a more middle-road idea. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My appologies... not being sure of gender I defaulted back old school English. — J Greb 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"When this discussion is closed". And who determines when this is...when one side of an issue weighs the argument in their favour? Arbitrarily setting loose ended timeframes for a discussion and selectively applying arguments only to the other side are contrary is never justified. As to editors brandying no WP:AGF on the part of other editors need to review their line of approach towards others to make sure they are applying this themselves. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
1) See below (time frame). 2) I've hit the point where, whilr I may have faith that you are trying to improve articles, I have zero faith in your ability to work with others. Whine, bitch and moan about that if you must, but that's where your style of editing has put my opinion of you. — J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In my mind the Leonardi image can't work in any way. I agree with the majority that it shows a convulted, contored image of Nightwing and we don't see an emblem--that's against policy. That image is done. On the other hand the new image is much more appropriate and instead of showcasing his old persona's they are reflective and more of a legacy(very strong imagery) and not front and center--lets not forget Dick has been Nightwing for well over 20 years now.

And I call BS on anyone who thinks its too dark--NW is completely visible--ie his entire body face can be seen just like the main box pic for Batman or dardevil--not to mention people are forgetting he's a dark vigilante that goes out at night and stalks criminals---its very appropriate.

Why not put it up to a vote one side: the new Ryan Sook NW #133 cover and others the Hestor pic?colossus34

Please keep in mind the character tones: Nightwing is not Batman nor Daredevil. That being said, you're right, this needs some sort of closure before it becomes an absolute farce (if it hasn't hit that point already).
And yes, I'm deliberately including the current one (since it has been supported) and 2 additional options. - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

At this point we need to close this out. I'm going to list the options that we have, in the order suggested, and set up a "Choice" section and a "Comment" section.
As a suggestion, lets see if we can wrap this up in a reasonable time frame. - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Does one week work? Whichever image has the most votes as of the 4th of April gets put in the character box. -- Blckng 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, technically it isn't. It is an attempt to determine if we have a consensus for the following points of contention: Does the 'box image need to be changed. If so, what should be there. And, finally, Is this a case where an exception to the standing guide lines be made.
I put it in this format because it's the best one I could think of. With that in mind, Blckng has a solid point, there needs to be a point at which a decision is made. Given the length of the harangue leading up to this section being put up, a week seems reasonable. I would suggest though that an admin step in at that point and sift through this for both consensus and the validity of exempting the image from the guides.
And no disrespect Chris, but I think it might be proper for the admin to be someone who hasn't participated in the debate.
— J Greb 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Options

  1. Rick Leonardi "somersault" panel from Nightwing #57 (image used at the start of the debate)
  2. Ryan Sook cover art for Nightwing #133 (solicitation image)
  3. Hester image from (assumption here) Batman Allies Secret Files And Origins 2005
  4. Greg Land cover for Nightwing #41
  5. No image

[edit] Choice

  • Greg Land -- See comments... - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My vote for Sook. BTW I disagree with even having the Leonardi as an option but whatever-- colossus34
  • Greg Land - I feel we are never going to find a 'show all Dick's personae' images that satisfies everyone, and as much as I want one, it's time for me to stop beating that particular dead horse. The best image we can do for the page is one of Dick in his current costume. I think there's a better one than the Land image, but I can't find it atm. (BTW, colossus, please show respect for the viewpoints of your fellow editors, even when you disagree with them :) ) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Land is acceptable. Dlong 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sook, since I suggested it in the first place. I'd be alright with Land's if someone could find an image without the Nightwing logo on it. --Blckng 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sook - At least conceptually although I agree with some sentiments it is a bit to dark. To bad we don't have much of a selection. Mister Fax 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sook is my choice, Land would be great too if it wasn't dated. Gurlpower Ca
  • "Sook" now why are we still discussing this? change the front image already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.188.102 (talk • contribs)
A straw poll is not a vote; It's used to determine what users think. It's clear from this poll that Sook and Land are the two choices and that Sook is more popular. However, it's also been determined that Sook violates WP:COMIC policy, whereas Land does not. Which leaves the question, should we violate policy for Nightwing and if so, why? Dlong 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Leonardi - just keep it. Sook's is way too dark. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with general consesus Sook is the best of both worlds. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.31.102 (talk)

[edit] Comments

Just to reiterate: The Leonardi, Sook, and Hester images all have problem with various guidelines. While the Land image lacks the "retrospective" the 'box is titled "Nightwing" and the other costumes do have images within the body of the article. - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hester image is from Secret Files and Origins, a reference work, and so would be a violation of copyright. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, since it's been mentioned... how exactly is the land image "dated"? As far as I can tell it's the same costume as in the Sook image... - J Greb 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They mean because it's about 6 years old. (And ... well, y'all should go and check out the nice 1980s Wonder Woman image with the big fro-80s hair we had up over there for a while ;) Talk about dated!) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling that's what was meant... and I have trouble seeing the validity in this case (the WW one I can). The costume is costume is the same and there's really nothing that puts a date stamp on the image... - J Greb 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Land art looks dated too. Can't say why but the "blocky-exagerated muscle-look" just screams late 90's to me. Also, why is Jim Lee not an option?!? - Jack Blackfan

The images presented are the cureent image (#1), those that came up in the above discusion (#2 & #3), and one to fill out a suggested type (#4). The last was was a judgment call of the various cover images available since it covered: non-contorted, full figure; full front of costume; current costume; not too dark; and fairly indicative of the character.
And I have problems with "the art style is what dates the image" arguments. In this case the general style is still in use on various books so it's a hard sell. (As an example, a Perez Titans Nightwing would be dated based on the costume design, not the art style.) Also, it would lead to "flavor of the moment" trend in changes to the 'boxes across the board. - J Greb 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So basically #4 is the only one that confirms with current WP:COMIC policies? Dlong 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Nutshell? As near as I can tell, and based on the above, yup. Doesn't mean that there cannot be exceptions, but there has to be some substance behind that.
And for the ease of those looking here, the Comics Project guidelines are listed here:
- J Greb 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As no one has provided a reason why we should ignore policy for this article, I am changing the image to Land, the only one that meets the WP:COMIC criteria. Dlong 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." Also "When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." - This is a reminder to people who see the above poll as the be all and end all of this discussion. It was meant to establish a baseline, not to restrict further discussion. As Dlong and J Greb have pointed out, the images other than Land's are against policy. If you wish to use Sook or Leonardi (or Hester), you will need to provide a reason. In this instance, I would support not being bold, and instead engaging in polite discussion. There is still room for debate. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


This still hasn't been resolved, despite a consensus that the Sook image is the ideal pic for the site info box image?!? The Sook image does not violate any policy I know of. The 1-2 naysayers that think its dark just becuase it actually has shading are completely wrong. That wiki policy does not mean images can't have ANY shading it was put into palce to discourage posting pics where characters are heavily obscured in darkness and are barely recogonizable. For a sample check out this Batman image(this is what the rule applies too) and the Sook image is nothing like it:

http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/divers67/Batman%20-%20in%20the%20dark.jpg

I simply just don't get the issue here, it feels like a couple users are forcing their personal opinion that a dated Land image is good on others despite an overwhelming consensus otherwise. The Sook image is the perfect box image for the based on a broad wiki consensus. This is why a consensus and poll is usually put into place and people follow it, otherwise whats the point in the forst place?? We need to follow a overwhelming consensus or we are going to continully get this editing back and forth by other users. - colossus34

If anyone's trying to force their personal opinion it's you, as can be seen by several of your comments. Additionally, I suspect several of the IP users involved in this discussion are sock-puppets of you. Finally, it clearly does violate policy, as I, Ipstenu, and J Greb have pointed out. The fact that you don't choose to recognize this fact is quite irrelevant. Dlong 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Dlong, whether you agree with colossus34 or not is what is irrelevant. Displaying at least a modicum of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, which are a policy and guideline respectively that you are violating by your above commentary, is in fact relevant. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So since DLONG tells everyone it violates policy then he must know what he's talking about??? Sure. Despite a clear consensus saying otherwise and a poll where the overwhelming majority of users are in favor of another pic? I don't follow any of your logic except that it feels like your clearly out to force your own opinion on others. Like I said before the wiki policy does not mean images can't have ANY shading, it was put into place to discourage posting pics where characters are heavily obscured in darkness and are barely recogonizable.

This is simply not the case here. We have a recent, high resolution, full frontal image, with chest emblem and iconic escrima weapons present and entire character clearly visible in his domain as a vigilante, crime fighter. Not to mention it does the charcter's past justice by showing he's a legacy character(ie its Dick Grayson page) and not just Nightwing. - colossus34

While several Wikipedians prefer the "Sook image", it would apparently not conform to several of the existing WikiProject guidelines for Infobox images. Especially: "Visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances." I am attempting to stay out of the "debate" as J Greb requested above. I merely would like to see some discussion about the images in terms of guidelines and policies, rather than just which image we all "like better" : ) - jc37 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • sigh* Visibly contorted?!? Based on what!? Once again using wiki guidlines without precident. That policy is to discourage using images that have characters in crazy action poses or bizzare angles. Nightwing in the Sook image is CLEARLY not in some crazy action/jumping motion like the old Leonardi pic. He's sitting down on a ledge full frontal image, with chest emblem and iconic escrima weapons present and entire character clearly visible. This is getting redundant. -colossus34

"using wiki guidlines without precident"? Do you mean citing guidelines without explanation, perhaps? I'm honestly a bit confused what you mean to say. The Sook image has Nightwing in a squat, with the lower half of his costume obscured. That would be visibly contorted by definition. The Leonardi image falls under that as well. The only one that shows at least 3/4ths of Nightwing is the Land image. I have asked for people to chime in on the WP:Comics project. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean explaining exactly what the rules are without proper explanation. Like I said the rules about contorted images are clearly meant to discourage obviously crazy/bizzare action/splash page poses and I don't see how a resting, full frontal squating character equals=visually contorted?? Just check out the Cassandra Cain main image page,(she's in a similar position, as is Tim Drake and many others) We can see Dick's entire costume, chest emblem, escrima sticks, full frontal face and body. For all intents and purposes the image is very much a still image shot that shows the entire character, not some crazy action/perspective shot. Be curious to hear others chim in. -colossus34

Indeed there seems to be some ambiguity towards certain rules i.e. guidelines as cited above. I must say it is very curious how somewhat...dare I say...militant individuals on various sides of this discussion are becoming. In the grand scheme of things, Wikipedia will continue to evolve and develop. As such, I foresee somewhere down the line a completely new picture inserted into the page header, and a renewed discussion developing along similar lines. I simply ponder the time and energy devoted to an image could/would/should be better applied towards the actual overall content of the article. May be out of line for stating this. Mister Fax 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images in the article

Just in looking over this discussion, and the relevant guidelines...

  • 1.) None of the images seems to be correct for this article. The article title is "Dick Grayson", not Nightwing or Robin. As a poster above noted, there are pictures of the various costumes in the body of the article. Someone should find a decent picture of DG out of costume, though one which shows him in a setting which indicates that this person is more than just a brunette male comic book character would be nice : )
  • 2.) The fact that a person has to scroll quite a distance down the page to see the current character's images as Robin and Nightwing is also concerning. Perhaps a link in the introduction to jump down to the current version would be appropriate?
  • 4.) I think Image:Robinyearone.jpg, while interesting and somewhat related to the text, probably violates "fair use", since it's not a "need" at the point it's shown in the article.
  • 5.) I think the same can be said of Image:NightwingCVR91.jpg. If one wanted to illustrate this presumed important moment in his history, perhaps one of rooftop scenes (before or after) would be more appropriate?

Further discussion is obviously welcome : ) - jc37 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some observations...
  1. While I agree the article is titled "Dick Grayson", the infobox is using the title "Nightwing". It's a small thing, but the general "consensus by use" of the 'box is that its title takes precedence over the article's for image selection. In most cases this isn't an issue, it just article like this one that are a problem.
  2. This could be solved by Wikifying the aliases in the 'box to link to the appropriate lower section of the article. This would rely on a thumbed image being present just under that header.
  3. It looks like the "Robin of Earth-One" pic would be the image associated with "Emancipation", which is a sub section to the E-1 section. There is an additional problem here... unlike the E-2 section, E-1 leads into the post-Crisis section, without any repeat of sections. It also doesn't really help that the E-1 and post-Crisis costumes are identical.
  4. It looks like the cover is supposed to be a ref to the paragraph immediately to it's right. That being said, it is to generic for that section. I doubt a relevant image can really be found so the section can lose the decoration.
  5. The Nightwing #91 is a slightly better sell, it directly, and more or less clearly relates to the section it's in. It could be a bit clearer, but it may be that the clarification would make the caption unwieldy, and the image worthless.
- J Greb 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Well it's something that I think is worth discussion "somewhere" : )
  2. Well, I think the article could use a "Dick Grayson as Robin" image that isn't him in the setting/company of the Titans. (Silver age is roughly equivalent to Earth-One.)
  3. I don't believe that he was Robin post-Crisis? (Granted, I may be confused by the "one-year forward" Baxter print books.)
  4. Yes, I think it should be removed.
  5. Well, right now it's an image of Nightwing, with the image of "someone" reflected in a sword, which requires a caption saying who it is. The image should be quite a bit more straight-forward.
  6. (new comment) - Image:Nightwingwho.jpg not only needs to be removed from the article, it needs to be deleted. It's from Nightwing's entry in Who's Who.
- jc37 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jc37, you're right. I've taken it out of the article and I'll tag the image for someone to handle. Image use violations make my head ache and I can't figure 'em out most days :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. (Mutil-Codename-Characters) I agree, this is something that really needs to be hashed out. At the moment there are a number of articles that are under the character's name due to the character having used more than one codename. It's reasonable to argue that the 'box should reflect the article title. It's just that it may be an uphill battle since in a few cases the defense would be that the costume(s) is more iconic than the character.
  2. (Dick-as-Robin) Also agreed, but we need to find a good replacement, preferably, given the sectioning, one published pre-CoIE.
  3. (Robin chronology) I'll try to keep this to a nutshell... Based on how DC treated stories after the fact, "Robin" breaks down into 6 sections
    • "Earth-Two" where the Golden Age (1940-c.1959) Dick Grayson/Robin material was assigned. Though some of these stories were later implied to also have happened for the Earth-One Robin. This character was eliminated as a result of CoIE. Also, up until 1967 he had the same Robin costume as the Earth-One character.
    • "Earth-One" where the Silver Age through then modern (c.1959-1986) Dick Grayson/Robin/Nightwing material was assigned.
    • "Post-CoIE" (1986 on) is the current Grayson/Robin/Nightwing material. This character, essentially, is the Earth-One character, with the majority of the Silver Age history kept. This also means he kept the pre-CoIE costumes. There is nothing to visually differentiate the two until the move away from "Disco-Nightwing". Hence an E-1 Dick-as-Robin will look the same as a post-CoIE's one.
    • The remaining 3 (Earth-One Jason Todd, Post-CoIE Jason Todd, and Tim Drake) really don't come into play here.
  4. (eye candy usage) I've struck the Robin: Year One image and expanded the caption on the Blockbuster image. I don't think the latter is a bad fix, but a second set of eyes on it would be a good thing.
- J Greb 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superheronbox #2

I'm going to delete that second one. We don't need two infoboxes. Brian Boru is awesome 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting for more discussion. I seem to recall a WikiProject discussion that more than one is acceptable in certain circumstances (See Xorn, for example.) - jc37 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2¢... I'd truncate it rather than remove it, remove what is not a required field and is repeated from the main 'box. That would leave us with, I believe:
  • Publisher
  • 1st Appearance (JLA issue only)
  • Creators (w/ note "derived from work of Kane and Finger)
  • Affiliations
The alter ego may be a sticking point, but, given the name of the article, it could go in this case.
- J Greb 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Noting the point(s) of divergence for this particular iteration of the character without duplicating redundant facts would seem to conform with precedents indicated above. I also echo a sentiment above for another picture added towards the Earth-One section aside from the Teen Titan group pic. However, as images seem contentious previously, caution should be exercised. Mister Fax 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh I'll leave it for now. And let somebody else do it.Brian Boru is awesome 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth-2 (52) Robin

This is in the vein of something I posted at Talk:Multiverse (DC Comics).

At this point we're making un-cited assumptions that:

  1. The character uses the codename "Robin" (even though it should be a lock).
  2. The character's alter-ego is Dick Grayson. It looks likely, but there is an unnerving lack of dialogue, or writer/editorial commentary to confirm this.
  3. This is a continuation of the pre-Crisis character.

This is something that is going to crop up in a lot of articles given 4 pages "tour" from 52 Week 52. At this point, I would think that all the characters shown fit as "Alternate versions" not linked directly into existing characters.

- J Greb 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed the same assumptions placed on several articles relating to these rather cryptic panels, and have notified the comics project folks to be watchful. Mister Fax 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverted this once more with the previso that it is undoubtedly Robin (the costume is an indicator) and Dick Grayson is probable yet not factural until a further appearence (presumably in the new Booster Gold mini - as he is featured on the cover of the 1st issue).Mister Fax 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can o' worms redux

Just a small request:

If there is a thought to change the 'box image, in light of the last lengthy debate, could it be raised here first? Instead of the image file being edited as was done on May 29, 2007.

I've reverted the image file back to the consensus result.

Thanks - J Greb 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, J Greb means the image here was changed, not that the Grayson Page was changed (for those of us who only have the Grayson page on our watch list). -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Even watching the image page wouldn't have caught it, the upload isn't considered an edit. The only reason I caught it is I'm weeding my watched list and looked at the page. The image was off, but the link was to the same image page. - J Greb 07:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs reorganization

This page is extremely confusing. it jumps from one reality to another. someone with good knowledge and understanding of the full storyline needs to reorganize the page

72.177.154.70, please offer your suggestions to better arrange this article. Mister Fax 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second only to Batman

This phrase in the skills and abilities section is a clear and unadulterated violation of WP:NOR. "Approaching" or "on par" would be better. There seems to be some outdated consensus, however per WP:CONSENSUS: "consensus can change" and can be wrong, particularly when it sanctions a violation of the above guideline along with WP:RS and WP:V.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussions here and here - However, consensus is not just one person, so engaging in a dialogue here is better than a revert war :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of a previous discussion, WP:V and WP:NOR are quite clear on this issue, of which the statement "second only to Batman" is a clear violation. Can we locate a source for this view prior to reinserting original research into this article. Thanks.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
For those clinging to WP:CONSENSUS even though per that "tenant": "consensus can be wrong", I quote from WP:NOR the following: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source". I'm simply asking for this, and if there are several that support this statement's insertion into the article...surely among those several at least one of them can find documented proof of this from an original source. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Netkinetic I agree, 'on par'would be better or as Ubu says in #838 Batman: Detective comics I quote,"Impressive, Your skills Rival those of the bat." Rival not second to, but hey check the archives 2 'second only to batman' i started that topic and fought this battle then. They just don't ever want to let Nightwing fully come from under batman, it's like they're scared of his potential. why not put "RIVAL THOSE OF BATMAN" thats directly from Ubu...its most recent and makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.117.31 (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Because that's simply the opinion of a character in the DCUniverse, and a character who is not considered an expert. If it was something said by Batman, Karate Kid, Richard Dragon, or another acknowledged expert it would carry a little more water. Ubu, on the other hand, is not an expert - he's a guy that got beaten up by Alfred. D1Puck1T (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That was total PLOT INDUCED STUPIDITY! Ubu has shown on many many occasions to be able to hold his own against Batman, sure he's lost but he's also highly regarded in the LEague of Assasins and has seen some of the best Martial artists in the world. He is an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.119.171 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Ubu" is the name and/or title (it's unspecified) bestowed to Ra's al Ghul's bodyguard. Ubus come from a tribe of similar looking individuals. The tribe is dying out apparently, and Nyssa was forced to make use of some of the tribe's women for her operations. Traditionally they are not considered members of the League of Assassins (although this may have changed). There has been more than one Ubu. The current one has never (to the best of my recollection) fought Batman, much less "held his own against Batman". The last one to have fought Batman died at the hands of Bane.D1Puck1T (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm casting my support for the "on par" or "rivals" rewording here. One major reason being that "second only to" implies that Batman is a zenith that has nothing above or below, save for Dick Grayson. Anyone who has read DC comics for an extended time can certainly note that Batman's "skills" have been challenged (and, in some cases, surpassed) by other characters in the past, although this does not seem consistent in most cases. Generally, whether a character is "better" or "worse" than Batman in a particular area merely serves the purposes of the plot. Nightwing, however, has almost always been portrayed with an "almost-but-not-quite" parallel to Bruce. His abilities are indeed "second" to Bruce when only comparing the two of them, but not when there's an entire universe of characters involved. King Zeal (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
To say that Dick "rivals" or is "on par" with Batman would imply the two were equal in skill. There's nothing to back that up.D1Puck1T (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so with "on par", but "rivals" has many interpretations. I see your point, however. In that case, then, why is a comparison with Batman even necessary to make the point? If the idea is to exemplify Grayson's skill, then why not simply say that he is "one of the best"? Leaving it as it is now isn't any more or less accurate than using the words "on par" or "rivals" King Zeal (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RIVALs is much better qoute its not implying he's better but just a notc below bruce with great potential. Anything else would not make sense unless someone wants to go back to "second only to Batman" which acutally is said in several different DC encylopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.27 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally glad that this biased qualifier has been removed. Subjective statements should find no place in Wikipedia text (well in an ideal world).Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martial arts savant...

I see we're getting a list of martial arts styles filling out the powers and skills. Is there a cite for all of these, and I mean a piece of text basically saying "Dick knows Foo-fu", or is it an editors deduction/opinion based on weapons and/or visual depictions? - J Greb 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master Martial Artist?

Simply put you have Green Arrow & Damian listed as master martial artist and Nightwing's only exceptional?? I mean seriously come on. Just can't ever give Dick Grayson his due credit i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.176.64 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like either of them, as it's original research to say someone is a "master martial artist" or "exceptional" unless it's stated somewhere. Anakinjmt 14:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

Why does nobody bring up Nightwing #1? The first issue of the ongoing is/was an iconic Nightwing image, wouldn't that fit the criteria better than the Land image? --CmdrClow (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Which Nightwing #1... volume 1 which has an over use of shadow? Or volume 2 which is also heavy on the shadows and contortion?
Frankly, the current acrobat image ain't broke so it doesn't need to be "fixed". - J Greb (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Those are really matters of opinion, though. Nightwing #1 (the ongoing, since the first series was only a mini and not a volume) is generally considered to be a pretty iconic image of the modern-era Nightwing. I'd like to hear other opinions. --CmdrClow (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think volume 2 is the best image of Nightwing overall. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Cmdrclw. the main image should be from cover of vol 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.117.31 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a better image of the two Nightwings #1? The link J Greb points to each time is for a cover of "De Rode Ridder"?!? Or was that in jest?Netkinetic (t/c/@) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Both seem to be working fine now. If the links were yielding the same image, then the GCB was having a server issue, the image links default to a static "last uploaded" if the database is unavailable. - J Greb (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
And since the GCB seems to be having issues again... from another source: volume 1 and volume 2. - J Greb (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree, the first Nightwing #1 his face is all in shadow, and the second Nightwing #1 he's in a crouching position. Neat image though it doesn't give him a traditional pose like we've become accostumed to in character articles.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Side question (nagging item really) — CmdrClow can you provide a source for "[The October 1996 cover] is generally considered to be a pretty iconic image..."? That sounds a lot like a personal opinion being passed as a fact. - J Greb (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to open an old can of worms, but if we're willing to let the "character in shadows" thing slide for the McDaniel cover, then there's no real reason for us not to use the Sook cover from issue #133, which is (still) superior in every way. --Blckng (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)